Rob wrote:
Well, first I dont trust LOGIC, specially when it is based on statistical data.This is my last attempt to appeal to your sense of mathematical reality. ...> message bellow
Logic is the tool of mind, and mind can be handicaped; because it looks (and think it over) through the narrow windows of senses.
One should better trust his heart that sums up all the data and reach a conclusion in not time.
If you know Arabic I would send you a copy of my book "the journey of the heart", (http://www.alifyaa.com/dkai/book.asp?bn=2199) to tell you more on why and how to use your heart as a more sperior tool.
But let me come back to your mathmetical SICK logic:
It is sick simply because you missed out a very important point and that is the distribution of Lunars over regions.
You know that when a large meteor hit the Moon it caused millions of tons of ejectea to flee from the Moon gravity to be seized by the earth.
And though most of the material will burn in the atmosphere but some of it will reach the Earth. This small portion that reach the earth will not be distributed hymogensouly.
You can find this out by calculating the number of Lunars found per region. If you do that you will find as you already know that almost 50% of Lunars were found in Oman. At the same time very few non-Lunars are from Oman.
I will leave the numbers for you, but the difference is quite clear.
Now loggically this means that if you find a meteorite in Oman, the probability of its being a Lunar is NOT (total number of lunars/total number of meteortes) but it is: (total number of lunars found in Oman/total number of meteortes found in Oman).
If you do the calculation you will find that there is a great chance that what I found are Lunars.
In any case I dont really care about those statistics. What motivates me is my own conclusion that is based on solid visual evidence.
If there is 99% possibility that I what I am showing are meteorites you still have the right to say there are not, but on the other hand; if there is 1% possibility that they are I also have the right to keep investigating.
I am not an idiot as you may think that I am spending my holiday every year in addition to lots of efforts and money if I dont have good reasons for that.
My hope was not based on the replies I got from this list though some of them were encouraging. But my hope was based first on my moderate experience so far in addition to what the people who have tested most of the known Lunars said: "This is an intriguing rock. I cannot say that it is not a lunar meteorite.
I will not give up because of some discouraging replies from some members of this list or because of your sick mathematical logic. With all my respect to the useful and kind advice of others.
Sincerely
Mohamed H. Yousef
----------------------------------------------
From: "Matson, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'M Yousef' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Enough with the moon and Mars rocks...
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:50:05 -0800
Mohamed,
This is my last attempt to appeal to your sense of mathematical
reality. You wrote:
> No, this rock in particular is not magnetic at all. I have another
> suspected lunar breccia (http://www.alifyaa.com/meteorite/ln3/) where
> the bulk is very little magnetic but not the clasts.
> ... I thank all those who replied, this seem the first find that
> gave me some hope, let us wait and see the results of tests.
I want you to consider the comparative numbers of lunar and Martian
meteorites that have been found vs. all other types combined. I'm
not sure what the most up-to-date statistics are, but somewhere in the
ballpark of 1 in 500 meteorites is lunar or Martian. It is extremely
unrealistic to assume that your very first meteorite find will be
of this type. You would need to find roughly 346 meteorites before
you'd have even a 50-50 chance that one of them was either lunar or
Martian.
This doesn't even factor in the comparitive difficulty of recognizing
a lunar or Martian rock vs. recognizing a chondrite. Chondrites
without fusion crusts can still be recognized fairly easily in most
cases; not so lunars and Martians. Given that you haven't found a
single chondrite yet, it is presumptious in the extreme to think that
you have magically acquired the skills necessary to find something
far far rarer.
Show me a chondrite. Until you do, it is ridiculous to mention
achondrites.
--Rob
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
