PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet, 40/2000 - 27 March 2000
------------------------------
"A Bible scholar believes that he
has found the ruins of Sodom and
Gomorrah, the evil cities destroyed by
God with fire and
brimstone, after leading the first
expedition to explore the
bottom of the Dead Sea. Michael Sanders
and an international team
of researchers discovered what appear to
be the salt-encrusted
remains of ancient settlements on the
seabed after several fraught
weeks diving in a mini submarine. Mr
Sanders, a Briton who is now
based in the United States, said
yesterday that he was "immensely
excited" about the find, and he is
already planning a follow-up
expedition.
-- The
Sunday Telegraph, 26 March 2000
(1) SODDOM AND GOMORRAH ARE 'FOUND AT BOTTOM OF DEAD SEA'
The Sunday Telegraph, 26 March 2000
(2) NEW ORBIT VISUALISATION TOOL ONLINE
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(3) FOLLOW-UP ON PANSPERMIA
Jon Richfield <jonr@iafrica.com>
(4) IAU GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AUGUST 2000
Jacqueline Mitton <aco01@dial.pipex.com>
(5) TRITON'S SURFACE AGE, IMPACTOR POPULATION & THE FLUX OF
EKOs
S.A. Stern*) & W.B. McKinnon, SW RES
INST,DEPT SPACE STUDIES
(6) CAN WE REALLY PREDICT TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION?
B. Bowonder et al., ADM STAFF COLL INDIA
(7) TITUS-BODE REVISITED, OR HOW THE DEBRIS CAME ABOUT
Timo Niroma <timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi>
(8) THE BRIGHTNESS OF IEOOs
Jeremy Tatum <UNIVERSE@uvvm.UVic.CA>
(9) AGE OF THE EARTH
Leroy Ellenberger <c.leroy@rocketmail.com>
(10) AND FINALLY: PUNCTURES IN SHIPS AND SPACE SHIPS
Malcolm Miller <stellar2@actonline.com.au>
==================
(1) SODDOM AND GOMORRAH ARE 'FOUND AT BOTTOM OF DEAD SEA'
From The Sunday Telegraph, 26 March 2000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000161300847884&rtmo=faNDvMrs&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/00/3/26/wsod26.html
By Jonathan Petre
A Bible scholar believes that he has found the ruins of Sodom and
Gomorrah, the evil cities destroyed by God with fire and
brimstone,
after leading the first expedition to explore the bottom of the
Dead
Sea.
Michael Sanders [a long-time CCNet-subscriber] and an
international
team of researchers discovered what appear to be the
salt-encrusted
remains of ancient settlements on the seabed after several
fraught
weeks diving in a mini submarine. Mr Sanders, a Briton who is now
based
in the United States, said yesterday that he was "immensely
excited"
about the find, and he is already planning a follow-up
expedition.
He said: "The evidence cannot be ignored. I predicted there
must be
something extraordinary there and, lo and behold, there was. What
we
found matches exactly what the remains of an ancient city might
look
like."
Dr John Whitaker, a geologist from Leicester University and the
former
editor of Geology Today, said yesterday that the new development
-
which will be unveiled in a television documentary tomorrow -
appeared
"very significant". He said: "There is a good
chance that these mounds
are covering up brick structures and are one of the lost cities
of the
plains, possibly even Sodom or Gomorrah, though I would have to
examine
the evidence. These Bible stories were handed down by word of
mouth
from generation to generation before they were written down, and
there
seems to be a great deal in this one."
God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to punish the sexual
immorality
of their inhabitants is one of the most graphic episodes in the
Old
Testament. Genesis says that "the Lord rained upon Sodom and
upon
Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven. And he overthrew those
cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities,
and
that which grew upon the ground".
Many archaeologists and scholars have concluded that the story
was
symbolic, a warning to erring humans of the divine punishment
they
faced for wickedness. But there has been speculation for
centuries that
the cities existed in the region of the Dead Sea. A growing
number of
experts, including Mr Sanders, are now convinced that "the
cities of
the plain" were destroyed by an earthquake, which threw up
flaming
pitch, about 5,000 years ago.
Since the 1960s, archaeologists have discovered mass graves on a
peninsula jutting into the Dead Sea which contain human bones
dating
from the Old Testament period. And sulphur, or brimstone, have
been
found in nearby cliffs, adding to the mystery.
More recently, Mr Sanders unearthed a map dating from 1650 which
reinforced to his belief that the sites of the two cities could
be
under the north basin, rather than on the southern edge of the
Dead
Sea. He recruited Richard Slater, an American geologist and
expert in
deep sea diving, to take him to the depths of the Dead Sea in the
two-man Delta mini-submarine that was involved in the discovery
of the
sunken liner, the Lusitani.
Also part of the expedition, which took place in November, was
Zvi
Ben-Avraham, the director of the Dead Sea Research Centre, who
has
studied the region for decades. Their explorations in November,
which
were filmed for a Channel 4 documentary to be broadcast at 8pm
tomorrow
night, were fraught with difficulties. The 10ft submarine, which
was
flown in from California, had to be weighted down with lead to
counteract the buoyancy of the salty water. Because of
constraints of
time and money, only four dives were undertaken.
To complicate matters further, the Dead Sea is a military zone
with the
border between Israel and Jordan running down the middle of it.
Attempts by researchers to explore the most important site nearly
sparked an international incident because it was partly in
Jordanian
waters, and military authorities ordered the submarine out.
Mr Sanders is in little doubt that the salt-covered mounds, found
over
an area 800 yards square, are man-made structures. He said:
"I have
spoken to geologists and nobody has come up with the suggestion
that
they are natural phenomena. We don't know what else they could be
if
they are not ruins. But we need more conclusive evidence by
chipping
off the salt. That's why we need to go back."
Copyright 2000, The Sunday Telegraph
CONGRATULATIONS ON A FASCINATING STORY. WELL DONE, MIKE!
============================
(2) NEW ORBIT VISUALISATION TOOL ONLINE
From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
A new Orbits section has been added to JPL's Near-Earth Object
home
page. The highlight is a cool visualization tool. It is an
interactive
3D orbit viewer written in Java, and you can view the orbit of
any
asteroid or comet. You can rotate the orbits around and zoom in,
move
around the solar system and "play" the orbits backwards
and forwards
like a movie. It resides right here:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits
You'll have to select an object of interest first, by either
entering
the asteroid/comet's name (wildcards are allowed), or making a
selection from the table of Potentially Hazardous Asteroids
provided.
Ron Baalke
==================
(3) FOLLOW-UP ON PANSPERMIA
From Jon Richfield <jonr@iafrica.com>
Some time ago I contributed an essay critical of panspermia to
the
CCNet list server. The list server's primary subject matter is
Near Earth Objects, however, and its standards of mutual courtesy
demand a higher level of formality than I normally can sustain,
so
the discussion got chopped about there. I got to hear however
that
Brig Klyce of the panspermia.org web site had prepared a
refutation and it seemed to me unfair that he could not have his
say. I accordingly emailed him and invited him to join me in
preparing a common statement on the subject, partly for personal
satisfaction and partly in the hopes of producing a document of
value to people in search of a coherent discussion.
Unfortunately we differed too radically to establish any coherent
common statement. So instead, I have collected effectively the
entire correspondence into an almost undoctored document, zipped
it, and interested persons may email me for a copy. Whether
anyone
will find the document entertaining I cannot predict, but at
least
one correspondent could not see what a panspermist could say in
reply to my original essay and I think that this correspondence
answers that question most emphatically. The main points that
emerge include the tendency of anti-Darwinists to play fast and
loose with the implications of Darwinism (I had taken Darwinism
for granted in the essay, but it seems that not everyone is
equally comfortable with the established philosophy) and some
rickety reasoning with large numbers and their implications for
constraints in biology, physics, cosmology and indeed
information theory.
Jon Richfield
MODERATOR'S NOTE: In response to Jon's CCNet-Essay
"PLAUSIBILITY,
SIGNIFICANCE & THE PANSPERMIA EPIDEMIC"
(http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce020200.html),
I did receive a brief statement by Brig Klyce some while ago. It
included what I considered to be derogatory rhetoric which is not
accepted on CCNet as a matter of principle. However, I asked Brig
to
revise his statement and offered him any space he wanted and an
open
forum on CCNet to make his point. This offer to engage in a
gentlemanly
debate still stands.
======================
(4) IAU GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AUGUST 2000
From Jacqueline Mitton <aco01@dial.pipex.com>
INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION
/UNION ASTRONOMIQUE INTERNATIONALE
XXIVth GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 7 - 18 August 2000
University of Manchester, UK
1st Media Announcement
Date: 22nd March 2000
Press Officer for the Assembly:
Dr Jacqueline Mitton (Royal Astronomical Society Press Officer)
jmitton@dial.pipex.com
Phone: +44 (0)1223 564914
Fax: +44 (0)1223 572892
The 24th General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union
(IAU)
will take place in Manchester, UK, between the 7th and 18th
August
2000. Over 2000 astronomers from all over the world are expected.
Media
representative are cordially invited to attend. Registration is
free
for working media, press officers and public information
officers.
Press room facilities will be available for the main core of the
meeting (afternoon of Tuesday 8th August through to the morning
of
Wednesday 16th August).
Badges will be required for access to the meeting. If possible,
please
register in advance so your badge will be ready. Send Jacqueline
Mitton
(meeting press officer) your name, affiliation, e-mail address
and
phone number. Press registration will also be available at the
meeting.
Accommodation, meal packages, local tours and travel to the
meeting may
be booked through the company managing the administration of the
meeting (WEM). You will be charged at the same rate as meeting
participants. Details of what is available may be found at that
meeting
web site:
http://www.iau-ga2000.org
Please note, however, that attempting to book accommodation etc.
on-line will result in the automatic charging of a registration
fee to
your account. IF YOU WANT TO BOOK ACCOMMODATION ETC., PLEASE
CONTACT
JACQUELINE MITTON ABOUT YOUR REQUIREMENTS. Your request will be
dealt
with individually to ensure that no registration fee is charged.
Meeting programme
The main core of the meeting (9 - 16 August) is organised around
14
Joint Discussions (JD), most lasting for one day. Five longer
Symposia
(4 or 5 days) will also take place during the two-week period 7 -
18
August.
Full details of the programme are on the following web site:
http://www.iau.org/ga24.html
Summary of Joint Discussion topics
JD1 Atomic and molecular data for astrophysics (Weds 9th &
Thurs 10th)
JD2 Models and constants for sub-microarcsecond astrometry (Thurs
10th)
JD3 Massive star birth (Thurs 10th)
JD4 The Transneptunian population (Fri 11th & Sat 12th)
JD5 Mixing and diffusion in stars (Fri 11th)
JD6 Applied historical astronomy (Fri 11th)
JD7 The Sun and space weather (Fri 11th & Sat 12th)
JD8 Oxygen abundances in old stars and implication to
nucleosynthesis and
cosmology (Mon 14th)
JD9 Cold gas and dust at high redshift (Mon 14th)
JD10 (Galaxy) Cluster mergers and their connection to radio
sources (Mon
14th)
JD11 First results from the FUSE mission (Mon 14th)
JD12 Highlights of planetary exploration from space and from
Earth (Tue 15th
& Wed 16th)
JD13 Hipparcos and luminosity calibration of the nearest stars
(Tue 15th)
JD14 The origins of galactic magnetic fields (Tue 16th)
Invited lectures (6 p.m.)
Tue 8th "An accelerating universe? Evidence from
supernovae" Robert P.
Kirshner (Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
Mon 14th "Extrasolar planetary systems" Michael Mayor
(Geneva Observatory)
Tue 15th "The three-dimensional structure of our
Galaxy" Michael Perryman
(ESTEC)
Symposia
S201: (Mon 7th - Fri 11th) New cosmological data and the vales of
the
fundamental parameters
S202: (Mon 7th - Thur 10th) Planetary systems in the universe
S203: (Mon 7th - Fri 11th) Recent insights into the physics of
the Sun and
heliosphere - highlights from SOHO and other space missions
S204: (Tue 15th - Fri 18th) The extragalactic infrared background
and
its cosmological implications
S205: (Tue 15th - Fri 18th) Galaxies and their constituents at
the
highest angular resolutions
Special Session
Mon 14th - Wed 16th Astronomy for developing countries
Education Session
Fri 18th Astronomy research projects for school and university
students
Public lectures (arranged locally, outside official programme),
chaired
by Patrick Moore. 6.30 p.m.
Tue 8th Prof. Sir Martin Rees "The beginning and end of the
universe"
Fri 11th Dr David Hughes "Asteroids and Comets"
Thur 17th Prof. Jocelyn Bell-Burnell "Pulsars"
Fri 18th Dr Jill Tarter "The Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence"
=========================
(5) TRITON'S SURFACE AGE, IMPACTOR POPULATION & THE FLUX OF
EKOs
S.A. Stern*) & W.B. McKinnon: Triton's surface age and
impactor
population revisited in light of Kuiper belt fluxes: Evidence for
small
Kuiper belt objects and recent geological activity. ASTRONOMICAL
JOURNAL, 2000, Vol.119, No.2, pp.945-952
*) SW RES INST,DEPT SPACE STUDIES,1050 WALNUT ST,SUITE
426,BOULDER,CO,80302
Neptune's largest satellite, Triton, is one of the most
fascinating and
enigmatic bodies in the solar system. Among its numerous
interesting
traits, Triton appears to have far fewer craters than would be
expected
if its surface were primordial. Here we combine the best
available
crater count data for Triton with improved estimates of impact
rates by
including the Kuiper belt as a source of impactors. We find that
the
population of impacters creating the smallest observed craters on
Triton must be subkilometer in scale and that this small-impactor
population can be best fitted by a differential power-law size
index
near -3. Such results provide interesting, indirect probes of the
unseen small body population of the Kuiper belt. Based on the
modern,
Kuiper belt and Oort cloud impactor flux estimates, we also
recalculate
estimated ages for several regions of Triton's surface imaged by
Voyager 2, and find that Triton was probably quite geologically
active
on a timescale no greater than 0.1-0.3 Gyr ago (indicating Triton
was
still active after some 90% to 98% of the age of the solar
system), and
perhaps even more recently. This activity must surpass that
explainable
by the surface geysers seen by Voyager 2 by many orders of
magnitude.
The time-averaged volumetric resurfacing rate on Triton implied
by
these results, 0.01. km(3) yr(-1) or more, is likely second only
to Io
and Europa in the outer solar system, and is within an order of
magnitude of estimates for Venus and for the Earth's intraplate
zones.
This finding indicates that Triton likely remains a highly
geologically
active world at present, some 4.5 Gyr after its formation. We
briefly
speculate on how such a situation might obtain. Copyright 2000,
Institute for Scientific Information Inc.
=============
(6) CAN WE REALLY PREDICT TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION?
B. Bowonder*), B. Muralidharan, T. Miyake: Forecasting
technological
change: insights from theories of evolution. INTERDISCIPLINARY
SCIENCE
REVIEWS, 1999, Vol.24, No.4, pp.275-288
*) ADM STAFF COLL INDIA,HYDERABAD 500082,ANDHRA PRADESH,INDIA
This paper applies concepts from the theory of evolution in
nature,
such as adaptation, punctuated equilibrium, purposive selection,
hierarchical selection, and self-organisation, to the analysis of
technological change. Future technological trajectories are
uncertain.
However, it is possible to analyse the structure of technological
trajectories using analogies from evolution. Scanning signals of
change, developing anticipatory intelligence, and continuously
assessing trajectories are the major initiatives or competencies
required for improving our ability to predict future
technological
paths. Copyright 2000, Institute for Scientific Information Inc.
=============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
=============================
(7) TITUS-BODE REVISITED, OR HOW THE DEBRIS CAME ABOUT
From Timo Niroma <timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi>
Dear Benny,
Already as a schoolboy I wondered why the Titius-Bode law worked.
I made my own version of it, and have wondered over 30 years why
it also works.
First I divided the planets into three groups so that each group
consisted of three planets. Then there were the leftovers, that
remained as a loose group, the so called Kuiper belt. The groups
were:
1. The small planets that were born from the heavy debris that
remained near the Sun: Mercury, Venus and the double planet
Earth/Moon.
2. Then main ring consisting of dirty gas, meaning gas with still
some heavy elements: Mars, debris with too small amount of dust
to
coalesce and small sister of sun, Jupiter. Solar wind seems to
have swept the light elements to the end of this ring.
3. The ring of relatively light gas, from which were born
Saturn,
Uranus and Neptune.
The three rings (plus possibly the Kuiper belt) adjusted to their
places avoiding arithmetic resonance, but remaining in a
geometric
resonance to each other.
This also happened inside the rings, when gravity began to
coalesce the material into three rings, which with one exception
then coalesced into planets. The resonance placed the planets
into
the low and high end of the ring plus into the geometrical, not
arithmetical center of it. What is amazing, is that it seems that
the same resonance law that placed the planets into their
positions, reigns also in the nucleus of the atom, where the
average amount of neutrons seems to make the atomic weight (the
average of the reigning isotopes) behave in equal ways as
the
resonance of planets. What happens in small scale seems to obey
same laws on a much grander scale.
Before I introduce my equation, I remark that actually it needs a
factor, let's call it k, with which the atomic weights should be
multiplied. But when we use kilometers as the distance measure of
planets, it is so near to 1, that for clarity's sake I have
omitted it. When using some non-SI measure stick, such as miles,
you need it.
Then let's begin with the first planets. Their distance
corresponds to atomic weight of the element number 2.5*n, where n
is the number of planet from the sun. When the atomic weight is
multiplied by (k*) tens of millions of kilometers, we get the
distance of the planet.
Mercury 58 mil.km /2=helium, 3=litium ->
(4+6.94)/2 = 5.5/ 106%
Venus 108 mil.km
/5=borium
->
10.8/
100%
Earth 150 mil.km /7=nitrogen, 8=oxygen->
(14+16)/2=15.0 / 100%
Now the gap between the two first rings means that we must add
3.5
elements (1 for the preceding group and 2.5 for the distance of
the group) so that Mars does not correspond to element 10 but 11,
and the next series goes 11*n, where Mars gets the number one,
asteroids 2 and Jupiter 3.
Mars 228 mil.
km / 11 = sodium ---> 23.0
/ 99%
asteroids 472 mil. km *) / 22 = titanium ---> 47.9
/ 99%
Jupiter 778 mil.
km / 33 = arsenium ---> 74.9 / 104%
*) Calculated from the densest group avg.
(Binzel-Gehrels-Matthews,
Arizona, 1989)
Now to the third group. Albeit the elements are ending just
before
Uranus, but let's try. Now we need to add for the gap 26.5
elements (2 for the groups, and 2.5 and 2*11 for the distances of
the groups), so that Saturn equals element 59.5 instead of 44
(2+2.5+11). The series goes then 59.5*n, where Saturn is 1,
Uranus
2 and Neptune 3.
Saturn 1427 mil.km / 59=praseodyme,
60=neodyme ->(140..91+144.24)/2=142.6 /
100%
Uranus 2871 mil.km / 119 ---> 295
*)
/ 97%
Neptune 4497 mil.km / 178.5 ---> c. 460
**)
/c.98%
*) extrapolated from elements 116 and 118
**) estimate based on the known part of the element table
Questions arise, how and why. The fit is however so good, that it
somehow cries for an explanation. And without it, it would give
some hints, how our solar system got started. And also how the
average number of neutrons in atoms get their number.
But now I cast this problem, that has bothered me for 30 years,
for
anyone to wonder.
Timo Niroma
=================
(8) THE BRIGHTNESS OF IEOOs
From Jeremy Tatum <UNIVERSE@uvvm.UVic.CA>
While it is true that an IEOO at a large phase angle is a narrow
crescent and therefore faint on that account, it is also true
that at
large phase angles it is close to us and therefore larger in
angular
size and therefore bright on that account. With Mercury,
the phase is
the more important factor, while with Venus the distance is more
important, which is why Mercury is brightest when gibbous and
Venus is
brightest when a crescent. If the brightness of a spherical IEOO
is
proportional to its visible illuminated area, and its orbit is
circular, it will be brightest when gibbous, or at dichotomy
(greatest
elongation), or a crescent depending on whether the radius of its
orbit
is less than, equal to or greater than 0.447213596 A.U.
Jeremy Tatum
==============
(9) AGE OF THE EARTH
From Leroy Ellenberger <c.leroy@rocketmail.com>
Bob, [Bob Johnson]
Contrary to your remark in CCNet [03/24/00] about geologists
having considered
Earth's age to be x*10**6 years within the past 50 years, its age
has
been taken to be at least 10**9 yrs since the 1940s, if memory
serves.
At any rate, you might wish to check out Brent Dalrymple's
mid-'90s
book on the age of the Earth for details of this saga. The
4.5*10**9
year age is based on U-Pb radiometric dating which is concordant
with
ages derived from other radiometric systems.
Cheers,
Leroy Ellenberger
==============
(10) AND FINALLY: PUNCTURES IN SHIPS AND SPACE SHIPS
From Malcolm Miller <stellar2@actonline.com.au>
Dear Benny,
How often do we have to re-invent the wheel? Why do we forget old
and
well-developed technologies that are relevant to new
activities? I was
moved to these views by the report in CCNet today 'MARSHALL
ENGINEERS
DEVELOP METEOROID REPAIT KIT'.
Critical punctures in hull skinning were well known in Napoleonic
times. The solid iron cannon balls of the day, striking
wooden ships
below the waterline, made holes which had to be plugged promptly
if the
ship was to stay afloat.
Last time this occurred to me was when Mir suffered punctures -
and
they couldn't be found and plugged after a number of
spacewalks! This
seemed ridiculous. But the reason is made clear in the
Marshall
report:
"A hole as small as 1 inch in
diameter in a vehicle the size of
the Space Station could bleed off enough
air in just one hour to
put the crew at risk. That doesn't give
them much time to locate
the damage and seal the leak from inside
the station -- especially
when bulky equipment and experiment
racks may block access to many
of its interior walls."
What kind of engineering design is this? In wooden ships the
hazard was
well understood. All around the critical area of the hull
was a
walkway, known as the 'carpenter's walk', giving access to the
most
vulnerable part of the vessel. It was not just the custom,
but the law
of the sea, that no obstruction, in the shape of cargo, stores or
equipment, could be installed or stowed in a way to obstruct this
essential repair zone.
I rest my case!
Malcolm Miller
----------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
----------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use only. The attached information may not be copied
or
reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the
copyright holders. The fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from
February 1997 on, can be found at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html