[Tycho?]

It would go a lot faster on earth, with all of its volcanic activity and plate tectonics. But geology isn't exactly my field.

Yeah. There are already a ton of satellites that do exactly the same thing.

Look for fossils, or any evidence of life. If you can't find that first there is no point in looking for evidence of a civilization.

Oh, I wish I could do that.

I rather doubt it. I'd think something so massive and so hot (its emitting x-rays) would already be undergoing fusion if it was capable of doing so. And regardless the object is much too large for the entire thing to fuse or do much else; if part of it started to fuse, the energy released would tend to blow away matter. So its not like the whole thing could undergo fusion at the same time.

...am I reading this properly? Could you elaborate on this please?

...how the hell is this impossible to measure? One clock says one thing, another is slower. Time dilation, as simple as that. How is this impossible to measure?

Well tsunamis can be avoided relatively easily. Animals notice ground shaking, and move away from the coast. It would make sense that an instint like this would come up though. But earthquakes, I dont think there is anyway to sense them before they actually occur. There is no reason to do this anyway, even a very large earthquake wouldn't have much effect on animals since they dont live in collapsible structures.

Wait, so you're saying the cat is really dead, but your changing the experiment to make that so. How is that clever?

Theories are notoriously short lived? What? No they're not. Details of what?

Some hicks talking about things they dont understand? Responding to that big post in your link; the universe will not reach absolute zero ever. It may approach this number but not reach it. Also, why the hell would time stop because the universe is cooler? Plus his arguments have nothing to do with infinity.

In a normal impact a lot of the energy would go into the ground. This would form the crater as matter is ejected at very high velocities. Plus shock waves through the ground and air. Energy into breaking chemical bonds would be negligable I would think.

Yeah I realize its not transfering all this energy into the atmposphere alone, instead only a specific region. But I dont see this changing my general idea; that if a large object was totally burned up entering the atmosphere it wouldn't by much better than the object striking the surface. The fireball created by this thing would be massive if it was totally burned up in the atmosphere. Like incinerating large portions of a continent kind of big. The shockwave produced would be unbelievable with such an enourmous volume of air being rapidly expanded; it would be like an atmospheric tsunami. Also, most of the mass of the asteriod would stay in the atmosphere as dust since it didn't hit the ground in the first place. This huge huge mass of dust and ash I would think would make big changes in earth's climate. PLUS the temperature rise over the entire earths surface would not be negligable I think, at least enough to kill crops and other plants/animals.

I dont really know, but I can guess. With telescopes we observe light or other radiation bouncing off asterioids. With radar, we would be sending out a radio signal and then listening for when it bounces back. I assume the problem would be that this would have to be a damn powerful radio signal, since the radar wave decreases with the inverse square of distance. A way to get around it would be to shoot a super focused beam of radio waves out in a singal place in order to get a larger effective range. But then it isn't useful in detecting a lots of objects.

Ba bump? I am still curious about this, I'd like if someone could look over my above work and see if there are errors in math or reasoning. Because thats a pretty big number I got, one I still do not believe.

Yay for crackpots.