.....In any case I dont really care about those statistics. What motivates me is my own conclusion.....
That pretty much sums it up Mohamed. -- Rob Wesel > Rob wrote: > >This is my last attempt to appeal to your sense of mathematical > >reality. ...> message bellow > > Well, first I dont trust LOGIC, specially when it is based on statistical > data. > 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 ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
