Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

A Little Piece of Mercury on Earth? 39

Posted by timothy from the not-just-in-thermometers dept.
jonerik writes "While the discovery of meteorites believed to have originated on Mars is almost commonplace these days, the BBC is reporting the discovery of what is believed to be the first known chunk of the planet Mercury found on the Earth. The rock - actually discovered in 1999 and dubbed NWA 011 - has certain characteristics which lead experts to believe that it came from a body larger than an asteroid, and specifically from a planet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Little Piece of Mercury on Earth? More

A Little Piece of Mercury on Earth?

Comments Filter:
  • Like here [slashdot.org] for example?

  • First repeat (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 )
    here [slashdot.org]
  • "Deja Vu -- that sense that you've seen the same thing before."

  • Quoting Monty Python... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NetRanger ( 5584 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @09:54AM (#3550591) Homepage
    "Deja Vu -- that sense that you've seen the same thing before."

    :-) :-) :-) :-)
  • but did they have to name it after an 80's rap group?

  • Does anyone else distrust the basis of such claims (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ashurbanipal ( 578639 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:13AM (#3550743)
    Oooh, this chunk of rock came from Mars! This one's from Mercury! Hey, this one's from the planet KRYPTON! (is it green or red I wonder?)

    All this stuff seems to be based on what Frazer called "the magical laws of similarity and contagion" rather than real science. I tried to link Frazer's magnum opus The Golden Bough here but /. wouldn't take the huge bn.com link.

    It's a logical fallacy to assume that object A was once a part of object B simply because they share the same composition; in fact it's a bad idea to blindly assume object A came from B even if A is identical to an object you know came from object B!

    Pseudo-scientific psychobabble by fuzzy thinkers in search of grant money? Or just bad reporting?

    • It's a logical fallacy to assume that object A was once a part of object B simply because they share the same composition; in fact it's a bad idea to blindly assume object A came from B even if A is identical to an object you know came from object B!

      You have a point, but the so-called Martian meteorites have been subject to a series of tests that make their origin all but certain. Their radio-date conforms to the cratering dates on Mars, their composition is in-line with Martian rocks analysed by landers, and most remarkably, gas bubbles in the rock have the same inert gas composition as readings taken by Viking.

      Again the lunar meteorites have the same unique ratios of rare-Earth elements as known lunar samples.

      These meteorites all come from places that have been subject to considerable geological processing - which is not the case for the vast majority of meteorites. Geological processing implies that the planets were hot and active for a long period of time, which implies large bodies. And there aren't many candidates.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

      • I'd still be more inclined to trust a scientist that said "these meteorites are -believed- to be from such and such a place" or "evidence -points to- such and such an origin for this rock".

        It's sort of like referring to someone accused of a crime as a "suspect" rather than a "criminal" - the distinction is very important for clear thinking.

        As you say, the origin is "all but certain" - which is fundamentally different from "known" in a logical, scientific sense.

        Incidentally, I noted your use of the phrase "so-called" which delineates you quite nicely from those I've been mocking. Keep up the good work; I'd mod your post up if I had any points!
    • Down mod this poster. It is the same post that is earning Karma in this article [slashdot.org].

      Oh wait a minute. The stories are the same ...

      No thanks for being consistent :-)

  • It Aint Out there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JetScootr ( 319545 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:30AM (#3550883) Journal
    Hopefully, by the repetitious reporting of finding a chunk of this planet or that comet, people on Earth will slowly come to this realization: Outer space ain't out there. We're in the middle of it, thinly shielded by air. We're in the midst of a game of cosmic whack-a-mole in a dangerously radioactive arena.
    If we're going to survive, long term, we'd better learn to live in the environment surrounding us - not just Earth, but the solar system. We'd better learn how to duck - sooner or later, the chunk is going to be life-changing in size (http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/index.html) Soonest likely that we know of now is 2880 AD. We've only scanned a few percent of the sky looking out for this.
    We're even threatened by the Sun that gives us power (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020516.html). Don't think it's safe just cuz we haven't seen a big whack in recent history - people used to think that about Vesuvius and Karakatoa.

    • Seems to me it would make a lot more sense for distributed computing efforts like SETI to be looking for such "extinction" objects, rather than the Little Green Men.
      • Seems to me it would make a lot more sense for distributed computing efforts like SETI to be looking for such "extinction" objects, rather than the Little Green Men.

        Sounds like a great idea, but I would think that finding patterns in the noise from space is "easier" than finding meteorites, mathematically speaking. What I mean is, I assume it's easier to convert those signals into a multitude of small chunks for the PCs to analyze, than it is to convert space images into something that a regular PC could analyze.

        I could be wrong, of course, but I think this kind of research requires bigger and better equipment, not distributed calculations.
  • if you're going to post something, make sure it it's more than THREE POSTS DOWN FROM YOU!!!
  • Click me! [slashdot.org]

    "Have you checked out /. today?"

    "Yes, but it seems the editors haven't."
  • OK, this is going to be deep, so read slowly and try to really get what I'm saying:

    Nothing: the absence of "ever"

    It doesn't matter if humans blip out of existence.

  • Like right
    HERE [slashdot.org]! Or am I just crazy? (don't answer that!)
  • I'm tempted to submit this story and see if it gets posted a third time.

    Why not just make a dedicated section, i.e., http://mercury.slashdot.org and keep posting this story all day to that vhost. For those that missed it the first time (and presumably, the second, third, and fourth times).

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close