3 ms·
The data are interesting on their own if you start with the idea that meteor strikes are random across centuries, but the information collection and preservatio
by rz2k 13y ago
The data are interesting on their own if you start with the idea that meteor strikes are random across centuries, but the information collection and preservation isn't. For instance, with two data points you might claim there were more monks than princes in Renaissance Italy, but they were both surrounded by literate people who kept records compared to the even more numerous peasants. However, I suppose interpreting small datasets so that they fit preconceived notions isn't very productive.
It does seem strange that there are ten 19th century events and eight in the 20th century. Not so much because the numbers are different, but because there was twice the population, and literacy and communication were so vastly improved.
- stretchwithme 13y agoMore people are working indoors in tall buildings and traveling in cars. So they are more concentrated where they live and travel. And each sighting is counted only once, regardless of how many people saw it.
- rz2k 13y agoRelative to the entire population, humanity is more urbanized, but that seems irrelevant to me compared to how many single square miles on the earth's surface contain a human who is connected to the global community. While the decreasing number of people needed to farm a square mile seems like it would matter enough to decrease the newsworthiness of meteor strikes in some agricultural regions, it still seems likely that there has been a net increase in total area that includes the lower bound of population density where a meteor strike would be sufficiently newsworthy to make this list. Take Las Vegas over the past 50 years as an example. It's a prime example of people being increasingly insulated from the outdoors, yet the footprint and total area of settled land has grown dramatically. It hardly matters whether you're inside or not, if a meteor strikes your block. Edit: I was curious about the data and found this Google Earth file[1]. It looks like there definitely are many more recorded events, and it's just that the bar for being newsworthy has risen. However, what's strange is the preponderance of events in NW Texas and north of there. If records were population-based, then it should look like population density maps. I can't figure out off hand what causes the density of events, other than flat land and maybe tornado observation equipment, but that would seem to apply to other areas as well. [1]https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gec-places/59UqlWKj9Gg[1-25-false] https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gec-places/59...