The problem, Reapist, is that you come into these arguments expecting people to answer it like you want them to. I've seen you do this over and over again in many threads. I know exactly what you WANT me to say, but I won't because what you want me to say isn't true.

The "number" of things is only one factor in many that determine odds in cases like the one we are discussing. Excite a bunch of lead atoms by heating them and you will see many more collisions between the atoms than with a much lighter element like hydrogen (assuming you have the same number of atoms). Halving the quantity isn't enough information to determine how much the odds would be modified. Do you understand?

 

-----signature-----

That is not true most of the time. An impact can and does create many more objects. All would be smaller than the largest object involved in the collision, but there would be a new object created for each piece that escaped the gravity of the initial collision.

 

-----signature-----

OK, you're right HV. All those bodies that have impacted the moon also have the chance to hit us as well. I'm so glad you helped me see the error of my ways.

 

-----signature-----

It's ok that you don't get it. Take a deep breath.

 

-----signature-----

LOL. There's nothing to get dude! There's less debris floating around in our solar system than ever before in past history. And next year there will be even less. It's really pretty simple.

 

-----signature-----

Do you think that happens much anymore?

 

-----signature-----

Do you have any idea how many objects fly in and out of the Oort Cloud in any given year? Do you know if there are any large objects out there? I would say with some confidence that nobody can give an exact (or even close) answer to either question.

Fewer objects in the inner solar system? Sure, I can buy that line of reasoning. Fewer objects in total? Not bloody likely.

But that's the thing when Earth is involved... it only takes one that is big enough or fast enough to cause a whole lot of trouble. The problem: we can't "see" most of them, just based on the evidence that we are finding more all the time.

 

-----signature-----

Yes, it's very likely in the asteroid belt and the Oort cloud. Gravity from Jupiter, Mars, the sun, and each other pull on those things all the time causing collisions. Most of them are too small to have their gravity strong enough to cause these collisions to make them stick together.

As for the larger objects, you are correct. Even a large object hitting the moon would have very little of the debris leave the moons gravitational field and far less completely escape the pull of Earth's gravity.

 

-----signature-----

Another point too HV. You say collisions have the chance of putting up even more smaller debris. Well, I don't think that's new. That's always been the case. And in the past here was more debris doing this. Near space? Yes, less now. In total? No, I agree. Because stars are constantly blowing up all over the universe. But the evidence of what I say is right in front of your nose. Scientist even say, early in formation the moon, as well as other bodies, took much more of a beating but over time there is less and less in the solar system to pound us.

Look at all the craters. None of them are new. Of course the moon gets pounded with more because of the lack of an atmosphere. But they've had a lot of big impacts, and we have too. The scars here are just mostly gone. This planet has been thru a lot of changes. From a molten planet to an ice planet. We only see the evidence of the past few million years. And scientists look at that evidence to give an approximate time line of how often it happens. But they can't tell you how often it has happened on evidence that does not exist.

What I do know is that people are fallible. Many have agendas or beliefs, intended or not, they want to support. It's amazing how much evidence you can find to support exactly what you believe. That's why I have little faith is what people tell me and more in what I can deduce for myself. That also, why I say their predictions you quoted are wrong. I would be much more confident in saying their predictions on eruptions in Hawaii and Yellowstone are much more accurate.

But for impacts, I call BS on them.

 

-----signature-----

Some people believe the belt is the remanants of a planet destroyed. I do not. I believe we are simply seeing formation that is not yet completed. And likely never will before the solar system is eventually destroyed. But I can also see you at least think about this. I just think your thought process is different than mine.

 

-----signature-----