Comet up to 60 fragments now!

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

Upted to 64 now. No change on 3-BD. What is scary about it is there is an 11hr 11min. fudge factor asscosiated with it. There also 3 other comets with over 24 hour fudge factors associated with them. Can't they get these things narrowed down more than that?? click here (Edited to shorten link.)

harmonicaman · May 7, 2006

Cyclone - Thanks for the link; please keep us on top of this event and continue posting these topical items...

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

Sure, I just don't understand the timing issues with these comets. Some have over 24 hour fudge factors with them. We should be so much better than that nowadays.

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

Can you fix that link above please, it's broadening the thread. example - Description of link goes here <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

Try this: click here (Edited to shorten link.)

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

Or this: http://tinyurl.com/pcfe8

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

You miss my point entirely, in fact you've done it again. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> YOUR LINK IS MAKING THIS THREAD WIDER. Please format it as described above so that I don't have to scroll left and right to read the damn thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

Go back to Paul Andersons fist reply and click on that link. That should do it for you.If not you have something wrong because it works fine for me.

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

Look, I can click on all the links and they work for me. They all WORK. Are you f^cking with my head here? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The links work, okay. I'm talking about the width, the physical width of the link on the screen. Do you have to use the scroll bar at the base of your navigator window to read across each post in this thread? Alright, when the answer to that is yes, the reason for this is because you have extended the width of the entire thread by posting an extremely long string of text in the form of those last few links you posted. If you use this example for pasting any url link you'd like to make then you won’t cause this to happen: Type: Then put a small description of whatever your link is right here then the whole thread doesn't get spread out across my screen. Clear? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

The answer is no it works fine for me. I don't have to use the scroll bar. http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=4865818&nav=AbC0

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

You are f*cking with my head AREN'T YOU? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

Don't know what the heak you talking about all I do is cut and past my links. I have no idea how long they are if I can't see them!!Sorry if it messes with your head though!!

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

BTW some people like large links!! I do. http://static.flickr.com/43/98659386_1b21590c5e.jpg?v=0

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

If you paste a link inside a post on the forum, it automatically becomes active, navigating anyone clicking on it to wherever, okay? That part works for me. I can click on your links and I go to the page you linked to. So, they work. I don’t dispute that they all work. But if that link is extremely long, the length of that block of text, being one continuous string, it tends to widen the entire thread. So that to read all of the posts in that thread, instead of simply scrolling up and down a thread, it requires me to scroll horizontally as well. If you format any long links that you wish to add to a post using UBB code as I suggested above, the thread does not become wider. Any clearer? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

cyclonebuster · May 7, 2006

OK I'll try it next time and see what happens for you.

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

No you have to go back and edit the posts you made above to shorten those links. In case you haven't noticed, you've already widened the thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Actually, you know what? Never mind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

harmonicaman · May 7, 2006

What Tom is saying is that his computer isn't creating line breaks for web addresses, so posting a large address link stretches his window wider than his screen and he must scroll left and right to read every post on this page. I'm not affected; but large images create the same problem for me... Maybe Tom can edit his web settings or something...

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

Jesus H, I'd love to be able to. I use Netscape and Explorer 6 but neither do that automatically. What am I doing wrong then? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

Swampcat · May 7, 2006

"What am I doing wrong then?" The screen resolution of your display might be the problem. Mine is set at 1280x1024 so I don't have as much a problem with this sort of thing as I used to with my old display which, at its highest setting, was only 800x600 pixels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

It's 1024 by 768. Only have problems where people post super long links. Otherwise page breaks work as normal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

earth_bound_misfit · May 7, 2006

Hey Tom, check out this post <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

tom_hobbes · May 8, 2006

Thanks for campaigning on behalf of thread width unfortunates such as myself. Incidentally my screen size is 1024 x 768. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

dmjspace · May 13, 2006

MichaelMozina said: If comets aren't mostly water, then the breakup of this comet into so many fragments is bound to cause trouble for the Earth, sooner or later. Yeah, which is why discussion of competing comet theories is so important... Too bad astronomers have little interest in considering alternatives to the "dirty snowball" (DS) model. IMO, the best competitor of the DS model is the "exploded planet hypothesis" (EPH). Its predictive track record far exceeds that of the DS model. In essence, the EPH suggests that comets are multiple-nuclei, gravitationally bound groups whose associated debris clouds explain comet observations more accurately than the DS model. In the most general sense, comets are just rocks, little different from asteroids. The two entities share the same average albedos and densities. You are correct in that, if 73P is breaking into dozens of pieces that are rocky, not icy, then those rocks will be in orbit for a long, long time. The pieces have merely "gone dark" rather than evaporated. If the hypothesis preferred by most astronomers (the DS) is wrong, then we may eventually pay a big price for that errant consensus.

cyclonebuster · May 18, 2006

We can get hit big time. One full month of a storm coming. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1640173.htm

Comet up to 60 fragments now!

cyclonebuster

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

cyclonebuster

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page