[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 20 00:04:34 2006
Message-ID: <008a01c61d7f$0b0a14e0$6401a8c0_at_c1720188a>

I agree with what Mike had to say about not using the term Main Mass to
describe a pairing of smaller size, it seems too misleading to me. Scientist
have made a good effort with the pairing issues. One just has to look at
the following sites to see this is so:

http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/meteorites/moon_meteorites_list.html

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/

Not only that, pairings are mentioned in abstracts because most scientists
use this information and believe it is valid data. I think a better term
must be available, mainly in the interest of collectors. I would never claim
to have 42 planetary main masses even though I may have the same number of
nomenclature assignments. To do so would be fraudulent in my opinion.

Take Care,

Adam



----- Original Message -----
From: <MexicoDoug_at_aol.com>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Term Main Mass


> Hola Adam, Mike, Dean, Bob, and anyone else on this subject,
>
> You guys are all to be commended on your roles in the recovery of these
> specimens. The real question I see is not how many main masses you
have -but
> whether you have any main masses at all- from these dense localities:
The
> system is quite arbitrary no matter how you attribute subjective/random
pairings.
> This shouldn't have any negative connotation associated with it. I
posted
> something similar to this about a year or two ago in this forum.
>
> You all definitely have a lot of the world's biggest pieces in your
> possessions, none of you massive dealers needs any bragging rights from a
viewpoint
> down here in the trenches, its not as if these were Nobel prizes, nor is
it
> comparable in 99% of the cases to Steve Arnold's gig. This is unarguably
an
> artificially manufactured situation in the dense collection areas.
Besides
> Adam's, Mike's response was pretty straightforward, too, and Dean's logic
very
> intelligent as well, as well as the rest...it really sounds much less
> scientific and more like discussion among competing cereal companies on
who can label
> the food as "Heart Healthy" and who can't. I'd go retro and just ask
> "Where's the Beef?" while we watch y'all in this potentially high-steaks
and
> breadwinning issue.
>
> So as long as we understand this is more of a Cola Wars' type question
than
> a meaningful scientific question, it's interesting to hear all these
> arguments and occasionally add a peep or two in the shadow of the giants.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but we've seen this discussion in many presentations
> before. That's great, as long as everyone agrees that this is a
commercial and not
> a scientific issue. It actually looks like you all do, in my (very)
humble
> perception...Saludos, Doug
>
> PS a known pairing series can be open to interpretation, and are not
> exhaustive analyses, right? The science doesn't feel the need to address
this
> issue, as far as I gather...
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/19/2006 10:57:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> raremeteorites_at_comcast.net writes:
> If I followed this logic, I would have 48 planetary "Main Masses." Yeah
for
> me! In reality, we have less than a dozen as far as I am concerned. I
will
> stick to the what I believe are the rules, the largest piece in a known
> pairing series is the only Main Mass.
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 20 Jan 2006 12:04:49 AM PST