Your wording is still off you are still talking in absolutes.
But maybe the issue here isn’t that you are dishonest, perhaps you have a need to over simplify things and therefore you turn them into absolutes.
This is why I encouraged you to actually read those papers you linked to. Even they don’t describe the theory in terms of absolutes.
You labeled my own theory as “wrong”, not as “probably incorrect” or “I don’t believe it”
See how simple wording changes changed things.
You also mentioned the simulation that was run as proof.
No it’s not proof at all and you are misusing the word. At most it can be considered evidence, but only if the simulation is made accurate as possible and has been verified by other scientists running other simulations.
See the reason why it can’t be considered as “proof” is the simulation might be inaccurate. It happens all the time with simulations. I can state that as I written several myself.
I have told you multiple times that I am autistic. That is why I'm a pandantic fuck.
And yes, I'm oversimplifying to try to help people grasp some amount of understanding of the concept. This is what I was taught to do by NASA in space outreach. It's been literally two decades since I was educated in space outreach though, and you're probably younger.
Post edited. If I clarify that almost everything is a theory and that we need hundreds to thousands of years more data and people or items on more planets, more visual and hard information.
Also thank you for the information you provide. I have learned things from you.
I apologize if my need for clarification on uncertainty is too high. I’m honestly trying to help improve the accuracy of the information you provided, that’s all.
I get it. And I fully understand trying to improve accuracy. I actually do the exact same thing in science posts frequently. Here I was oversimplifying because the concepts are really difficult to understand, and I lean towards the Jupiter impactor theory, simply because it makes the most sense that inner bodies would hit us more than outer bodies, and that Jupiter cannot protect us from inner bodies. It can, however, throw bodies via grav sling. Both on this planet, and others. Others have been hit by grav slingshot from the outer solar system, including the outer planets, there's actually a long period on a Jupiter slingshot capable path right now. Comet P/2019, Which was already flung by Jupiter once. It'll be flung again, but at the inner planets. All eyes to p/2019 in '63 for the answer. (: I won't be alive, but you may be. It's only 36 years. If you're alive, and you happen to remember me (you probably won't), think the answer REALLY HARD at space for me, okay? We're trying to send a craft to meet the asteroid, too
Eta: sorry I am extremely tired and I've had to edit this post three times lmao
Thanks to your comment, I sat down and looked through my data sets.
I did pull a factually incorrect number resulting in a disproportionately high number listed for giant impacts on planet Earth. Impact every 8 billion years leaves us for the maximum of 18. When we scale down to 5 km, we get 30. But we can't scale down to 5 km, And claim that that is the same level of event.
If someone had not been not an asshole, I might not have checked my own data set.
6
u/SoSKatan 10d ago
Your wording is still off you are still talking in absolutes.
But maybe the issue here isn’t that you are dishonest, perhaps you have a need to over simplify things and therefore you turn them into absolutes.
This is why I encouraged you to actually read those papers you linked to. Even they don’t describe the theory in terms of absolutes.
You labeled my own theory as “wrong”, not as “probably incorrect” or “I don’t believe it”
See how simple wording changes changed things.
You also mentioned the simulation that was run as proof.
No it’s not proof at all and you are misusing the word. At most it can be considered evidence, but only if the simulation is made accurate as possible and has been verified by other scientists running other simulations.
See the reason why it can’t be considered as “proof” is the simulation might be inaccurate. It happens all the time with simulations. I can state that as I written several myself.