size of asteroid

[*Jess♥]

I've debated this with People in hte past so I decided to lay this horse to rest.

ok zeo made a rather wild claim in hte recent debate so I wanted to test his theory.

I quote zeo as actually I find this manner here kinda insulting considering my results.

I'm not judging. just the debate which we always disagree on. it's not a personal jab.

It really is a simple matter to use the Earth for scale and then adjust for depth perception distortion. The impact crater clearly shows that it is at an angle and not head on from our our perspective.

now the part i find insulting is the phrase "it really is a simple matter"... because dude. this is not simple as you so readily demonstrated by sizing that meteor up as 1,800 km (thereabouts)

here is a reconstruction demonstrating these sizes as you typed in your diagram.

now this is a side elevation,

but even looking at this, I find it insane to even start to believe that this sizing could produce a shot like that shown in the manga.

well i had a little faith so I tried it out to be fair.

here is with a standard 45degree lens.

which quite obviously is not working, so I worked on this by changing lenses.

got kinda close.. but you'll notice the insane distortion...

I was interested just to know exactly how much this is being distorted so at this stage i mapped some checker patterns onto hte sphere.

this is teh side elevation -

and back to hte perspective view

and now a top down view so you can see just how close this camera is. I believe this was a 180 degree lens although the cone does not suggest that... I am certain it was 180 degree lens... oh well it was pretty wide angle anyway, definately a fish eye lens.

so anyway I went back to a 45 degree lens and left the mapping on

and decided to increase thesize of the asteroid to match.

I displayed the size of teh asteroid on hte image.

now i decided to experiment with different lenses to get some variations on hte size.

next is a 10 degree lens.. the distance of the camera from hte subject is displayed on hte image.

and now increased teh size of teh asteroid to match.

and now a final test to see the other way.. a 90 degree lens.

sdistance from subject and size of asteroid.

ok so there you have it.

these numbers and sizes may not be COMPLETELY accurate but they should give you a fairly good idea of the sizes.

when i was tweaking with htem, the size variations did not differ greatly for example when achieving the 7,000km size the variations that showed noticable change were only ranging in hte 100s of kilometers.

[*Jess♥]

a followup to say in conclusion..

you can't tell for certain how big this is and arguing betwen mars-sized and mercury-sized is a futil gesture.

reason being, by using different lenses, you will get a variation of sizes between the two planets. most likely size actually being more or less in between each planet.

just for arguments sake.. it's closer to hte size of mercury.

[Jukai]

Not to defend Zeo in any manner, but the image wasn't his. He google imaged it and nothing written in the image was done by him.

I think.

[*zeo]

I didn't create the image, it was created by someone who analyzed the image from the Manga and determined it was the size of Mars.

His exact words were...

Using Earth as a rule, Earth is 12,745 kilometers in diameter, I measured Earth as being 278 pixels give or take a pixel or two. This gives us 45.87 kilometers for each pixel. The asteroid is 158 pixels in diameter give or take a pixel or two. This gives us a diameter of 7,242.7 kilometers in a diameter. That is well over twice the diameter of the Moon.

As you can see from the quote he just mis-labeled the image he created.

I just brought it in to show what I think was the source of that other person who piped in the original topic that it was Mars size and was only using it because it emphasized the comparison of the side by side spherical sizes of both planets with the overlayed circles which he also explained was drawn from making circles to the percentage size of both planets and showing they match to the the scale shown in the Manga image.

Thing is all you have to do is take the diameter of the Earth to use as a yard stick and compare it to the diameter of the asteroid to get what he got.

Now doing what he did and just comparing the flat image does give you the size nearly that of Mars, the only thing he didn't take into account was the change in perception due to depth.

Now the exact math for depth perception adjustment may not be easy but most of the hard work was taken care of by giving us a starting point of a Mars to Earth size comparison.

An Earth to Moon size comparison...

Shows it can't be a Pluto size object since Pluto's diameter is 2274 kilometers while the moon has a diameter of 3475 km. So quite frankly the moon is bigger than Pluto.

A direct comparison to Earth shows Pluto is only .18 the size of the Earth, so we can immediately drop it because it is not even in the ballpark.

Which brings us back to the Mars estimate as our starting point, the reason I say this is simply because even with depth perception distortion accounted for the size of the Asteroid can't be greatly different from the original estimate since the Asteroid isn't that far from the Earth. We are shown it impacting after all, the depth perception only comes into play because the Asteroid is being shown closer to our point of view than the Earth and because we are talking about objects that are pretty massive.

So you can give a conservative estimate ball park figure right off the bat of 4-6 thousand kilometers, just enough to cause shift in size to a sub-Mars estimate.

Now the problem with Ryuki's carefully done analysis is the fact in space there is no atmosphere and thus no visual distortion. And he used the wrong figure for the diameter of the Asteroid.

I would have posted the link to the topic but it was from another site and I usually refrain from linking to other sites.

But in any case this shows we can do fairly direct comparison and see that the asteroid was just a bit smaller than Mars size, which puts it in the range of Mercury. Since Mercury has a diameter of 4,878 km and pretty close to the Mars size estimate.

[Salkafar]

Well, how far away would the camera have to be for it to be able to take that picture? And: can some enterprising soul perhaps do a mock-up of the scene using clay balls or something?

The planet and Earth are in direct contact, distance 0 for the sake of the argument... Just how much of an effect does perspective warping have?

[*Jess♥]

Now the problem with Ryuki's carefully done analysis is the fact in space there is no atmosphere and thus no visual distortion. And he used the wrong figure for the diameter of the Asteroid.

excuse me?

I would have thought you were more familiar with the concept of perspective?

you just totally freaked me out with that statement. so please let me get this straight.. you are trying to claim that lens distortion is caused by an atmosphere?

if you truly are saying that then i am telling you to get out of this science forum right now until you can learn the basics of light refraction cause by lenses.

and even then.. are you suggesting there is air inside my computer program? what the f?

i'm so utterly perplexed.

salkafar.. why are you asking for a mockup with clay balls? i produced these images using a 3d geometric design package. this is pretty accurate to reality and besides, in reality you would have difficulty arranging the objects in suspension.

and you are gonna have a very hard job getting precision with clay balls.

if you're not happy with hte accuracy of my models i can take screenshots of teh actual dimensions for you.

(btw in case you're doubting the program.. it is the same program they use for films like shrek and for special effects like in the hulk etc)

p.s.

i think it a little foolish to paste an image like this without correcting the figures or putting a disclaimer below it.

[Jukai]

THIS IS ALLLLL A POINTLESS ARGUEMENT!!!

This was Imurakami's IMAGINATION! He saw the gigantic thing in the sky and IMAGED what it would look like striking earth! He was GUESSING THE SIZE OF IT! We have no idea how big it was!

I was just continuing the argumenet with Zeo to annoy him cause the image was mislabelled!

We will never know how big the asteroid was because we never saw a true size comparison!

[*zeo]

That is a completely erroneous statement Jukai.

Really now how do you think we determine the size of other planets?

Fact is we got the Earth for scale and that really is all we need to then determine the size of the Asteroid.

It's the same reason forensics take pictures with either rulers in the shot or an object of known size and scale for comparison, like dropping a dollar bill into the shot, etc.

Note also the Asteroid was visible from Earth as we are shown the humans looking up at it as it approached, so it had to be pretty massive.

if you truly are saying that then i am telling you to get out of this science forum right now until you can learn the basics of light refraction cause by lenses.

Sorry Ryuki unless you can point to anyone looking through a lens in the Manga then were aren't looking through a lens and the only thing left that could produce a lens distortion would be atmosphere.

It's the same reason why we put the Hubble Telescope in Space, to avoid distortion and just get a straight image.

Archanfel isn't in a space ship looking through a camera or other lens. He's floating in space looking at the Earth with nothing but vacuum between him and his view.

So where would you be gettig your lens distortion from?

Remember you're talking about keystone distortion that we would get from say a camera lens that has been tilted, but we wouldn't get that distortion if the lens is straight on.

You yourself made note that the size distortion would be incredible.

Yet you went with a lens distortion instead of just increasing the size of your simulation.

Really, the only distortion in space is either from distance or from gravity but that takes either very strong gravity or a very long distance to be noticeable.

You were using lens distortion which would be the same as trying to simulate atmosphereic distortion since the physics behind them are the same, atmosphere is also like a lens remember.

Just like we would get a lens distortion from water when viewed at angles.

Light gets refracted at different angles when passing through different mediums but we aren't looking through a lens of any sort. We are looking through space at an asteroid smashing into the Earth. The impact itself is pushing the atmosphere of the Earth away from the Asteroid so it is not getting a lens effect from that, leaving us a straight size comparison with only depth of field being the only remaining distortion to account for.

The Asteroid itself has no atmosphere so it isn't getting distorted and space has no distorting effect since it has not atmosphere so the use of lens effect is not appropriate for this problem.

So I wasn't disputing a lens effect could cause that effect, I was disputing the use of a lens effect in this situation, the vacuum of space is not known for such distortion after all.

Also the two objects are already being shown starting to smash into each other, which would minimize any distortion as the two start to move into each other. Giving us a depth distortion of only 4-6 kilometers or the radius of the Earth.

Enough for a distortion in size perception but not enough for a great difference in size.

i think it a little foolish to paste an image like this without correcting the figures or putting a disclaimer below it.

Well for one thing I did say it was from that topic in which it was being debated. I never said I created it, I would have said so if that was the case.

But you are right I should have posted more information on it from the start since you didn't have the benefit of reading the whole debate, though one of the reasons the image was low resolution was because it wasn't being used so you could read the figures off it.

Jukai for example couldn't even see that it was a comma and not a period and so originally thought it was 1.8 km. This was probably because the debate started with the assumption that the Asteroid was about moon size but final analysis showed it was much bigger.

The only thing revalent about the image and why I posted it was the color shaded circles showing the size comparison.

Besides you guys ignored what I actually said and just went with what you could see from the image, which means you excluded other information that would have corrected your assumption.

[*Jess♥]

So where would you be gettig your lens distortion from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye

you are familiar with the structure of the eye?

also

to produce an image with perspective you need to have a field of view. then you ned a distance from reference point thereby producing angle of the virtual lens.

I'm not arguing perspective with you. don't be so ridiculous.

actually your post shows a remarkable lack of understanding of depth of field. basically what you write was complete and utter bollocks. I'm not shying away from this. I understand depth of field. I may not understand advanced physic but i understand lens angles depth of field and all of that. you show an appalling knowledge of these tings and you are most certainly NOT qualified to debate against this. you should be ashamed at yourself for even trying to argue with me about this considering the complete lack of understanding of the subject matter.

I wonder how many other tings you claim to be an authority on that you completely fail to grasp.

this topic was not for debate. this topic was for clarification.

I left it open so People could look at it and say "thank goodness thats sorted" but it seems you are incapable of accepting something that is staring you right in the face.

jukai, you are correct it is a pointless argument but the thing is, when you point out plain straight forward things like that to zeo, he tends to list a load of scientific 'knwledge' and continue debates.

so i figured I'd show this to find an irrefutable way of showing the size of teh asteroid...

why do i bother?

the asteroid is the inbetween the size of mars and mercury. end of story.

[Jukai]

Really now how do you think we determine the size of other planets?

Whoa! So you're saying... scientists figured out how the planets were with their imagination? Holy crap!!! So if I imagine uranos to be the BIGGEST PLANET IN THE UNIVERSE it will exist!!!!

I'd go into detail about, for Imurakami to make a decent scientific estimation of the size of the asteroid, he'd need to know the proper size of earth viewed from space (which he probably doesn't), the size of the asteroid from the same view of space (which he definitely doesn't), and have the sense to imagine it properly and not be like "OMG GIANT ASTEROID I BET IT'D LOOK LIKE THIS!"

But I think Ryuki already said it, in much bigger words than I did

Zeo would shatter me in like, every single arguement if he didn't have to be right about EVERYTHING and in turn, he makes really silly and absurd statements that put him in trouble.

edit: I mean... really... why would someone SAY thatabove quote? That's just not smart.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Jukai

[*zeo]

Well before we get into another argument I will publically apologize if I offended Ryuki, my statement was not to mean he didn't know what he was doing in any way but rather I just disagreed with its use in this problem.

The first part, not the last four examples.

It was just a misunderstanding starting from the fact I had not provided all the information that I was working with from the source of the image that was being used in this topic. The image itself provided the wrong dimension of the calculated width of the asteroid according to the pixel count. Thus the origin of the misunderstanding.

The final conclusion I completely agree with however.

Whoa! So you're saying... scientists figured out how the planets were with their imagination? Holy crap!!!

No that isn't what I said at all and in all fairness that is a complete distortion of what I said and what scientists actually do to determine sizes of celestial objects.

Scientists figured out the sizes of other planets with observations and math, specifically trigonometry.

You really just need a reference point, preferably two, basically a starting point to figure out the rest. Normally they would use Trigonometric Parallax if you can have at least 2 reference points but you can still figure it out if you only have one and a known size of an object inside the reference point.

For example if we were using human vision to help determine the distance of an object of known size then we could use Pythagorean theorem and the trig formula of tanA=A/B. Configure it D=W/tan(60), with 60 being the average for human horizontal peripheral vision (45 degrees for vertical). So once we have an object within that field of vision we can use the formular to determine how far away that object is. Similarly if we knew the distance but not the width then we can rearrange the formular to then determine the width.

This is because human vision is constant, it doesn't change zoom. The human eye only changes focal point so we can use what we see for a direct comparison/yard stick and use math to then determine the exact details.

The resolution of the eye is about 1 arc-minute, which means we can see something which makes an angle of not 1 degree, but 1/60 of a degree. Actually it means we can detect two items separated by that angle, but let's not be too finnicky:)

So we can also calculate the size of something within our field of view as well.

Alternatively we can use Rule 57 ( Angular size/360 degrees=Actual Size/(2xPIxD) ), an object of angular degree of 1 is about 57 times further away than its size.

All is required to solve it that way is to know the size of the object, in this case the Earth, and then figure how many angular degrees the object takes up of your view to then calculate the distance, giving you the two figures you would need to calculate the size of any other object in the same field of view.

I'd go into detail about, for Imurakami to make a decent scientific estimation of the size of the asteroid, he'd need to know the proper size of earth viewed from space

He doesn't need to, all we need to know is how much it fills his field of vision and the image can be inferred to give us that.

Again, human vision doesn't zoom or magnify, it only changes focal point. Like the image below, the human eye can focus on either the front image of Grommet or the back image of the car but not both at the same time and that is how we sense distance, along with the use of both eyes to triangulate for depth. Though our stereoscopic vision is only effective up to a distance of about 200 meters, due to the fact our stereoscopic vision is limited by how far our eyes are separated, so an observer seeing a scene like the image of the Earth from space would be the same as seeing a 2D image at that distance.

Whether we focus on Grommet or the Car the size they appear to us will remain the same, the focal point is what tells us which is closer and which is further.

and have the sense to imagine it properly and not be like "OMG GIANT ASTEROID I BET IT'D LOOK LIKE THIS!"

We are assuming the image was imagined correctly, not much point to analyzing it otherwise, but Archanfel was able to sense the distortion of space it came through even before it appeared and so it is possible it is within his ability to properly gauge the size of the asteroid.

Besides he had a good view of it, in space there isn't any atmospheric distortion and light travels in straight lines so there is no incidental light coming from the same source.

Basically this means the light comes straight to you and if you aren't in the direction the light is traveling then you won't see the light at all.

So you won't be seeing the light from the object from different angles.

Visual acuity in space is thus greater than it is on Earth due to the lack of distortion.

Of course all this is assuming that we can look at the image as if it was an actual snap shot of what Archanfel was seeing. But assuming it is does mean we can calculate the actual size of the asteroid.

I'll do the math later and see if I can give you an exact figure.

[Jukai]

This was Imurakami's IMAGINATION! He saw the gigantic thing in the sky and IMAGED what it would look like striking earth! He was GUESSING THE SIZE OF IT! We have no idea how big it was!

That is a completely erroneous statement Jukai.

Really now how do you think we determine the size of other planets?

Whoa! So you're saying... scientists figured out how the planets were with their imagination? Holy crap!!!

No that isn't what I said at all and in all fairness that is a complete distortion of what I said and what scientists actually do to determine sizes of celestial objects.

Hohum.

Anyway, the imaginated image wasn't from Alchanphel as you're trying to infer in your post, but from Imurakami. Imurakami saw the asteroid from the images in Alchanphel's mind and thought about what it would look like. It's entirely possible that, because he was in Alchanphel's mind, he WAS able to properly size the asteroid up through alchanphel's incredible senses, while simultaneously knowing the actual size of earth as viewed from that vantage point in space. If this was the case, you'd be right, and it is between Mars and Mercury sized. Since I don't personally believe either of those facts, I'm guessing not.

edit:

Maybe that is the correct measurements though, now that I look at the chapter again. We probably aren't seeing anything on ANYONE'S eyes, because we see Alchanphel clearly, and Murakami is suppose to be seeing this images out of Alchanphel's images. This probably means we're seeing things in third person, and it's also probably that was just us looking in third person at the possible collision of earth and the asteroid.

Still a pointless and impossible to prove debate though.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Jukai

[*zeo]

Hohum

I see, you thought just because you were trying to interject the fact that the image was a mental projection of what the impact would be like that it excluded the idea it could have been an accurate comparison of the two bodies and only the impact was imagined.

Fair enough but your last statement was still a distortion of what I asked you on how do you think they figure these things out for real?

It seems you just don't want to try to figure this one out and are just pointing out the obvious reasons not to, but isn't the reason we bother is for the fun of it?

Anyway, the imaginated image wasn't from Alchanphel as you're trying to infer in your post, but from Imurakami. Imurakami saw the asteroid from the images in Alchanphel's mind and thought about what it would look like. It's entirely possible that, because he was in Alchanphel's mind, he WAS able to properly size the asteroid up through alchanphel's incredible senses, while simultaneously knowing the actual size of earth as viewed from that vantage point in space. If this was the case, you'd be right, and it is between Mars and Mercury sized. Since I don't personally believe either of those facts, I'm guessing not.

On whether it was Archanfel or Imakarum I think its debateable. For all intents and purposes we were seeing Archanfel's memories and thoughts like a movie. So I believe Imakarum was just observing, you could be right though but in either case the size of the asteroid would be determined by the accuracy of Archanfel's memory. I'm just assuming its correct, backed by the probabilities that it was, to use the image for an actual calculation of scale and size as otherwise we will never know how big the asteroid was or should I say could have been.

edit:

Maybe that is the correct measurements though, now that I look at the chapter again. We probably aren't seeing anything on ANYONE'S eyes, because we see Alchanphel clearly, and Murakami is suppose to be seeing this images out of Alchanphel's images. This probably means we're seeing things in third person, and it's also probably that was just us looking in third person at the possible collision of earth and the asteroid.

Still a pointless and impossible to prove debate though.

Only if we are debating absolutes and don't consider the image accurate enough to prove anything, but if we assume the image is accurate then we can calculate the size using the Earth as a yard stick.

I'll run the numbers in any case, if nothing else it will add another example for us to consider in other debates. Such as just how much energy did Archanfel use to destroy the asteroid, reason enough I think to bother.

[Jukai]

I see where you're getting all this now. Alchanephl was viewing earth from space, and saw the asteroid at, we can assume, a relatively equa-distance away from him. Because he saw the two objects, he's able to visualize a good estimate what the collision would look like.

The reason I thought it was Imurakami that was imagining the collision was because it was HIS text bubble that was next to the image... and as I said, Imurakami has no way of making a valid size comparison. That's all I was trying to say.

[*zeo]

No problem, I'm glad we cleared that up...

Since you like debating these things, perhaps we can do the analysis of the Asteroid's destruction after I do the math on this one?

At least to give us a better ball park figures to work with?

[*Jess♥]

I have redone the overlay diagram to get it as accurate as i would like. also the image quality is better and it is larger.

I have not written figures on it because i want it to remain clean. figures can be put at the end of this post.

now consider this panel constitutes a window into the world that takaya has created. also consider the Manga is meant to be held at arms length or in somebodies lap. that's about 50cm.

the panel is about 6.5cm high and 10.5cm wide. we'll use the largest measurement to set our lens angle. ( the lens angle correlates to the distance of viewer from frame and size of frame. also referred to as field of view. )

the resulting lens angle is 12 degrees.

just so we're on hte same page and in case anybody does not understand this lens angle, field of view relationship... here is a diagram showing the size of the frame, the subject of the image and the angle that results (this diagram is not drawn for accuracy and the angle is not 12 degrees in this image). this angle is the angle of a lens we use to get the resulting image that shows as much of the subject as we require. think of it almost like a projector in reverse.

if you still don't understand it, you really need to look at some books on the subject.

now i have arranged the camera with the Manga panel and set it to the correct angle/field of view.

set everything at the correct dimensions and now i have adjusted the distance of subject from the viewer.

the geometry of my scene and the layout of all the object is now exactly as it would be if that panel in hte Manga were actually a physical window into space.

for your interest, the distance of the 'window' from the subject (earth) is around 205,000km.

next thing to do is create another object and place it as close as possible to hte original image. i spent a good 20 minutes moving this and adjusting it so that it would intersect as close as possible and so it was as close as possible to hte size of the asteroid. the size of this object is 7,200km.

the last thing I will do just for an alternative is to use the msot common lens angle used in photography.

I set my lens angle to 50 degrees (the average of a standard lens).

for your interest, this brings the photographer to a distance of around 38,000km from earth.

this was difficult to judge but another 20mins or so of tweaking i came up with a diameter of 6,300km.

now if you have any questions or don't understand any part of what i have written please ask away.

I am happy to explain anything or look for alternative results.

p.s. this IS ACCURATE. I painstakingly made sure every aspect of this was as accurate as i could get it.

if anyone has any issues with hte accuracy of this then I request they do this for themselves rather than trying to prove it wrong with words.

[Cannibal]

WOW, that's great research, dude!

[*zeo]

Hmm, this is a long shot but I think it potentially could yield an interesting result.

Remember the other image of when the Asteroid first appeared and we are shown it heading towards the Earth? (Book15-33.jpg, pg 67-68)

There is a possible indication of distance in the Manga that would make it possible to use that image to correlate the two images for accuracy.

When Archanfel was floating paralyzed he senses the spatial distortion that was forming just before the Asteroid appeared and according to the Advocacy translation said, "... there it is, something enormous is about to appear... Something similar to a lunar orbit" (Book15-32.jpg-pg. 66 bottom right panel)

This could mean that the Asteroid appeared to Archanfel from a lunar orbit, with him somewhere to the side since he looked to his right, though the wording isn't exactly clear and could also just have been a reference to how big the spatial distortion was.

If true though the Moon's orbit is elliptical: its average orbital radius is 384401 km, apogee (farthest distance from the Earth) is 406700 km, and perigee (distance of closest approach to the Earth) is 356400 km.

The shot pictures the Earth as the Asteroid heads towards it, and apparently at the same or near the same angle as the impact image, so if we calculate for lunar orbit for distance we could see whether the impact image is accurate or not, or at least close.

If they match up then it means the image is accurate, which would be really cool.

Course it's a real long shot since it all depends on how accurately Takaya drew those images, though if he had a specific size for the asteroid and not just thinking big he could easily have scaled it using a compass and angular degrees. It would be interesting if they match up though.

[*Jess♥]

ok i'll try that using a 50 degree lens. (since i personally think Takaya would prefer to match his drawings with photographs.)

please await the results.

[*Jess♥]

hmm... not sure how much stock you wanna put in this, because the asteroid is moving and it may have moved a fair distance...

but the distance is around 100,000km.

I won't bother tweaking anything since that is pretty way off.

i'll try with a 12 degree lens though just for kicks.

edit:

hmm, ok with a 12 degree lens the diistance turns out at around 400,000km.

make of that what you will.

the field of view makes a big difference here.. I don't think it's possible to be at all accurate with this huge distance variation unless you could triangulate alkanphels position relative to earth and the asteroid.

edit #2:

but for the purposes of this experiment.. I think what we see here is that Takaya san is using a 12 degree field of view for this scene?

does that sound agreeable?

I guess we could say a number of things at this stage. the asteroid could have moved a fair distance already ... Takaya san is hugely inaccurate in his space depictions.. or the field of view he is presenting us with is designed to show us as though we were looking through a real window into space.

going with hte only one that gives semi-concrete evidence... well the bnest we can get anyhow...

the asteroid is estimated to be around 7,200km in diameter.

hmmm. I am enjoying this detective work.

I guess we can't confirm this really but I think that is the best estimate we can get, are we all agreed on that? or should i do further tests?

good job on suggesting that zeo. it has helped.

[*zeo]

Cool, very interesting, though if this all lines up even a little it means Archanfel was behind the Asteroid when he attacked it.

So that means even if he hit it at an angle that he would have to had put a lot more energy into his attack than I previously thought to still prevent most of the mass the Asteroid from hitting the planet.

It's even more shocking to realize that Asteroid is practically a planet itself, when we originally thought it was smaller than a moon, the Creators definitely don't hold back when they want to annihilate a threat.

The 400,000km. range does sound consistant with a near lunar orbit, kinda makes sense if the Creators had to get past both the Earth and the Moon's gravity before jumping to hyper space and he was trying to follow them when they stopped him.

Potentially the 12 degree could still work if the Asteroid hit the Earth off center.

Creator's aim still pretty good though. :wink:

[*Jess♥]

well i am not sure about alkanphels location. It could be showing alkanphels line of sight or it could be an overall view from a ways away from alky.

if alkanphel was inbetween earth and the asteroid, we wouldn't be able to see him anyway because he is way too small and if we saw from his p.o.v. we would see either the asteroid or earth but not both at the same time.

plus alkanphel was chasing the Creators and thus was behind them... then I believe the asteroid came out from where they left. or thereabouts.

[*zeo]

True, we would have to assume its his point of view. Though that's pretty much what I'm thinking that he was following them and they stopped him near the lunar orbit range from Earth just before they jumped.

The Asteroid in turn appeared near the same range and as it was released from hyper space and left to hurtle towards the Earth it came into Archanfel's field of view.

I'm also assuming that when he turned to his right that he was not only looking at the asteroid but back the way he came and thus saw the Earth. I think it's a possible scenario anyway, at least when factoring in how fast the asteroid appeared to be moving.

Thinking that it appeared to his right and then quickly moved towards the front of his view basically.

If it was near his position then it would rapidly shift his point of view to include the Earth as it headed that way.

We do have the image of him looking to his right and then the next panel has him facing forward, so he either turned his body or the Asteroid rapidly moved to the front of his view.

Course I'm assuming it was moving so fast that it was basically minutes before it would have hit.

What do you think? Plausible?

As for the Asteroid analysis, I was thinking we could work from your previous work on the first image and adjust for the lunar orbit range.

And then use your previous estimate of the Asteroid's size to determine the distance to the asteroid from the point of view shown in the second image, which would then allow us to triangulate Archanfel's position, assuming of course that is his point of view we are being shown.

If that actually works, and that's a pretty give "If" I know, we could then plot the likely course Archanfel took to intercept the Asteroid, which would then give us the ability to calculate how much energy was required to both destroy the Asteroid and prevent more than a few fragments of its mass from hitting the Earth.

Phew, I just wish I had that program you're using. It's a lot harder to do this with just a calculator and trig. I'm not even done with the first image, thanks in part to a very busy work week.

[*Jess♥]

i just considered.. while i was using the 12 degree lens I had determined a different diameter for the asteroid. I failed to account for this when i worked out the 400,000 distance.

I'll redo that tonight.

I thin that woorking on a lot of assumptions we could get an idea of how alkanphel may have moved.. i'm not sure. I'll think about it properly later on.

[*zeo]

Cool, I think we can at least get the general idea of how Takaya had actually envisioned the scene and at least work out an upper limit range to Archanfel's power.

Originally I had gone under the assumption he was in front of the Asteroid, which would have greatly reduced the amount of energy it would have taken him to destroy it.

Since he could have then used the Asteroid's own kinetic energy against it, but if he was behind it or hit it from the side then the energy he would need would have been significantly greater.

In other words Archanfel is Takaya's Deathstar :wink: