PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 51/2001 - 3 April 2001
----------------------------
(1) TAGISH LAKE METEORITE DATES BACK TO ORIGINS OF SOLAR SYSTEM
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(2) NEW OBSERVATIONS ELIMINATE COLLISION PROBABILITIES FOR
ASTEROID 1998 OX4
Spaceguard Central Node
(3) SOHO RECORDS A GIANT FLARE ON THE SUN
European Space Agency, 3 April 2001 <sciweb@estec.esa.nl>
(4) TUNGUSKA AS AN ANTI-MATTER OR MINI-BLACK HOLE
Duncan Steel <D.I.Steel@salford.ac.uk>
(5) NEO TELESCOPES ARE NO INSURANCE BUT CAN REDUCE RISK
Oliver Morton <abq72@pop.dial.pipex.com>
(6) WHO OWNS EROS?
Gregory Nemitz <gnemitz@orbdev.com>
(7) SANDIA PAPER ON IMPACTS AND FLOOD BASALTS
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
(8) OCKHAM'S RAZOR
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
(9) FLAT EARTH
Henry Zee <hzee@nyc.rr.com>
(10) FRAGMENTS FROM THE SKY
Colin Keay <myrcol@hunterlink.net.au>
(11) EFFECTIVE STABILITY OF THE TROJAN ASTEROIDS
Skokos C, Dokoumetzidis A
(12) MULTIPLE CAUSES & COINCIDENCES IN THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD
Tsujita CJ
===========
(1) TAGISH LAKE METEORITE DATES BACK TO ORIGINS OF SOLAR SYSTEM
From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/010402/5019000.html
Yukon meteorite dates back to origins of the solar system
Tom Spears
The Ottawa Citizen (Canada)
April 2, 2001
The 200-tonne meteor that blew up over the Yukon last year is
turning out to
be older than any other known meteorite, older than our planet,
probably the
oldest matter ever to come to Earth.
Chunks of space rock pulled from a lake on the Yukon-British
Columbia border
probably formed as other planets did, condensing from the giant
cloud of gas
that swirled around our sun as it first came into existence.
The clumps of grey-black matter may also be the oldest meteorite
ever
discovered, older than Earth, and therefore our best look at the
raw
materials from which our solar system was built.
Full story here:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/010402/5019000.html
=========
(2) NEW OBSERVATIONS ELIMINATE COLLISION PROBABILITIES FOR
ASTEROID 1998 OX4
From Spaceguard Central Node
http://spaceguard.ias.rm.cnr.it/SSystem/NEOCS/1998ox4.html
1998 OX4: no impact in 2012, 2014, 2017, 2022 and 2023
At the end of January 2001, following an excellent visibility
opportunity,
some of the virtual impactors of 1998 OX4, currently the biggest
known NEA
with remote collision probabilities, were removed. This is the
result of a
dedicated observing campaign and of general data analysis from
two NEO
survey programs, conducted by the Spaceguard Central Node.
These two observing efforts for virtual impactors, respectively
denominated
2014 VI- 1998 OX4 and 2012-2014-2017-2022-2023 VIs, led to the
conclusion
that 1998 OX4 is not going to impact the Earth on either of the
following
years: 2012, 2014, 2017, 2022 and 2023.
========
(3) SOHO RECORDS A GIANT FLARE ON THE SUN
From European Space Agency, 3 April 2001 <sciweb@estec.esa.nl>
Last night at 23:51 Central European Time (21:51 UT, 2 April) the
Sun
unleashed a major solar flare near its northwestern (upper
right-hand) side
and the event was well observed by the ESA-NASA SOHO spacecraft.
It was
classified as an X17 flare, probably the strongest flare since 16
August 1989 when an X20 flare occurred. It was slightly more
powerful than
the famous 6 March 1989 flare which was related to the disruption
of the
power grids in Canada. The latest event hurled a coronal mass
ejection into
space - but apparently not towards the Earth, so the impacts will
probably
be less severe.
More at: http://sci.esa.int/content/news/index.cfm?aid=1&cid=1&oid=26703
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(4) TUNGUSKA AS AN ANTI-MATTER OR MINI-BLACK HOLE
From Duncan Steel <D.I.Steel@salford.ac.uk>
Dear Benny,
I seem to recall that amongst the recent postings was one
concerning the
possibility that the Tunguska object was actually a small mass of
anti-matter. Thus I point out the following paper to readers:
Cowan C., Atluri C.R., Libby W.F. Possible anti-matter content of
the
Tunguska meteor of 1908. Nature, 1965, v.206, N4987, p.861-865.
There was also a paper in Nature in 1973 in which it was
suggested that
Tunguska was caused by a mini-black hole. Al Jackson just
reminded me of the
above; he was one of the authors of the 1973 paper.
Duncan Steel
=======
(5) NEO TELESCOPES ARE NO INSURANCE BUT CAN REDUCE RISK
From Oliver Morton <abq72@pop.dial.pipex.com>
At 10:47 am +0100 28/3/01, Andy Smith <astrosafe@yahoo.com>
wrote:
DARK MATTER TELESCOPE (DMT)
>One of these [an LSST-style survey telescope] would be like
buying
>an asteroid/comet impact insurance policy for the human race.
We
>would be buying about 300 years of impact protection for
about $100
>million or so and finding RAMA and friends, in a decade
rather than
>3 centuries.
Regardless of the merits of the case, it doesn't sound like an
isurance
policy to me. Surely investments like this should be seen as (and
sold as)
exercises in risk reduction, rather than in insurance. The LSST
reduces the
risk of being hit by an undiscovered NEO by a certain
factor.
What it doesn't do is pay us back if we get hit, (which is what
most people
understand by insurance) or stop us getting hit (which is what
seems to be
implied). To stop us getting hit, LSST has to find something and
we then
have to push it off course, which takes a lot more than $100m.
In short, such investments cannot buy safety *if there is a
currently
unrecognised impact danger*. They can buy the piece of mind that
comes from
knowing that the chances of such danger are smaller than they
used to be.
best, o
=============
(6) WHO OWNS EROS?
From Gregory Nemitz <gnemitz@orbdev.com>
Dear Dr. Peiser,
Thank you for continuing to publish the discussion between Mr.
Nimmo and
myself on Cambridge Conference Net. Mr. Nimmo raises some
interesting points
that are common misconceptions of the present state of the law as
it relates
to un-owned things.
When an un-owned thing is claimed, it belongs to the claimant.
This has been
true since before the beginning of any civilization. Precedent is
the very
heart of Law, regardless of what country is involved. To say that
precedents
are irrelevant simply because there are diverse international
considerations
is disingenuous.
The resources in space are un-owned, unless they have been
claimed. Mr.
Nimmo has asserted that the Moon Treaty of 1979 and the Outer
Space Treaty
of 1967 has rightfully claimed all the resources in the Solar
System and the
Universe, for those parties that have signed those Treaties.
There is some question as to the encompassing validity of both
Treaties'
prohibition of appropriation for non-signatories. The Treaties
claim to have
a legal right to deny the establishment of claims. These can be
viewed as
claims for the entire Universe, and are claims made by some
governments to
prevent other governments, from making claims. These are circular
arguments, and as such may be considered invalid by any
individuals and
countries that have not signed the Treaty. I did not sign the
Outer Space
Treaty of 1967, or the Moon Treaty of 1979. In either treaty, no
mention is
made of claims by an individual.
Mr. Nimmo's letter includes an assumption that: "If Orbital
Development or
its principals are U.S. nationals, this treaty provision would
seem to
preclude any claim to own Eros."
Since the treaty does not pertain to individual claims, I believe
that it is
an invalid postulate that a national appropriation, as described
in the
treaty, is inherent to an individual claim, especially a claim
that
specifically excludes such a connection.
My claim's full intention is presented here for consideration:
Complete Control in "fee simple" or "outright
ownership, free & clear"
specifically not instituted on behalf of any Nation and regard it
as real
personal property owned by Gregory W. Nemitz, a Natural Person.
Mr. Nimmo's letter cites the Article II of the Outer Space Treaty
of 1967,
to which the United States is a party, which states: "Outer
space, including
the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or
occupation, or by
any other means." 610 U.N.T.S. 205, 18 U.S.T. 2410.
A Natural Person appropriated the claim for 433 Eros, myself. The
claim was
specifically not instituted on behalf of any nation. His citation
above does
not address this situation of personal claims by appropriation;
it solely
addresses national appropriations.
As an rebuttal to his conjecture on one point, a point which many
others
seem to indulge in faulty logic, I will cite the Moon Treaty,
which Mr.
Nimmo has so kindly provided:
"Article 1
1. The provisions of this Agreement relating to the moon shall
also apply to
other celestial bodies within the solar system, other than the
earth, except
in so far as specific legal norms enter into force with respect
to any of
these celestial bodies.
Specific legal norms do exist that allow the individual
appropriation of
un-owned things. A claim by a natural person, that person's
pursuit of
ownership of the thing, and the infusion of work-equity into the
thing, are
all are specific legal norms for the recognition of property
rights. By the
Moon Treaty, my claim for 433 Eros can be acknowledged as valid,
through
exclusion by exception in the very first paragraph of the Treaty.
I can agree with Mr. Nimmo's final statement, "What we need
to do is to get
both the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty replaced by a new
and more
sensible one that we can all agree on."
I hope that my own efforts in establishing recognition for my
property right
to 433 Eros will be an instigation to the governments and they
will then
address this very serious shortcoming in present Space Law. It
seems that
almost everyone, who is concerned with this issue today, agrees
of the need
to change these Treaties. However, delay of recognition of my
rights to 433
Eros until a new regime is agreed upon would be an unethical
delay of
justice by the government.
Mr. Nimmo implies that what I have done by making my claim, is
somehow
unethical. I have made a rightful claim. I am engaged in a
pursuit to
perfect that claim. I have infused my work-equity and the work of
others
into the claim. In addition, I have personally appropriated the
work-equity
of the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft into my claim, which was a
work-equity that
was abandoned by the US government and NASA, and thus was
available for
appropriation.
Since no higher right to the property can be brought forward
without an
extremely expensive project to recover materials and/or take
physical
possession, the full equity of 433 Eros, which is included in my
rightful
claims, should be recognized by the governments as vested in my
claim.
With such recognition in place, I will continue the pursuit of
perfecting my
current property rights by mounting a manned mission to 433 Eros,
which will
take physical possession of the asteroid and begin its
development.
The recognition will set an excellent precedent for future
private projects
in space. It will concretely demonstrate that at some point along
the way to
perfecting the property right, the equity of the property is
recognized as
owned by the party with the highest existing right, during the
pursuit of
perfecting the claim.
I have claimed no thing that is outside of realm of Law when
examined by the
standard of a "Reasonable Man".
Best Regards,
Gregory Nemitz
Orbital Development
Eros Project
Ad Astra via Eros
http://www.orbdev.com/erosproj.html
=========
(7) SANDIA PAPER ON IMPACTS AND FLOOD BASALTS
From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny,
Mark Boslough from Sandia National Labs has sent me a paper copy
of his
paper 'Axial focusing of impact energy in the Earth's interior: a
possible
link to flood basalts and hotspots' published by Geological
Society of
America in Special Paper 307, 1996 'The Cretacaceous Tertiary
event and
other catastrophes in the Earth's history' ed Ryder and others.
The paper has an excellent illustration of seismic waves
focussing at the
antipodal point to the Chicxulub impact (between Australia and
Africa).
Recall I raised this effect in my space.com article at
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/asteroid_paine_october.html
except the arrival time of the seismic waves is about 1 hour
instead of 3.
Mark and coauthors argue that "An economy of assumptions
(Occam's Razor)
would suggest that all episodes of flood basalt volcanism have
the same
cause. This logically must lead to the prediction of impact
structures in
coaxial association (either antipodal or collocated) with all
hotspots and flood basalt provinces at the time of their
formation".
No doubt many geologists would challenge this assumption but it
is
recommended reading!
regards
Michael Paine
========
(8) OCKHAM'S RAZOR
From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny (bugs fixed)
Ockham's razor has been mentioned a few times recently. Here is
the
Britannica entry:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=58133&tocid=0
..also spelled Occam's razor, also called law of economy, or law
of
parsimony, principle stated by William of Ockham (1285-1347/49),
a
scholastic, that Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate;
"Plurality
should not be posited without necessity." The principle
gives precedence to
simplicity; of two competing theories, the simplest explanation
of an entity
is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed
"Entities are not to be
multiplied beyond necessity."
The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durand de
Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of
dubious
orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the
apprehension of
some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an
active
intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as
unnecessary.
Likewise, in science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French
physicist,
invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending
the simplest
hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar
simplifying
laws and principles.
Ockham, however, mentioned the principle so frequently and
employed it so
sharply that it was called "Ockham's razor." He used
it, for instance, to
dispense with relations, which he held to be nothing distinct
from their
foundation in things; with efficient causality, which he tended
to view
merely as regular succession; with motion, which is merely the
reappearance
of a thing in a different place; with psychological powers
distinct for each
mode of sense; and with the presence of ideas in the mind of the
Creator,
which are merely the creatures themselves.
regards
Michael Paine
=============
(9) FLAT EARTH
From: Henry Zee <hzee@nyc.rr.com>
Dear Dr. Peiser,
Jon Giorgini's essay, "Modern Origins of Flat Earth
Theory" seems to have
missed the relevant section of St. Augustine's City of God. In
the chapter
"Whether we are to believe in the Antipodes" (Book XVI,
Chap. 9, Modern
Library p.532) St. Augustine writes "... the fable that
there are
Antipodes... where the sun rises when it sets to us... is on no
grounds
credible."
St. Augustine disparages the existence of Antipodes since the
theory has not
"been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific
conjecture, on the
ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the
sky, and that
it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other."
St. Augustine clearly states where true knowledge is found.
"For Scripture,
which proves the truth of its historical statements by the
accomplishment of
its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd
to say that
some men might have taken ship and traversed the wholewide ocean,
and
crossed from this side of the world to the other..."
Mr. Giorgini notes "St. Augustine (400's) observed the
Bible gives no
description on the shape of the earth," but he misconstrues
St. Augustine's
intention. Since the Bible does not inform us that the Earth is
spherical,
St. Augustine argues the Earth cannot be a sphere.
St. Augustine does not state here that the Earth is flat. Still,
St.
Augustine's hierarchy of authority should not be overlooked. Even
in the
physical realm, St. Augustine contends the Scriptures are
superior to
science. Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th and 19th century were
not far
off the mark in stigmatizing Scripture-based scientists as
"flat-earthers."
Henry R. Stone
=============
(10) FRAGMENTS FROM THE SKY
From Colin Keay <myrcol@hunterlink.net.au>
Hello Benny:
One mystery solved.
Today I travelled to Glen Oak, 50k north of Newcastle, where the
jet-black
fragment described in my last communication landed.
There was the chimney of a slow combustion heater nearby. I took
off the
hood and found some crustaceous material identical to the sample
I had been
given. I was told that the stove was fueled by ironbark hardwood
from
surrounding forests, so I presume the volatiles given off must
have bonded
the smoke particles together to form the very low density
material.
The noise on the thin iron roof must have been a few heavy drops
of rain. As
for the light seen just prior to the sounds it's anybody's guess.
The time
of fall coinciding with passage under the orbital plane of Mir
was purely
coincidental.
So sorry about the false alarm. I wish all of our solutions
were as
unequivocal.
Cheers
Colin Keay
============
(11) EFFECTIVE STABILITY OF THE TROJAN ASTEROIDS
Skokos C, Dokoumetzidis A: Effective stability of the Trojan
asteroids
ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS 367: (2) 729-736 FEB 2001
We study the spatial circular restricted problem of three bodies
in the
light of Nekhoroshev theory of stability over large time
intervals. We
consider in particular the Sun-Jupiter model and the Trojan
asteroids in the
neighborhood of the Lagrangian point Lq. We find a region of
effective
stability around the point Lq such that if the initial point of
an orbit is
inside this region the orbit is confined in a slightly larger
neighborhood
of the equilibrium (in phase space) for a very long time
interval. By
combining analytical methods and numerical approximations we are
able to
prove that stability over the age of the universe is guaranteed
on a
realistic legion, big enough to include one real asteroid. By
comparing this
result with the one obtained for the planar problem we see that
the regions
of stability in the two cases are of the same magnitude.
Addresses:
Skokos C, Acad Athens, Res Ctr Astron, 14 Anagnostopoulou Str,
Athens 10673,
Greece.
Acad Athens, Res Ctr Astron, Athens 10673, Greece.
Univ Athens, Sch Pharm, Athens 15771, Greece.
Copyright © 2001 Institute for Scientific Information
===============
(12) MULTIPLE CAUSES & COINCIDENCES IN THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD
Tsujita CJ: The significance of multiple causes and coincidence
in the
geological record: from clam clusters to Cretaceous catastrophe.
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES 38: (2) 271-292 FEB 2001
Specific causes of unusual events recorded in the geological
record are
commonly difficult to distinguish and isolate; in some instances,
event
strata contain features that cannot be explained by a single
causal
mechanism. Unicausal hypotheses, when applied to complex
problems, can lead
to the misidentification, misinterpretation, and force-fitting of
observations ("great expectations syndrome"). The close
timing or temporal
overlap of significant events, although statistically improbable
on short
time scales, becomes possible on long time scales. Event
coincidence may
occur on a wide range of scales, from local to global. On the
local scale, a
multiple-event interpretation is offered for both the
concentration and
clustering of bivalves at specific levels within the Upper
Cretaceous
Bearpaw Formation of southern Alberta. For this example, the
relative timing
of fluctuations in benthic substrate texture, oxygen
concentration,
abundance of planktotrophic larvae, and degree of sea-floor
scouring was
crucial to the formation and preservation of shell
concentrations. On the
sharply contrasted global scale, the implications of multiple
events warrant
much closer consideration than they have received hitherto in
terms of major
proposed causes for the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) mass-extinction
event:
bolide impact, sea-level change, climatic change, and
flood-basalt
volcanism. By considering the predictable effects of these
synchronous
factors, both individually and in combination, a multiple-cause
explanation
of the K-T mass extinction emerges as entirely plausible.
Certainly it needs
to be considered in all future investigations of this important
issue.
Addresses:
Tsujita CJ, Univ Western Ontario, Dept Earth Sci, London, ON N6A
5B7,
Canada.
Univ Western Ontario, Dept Earth Sci, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada.
Copyright © 2001 Institute for Scientific Information
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles
and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily reflect the
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this
network.