Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 22:21:48 GMT
dhansen@inforamp.net (Dave) writes:
>
>Hi. I have been reading some of the articles on the Mars rock but I
>have never seen any response as to if it really came from Mars.
This is probably because that was the least controversial aspect
of the report. The Martian origin of a certain class of meteorites
was established quite some time ago. There are a number of articles
on that subject cited in the "life" paper.
>If they brought it back from a mars lander or rover I could see this,
>but this so called mars rock was found on Earth.
However, to paraphrase the style of another article in this thread:
Once upon a time we sent a probe to Mars that made measurements of
the atmosphere and performed a variety of experiments on the rocks
it could reach with its little shovel. Sending a lab there is the
next best thing to what we did concerning lunar geology, which was
to bring rocks back and study them. What we learned from the lab
on Mars was that those rocks are different, and have characteristics
that can be found in this class of meteorites.
>As far I can see this is like something National Enquirer would print
>and no sensible person would ever believe that any scientist in his
>right mind would try and prove anything found on Earth came from any
>specific planet unless he was looking for publicity.
Sorry to disappoint you, but meteorites on earth that have a lunar
origin, as well as these from Mars, were of interest within the
scientific community whether they got tabloid publicity or not.
You need to read Science News if you want to know about these
things, not the National Enquirer or Weekly World News.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: Planet distances and Solar oscillations (was Re: Baez & Bunn moderation criticism)
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 06:49:36 GMT
In article <32d62f07.1188740@aklobs.org.nz>, Ray Tomes wrote :
>rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:
>
>>Would you entertain the possibility that the Solar oscillations are
>>resonating with the planetary motion, due to tidal forces, rather than
>>being the cause of the planetary distribution?
>
>It isn't the planetary motions but the planetary distances.
There is of course a direct relationship between these two
(i.e. Planetary year = 2*PI*sqrt(D^3/G*Msun) for perfectly circular orbits,
if I'm not mistaken), though it's not linear.
>If you assume that there are waves bouncing back and forth between each
>planet and the sun then the return times are multiples of the solar
>oscillations. So it would be possible that there could be a mechanism
>that way, but then why are the planetary distances multiples of common
>factors (especially the outer ones)?
I must admit that this is the most convincing argument.
[snip]
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on
temperature.
"....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
