[Truth666]

How many times did you read " that the Alps are x million years old" ? Did you ever take the time to ask yourself how much evidence is there for such statements ? Did you ever think that all that is based on a technique called radiocarbon dating, whose results aren't scientific ?
How old do you think are these mountains, rising like a wall 2000 meters above the lake ? What is the closest number : 6 billion, 6 million, 6 thousand or 600 years ?
Take the time to think about comet Bradfield, the last one to join the spring of the comets. It could help you to answer that question.
- the largest comet ever recorded approaching the sun, Bradfield C2004/F4, popped out of nowhere April 12 and was caught by SOHO from April 16 to April 20. MPEG Video : http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/old/22apr2004/index.html
- one of the reasons why the media keep silence about this story is that they would not have an answer to what people still able to pose questions would ask immediately : how comes that we keep hearing regularly about the discovery of stars and galaxies millions of light years away and nobody was able to spot the largest object ever approaching the sun until 6 days before perihelion (18 April) ?
Or take the time to think about the spring of the comets. What are statistically the chances, that in billions of years, constellations like the one taking place RIGHT NOW, never impacted the earth or the moon (without which there would be no life on earth)... :
http://www.stargaze.co.jp/news/COMET2/040425.html
BTW, statistics, unlike radiocarbon dating, IS a scientific methodology.

[John H K]

How many times did you read " that the Alps are x million years old" ? Did you ever take the time to ask yourself how much evidence is there for such statements ? Did you ever think that all that is based on a technique called radiocarbon dating, whose results aren't scientific ?

Attention genius: Radiocarbon dating isn't used for anything older than 90,000 years or so, and only used to date organic material. Radiocarbon dating is NOT used to date rocks millions of years old. A variety of dating techniques using isotope decays of things like argon, etc. are used to date rocks back to billions of years.

Of course, radiocarbon dating IS "scientific" since thousands of scientists routinely use it, and cite the results, every day.

[Truth666]

here the only thread in the media dealing with the subject :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1119037/posts?page=204

[John H K]

Comets move rapidly (relatively) across a given field of view, (discounting the regular rotation of the earth, of course.) while (relatively) galaxies and stars are stationary (though, over long periods of time, they will move in apparent location across the sky)

And galaxies, while much further away than a given comet, are, of course, intrinsically billions of times brighter than a comet.

And astronomers really don't spend that much time looking for comets; the research money and prestige is in studying stars and other galaxies.

Other than a couple of satellites that look for comets (such as NEAT) most comet-searching is done by AMATEUR astronomers with small telescopes in their backyards. Hubble, Palomar, the Keck telescopes in Hawaii aren't wasted "looking" for comets.

So, it's not surprising at all for any comet to slip into the inner solar system before being discovered.

[RightWhale]

What are statistically the chances, that in billions of years, constellations like the one taking place RIGHT NOW, never impacted the earth or the moon (without which there would be no life on earth)... :

The informal style of this sentence leads to great ambiguity. We usually save the demotic for term papers.

[Kozak]

You should really take your meds.

[Clara Lou]

What are statistically the chances, that in billions of years, constellations like the one taking place RIGHT NOW, never impacted the earth or the moon (without which there would be no life on earth)...
Where to begin.... A) Constellations do not, I repeat, DO NOT "take place." B) I'm trying to understand how one can calculate odds on something in the future that "never" took place. C) It's extremely important to make sense when you post. [We all slip up sometimes, but this is extreme.]

[SunkenCiv]

The truth is, I really miss Truth666, because of the marvelously zany posts, such as #10 in this thread (click the in reply to link). Calling him (or her?) a little crazy isn't really accurate, because I'm a little crazy.

I should post a link to Clube and Napier, Duncan Steele, or perhaps TVF. :')