Library Fire

Library_Fire_4

Update: I have now re-uploaded another half dozen publications to recent posts. Slowly but surely…

A disaster befell our favorite blog late this summer and for weeks I have cowered under my digital bed, pained and confused about what is to be done. While still tender, I have summoned the courage to speak of it now, will try to characterize the forward challenge, and perhaps gain some assistance from readers in plotting a course home — walking as I must.

The entire “Scribd” library of publications embedded in over 350 posts by the Cosmic Tusk has been lost. On the basis of copyright infringement the Scribd service summarily canceled my account without the opportunity to retrieve my uploads or otherwise mirror the files to my own computer. The PDF’s embedded in hundreds of posts, as commenters have noted, are all now dead ends.

I have struggled to re-embed one lonely PDF — the most recent one — in a previous post regarding Napier and Wickramasinghe. Only 300 or so uploads to go.

I am tentatively committed to working myself back through the Tusk, determining along the way what documents were originally posted to Scribd (no easy task), obtaining the paper from my own or others’ files, and reposting the PDF text to a server with no intermediary service — all while keeping a reliable copy on my own machine in case such a catastrophe should occur once more.

Woe, oh, woe. All is lost and in ashes.

 

  • Steve Garcia

    Oops! Brain fart…

    “One can suppose that the vertical shape of the shore will vary it, and that that value might be up to 45kph or so or as little as 30kph or so in some cases.”

    should read

    “One can suppose that the vertical shape of the shore will vary it, and that that value might be up to 45X or so or as little as 30X or so in some cases.”

  • The average tsunami run up ratio is a measured thing, not an estimate, or theory. It does vary a bit though according to the slope of the bottom as the wave moves onto the continental shelf. And the wave height can also be locally amplified as it comes ashore by topography such as bays, or inlets that might funnel it into a river channel.

    The important point to keep here is that the article was written by a science communication graduate student at UC Santa Cruz named Lisa Potter. She’s just a wanna be science writer, not a scientist. And she is not one of the co authors of the study she wrote about. She probably did the article for a grade in a journalism class. I’d give it a resounding fail because a high school senior could do better.

    As she clearly has no clue about the science she’s writing on. And I’m thinkin’ that the field of impact science is one she should leave for others to report on altogether. As to her poorly vetted Op Ed piece on AGU’s Blogosphere, I’m afraid it would be better suited to a cheap tabloid than AGU.

    Her numbers do make a little bit of sense though when you recognize that at 1 to 3 hours after impact she’s talking about remaining wave energy as the wave is headed out across the Atlantic. And not the wave energy that would’ve come ashore in Maryland in just a few short minutes while the people of Maryland were still reeling from being just outside the 100% lethal zone of a blast wave from a big bad, many hundreds of megatons KaBOOOM more powerful than anything ever witnessed by man. There might be time to warn the rest of the Atlantic basin before the impact tsunami arrives. But the Maryland coast would be done for.

  • The scary part here is that we are talking about the impact of something that should be a fairly common size of object.

    And any ocean impact will produce an impact tsunami

  • Steve Garcia

    Dennis –

    I cannot imagine how AGU is having unqualified people write articles being presented to the general public. And then for them to not run it past an editor and a fact-checking department does NOT give me ANY confidence in their process or management. Seriously.

    Yeah, that 3 hour thing had to have been something elsewhere across the Atlantic, not on the US side. I even wonder if that is something Ms Potter misunderstood. Because the timing across the Atlantic would be MORE than 3 hours, for the most part – and the timing would vary widely, too.
    I wonder if the paper was talking about how long the wave would batter the American shoreline, and perhaps she took it as a secondary wave locally. If so, she has even less business being a science reporter than YOU believe. How does one get less than FAIL? FAIL MINUS?

    * * *

    She kind of reminds me of an author on a science blog, who chastised a VERY solid statistical guy for disagreeing with the methods of a big-time climatologist (whose blog had won both BEST SCIENCE BLOG IN THE WORLD and BEST CANADIAN BLOG in the recent past). It is all a very long story, but in short the big-time guy used some stat method variation that he basically invented himself, and which the critical stat guy had shown, step-by-step a long time ago to be faulty. The critic’s work was vetted and found to be correct. The author on the science blog decided to rip into him at this late date, and the stat guy posted an account of it on his blog.

    The arguments the author came up with were so amazingly imprecise and ignorant of basic scientific method and also logic, that he left me shaking my head, asking how ANYONE would hire that guy to write about science.

    So, I’ve been active on two similar ongoing events on two different blogs. Both about people who are an embarrassment to science, to science journalism, and to science blogs.

    If you want details or links, Dennis, ask me in an email. I don’t think you do, but just in case you do, the offer is on the table.

  • jim coyle

    To All on the TUSK: HAPPY HOLIDAY TO ALL AND FAMILIES. May we all be blessed with new and positive findings.

  • jim coyle

    Hey Steve; Is that volcano anywhere in your neighborhood? If so take some pics whould be cool.

  • jim coyle

    Hey Steve; Is that volcano anywhere in your neighborhood? If so take some pics would be cool.

  • Steve Garcia

    Jim –

    Colima volcano is about 6 hours away for me, maybe 7. It is also called the “Vulcan del Fuego” – the Volcano of Fire.

    Back in about 2006 it erupted, too. And that time I was down at the coast south of there and didn’t hear about it. But our route back to Guadalajara took us right past it. It was covered in clouds, so we couldn’t see anything. I was saying to my friend, “I wish I could see it sometime when it is erupting”. Only when we got back to Guadalajara did we find out of the eruption. I’d gone right past it when it was erupting and didn’t know it was happening. BUMMER!

    BTW, there is another volcano right next to it to the north, Nevado de Colima. On a clear day they make a very picturesque sight together.

    ***

    A little tale, about Peru travels, if I may…

    Long story short, the city of Arequipa in Peru is a million people and has three volcanoes lined up north to south just east of the city. After visiting it in 2000, we left early in the morning, headed west toward the coast. The highway was flanked on both sides by 10-20 feet of what I thought were mining tailings. After sundown we were stuck at a standstill in a traffic jam in the middle of nowhere, due to some insurrection thing having to do with what is now called “The Water War, in neighboring Bolivia. When I went off behind some of the “tailings” I realized it was volcanic ash. We’d driven all day and into the night – perhaps 10 hours – and the ash was basically the same depth all that distance. When we arrived at the coast the next morning, 10-20 feet of ash was sitting on top of the hills above the coast road. It was also there all the way to the last valley south of the Nazca lines. At Nazca and in some locations north of there (including some in California) there are lines and figures drawn on the flat plains. But they do not extend past, to the south. I still wonder if Nazca lines exist under some of that ash. We will probably never know, because that area gets so little rain that it will possibly be millennia before the ash is washed away. It will probably have to be blown away by wind.

    I asked and was told that those three volcanoes east of Arequipa have not erupted since before Columbus, when all three went off. So, the ash has been sitting there more than 500 years already.

    ***

    Another, sillier, one…

    On my first trip to central Mexico we were driving south out of Mexico City. The city is in a bowl at about 7200 feet, so it is necessary to climb out of the bowl, even higher, to go further south, toward Acapulco and Cuernavaca – and Iguala. The road climbing out of the city “bowl” has a number of switchbacks. As we climbed, the terrain and the flora began to look amazingly like northern California, perhaps up near Tahoe. Evergreens were the dominant tree, and that simply amazed me. We were so far south of such areas in the U.S., and yet, there we were in a conifer forest.

    I was so absorbed in the tree thing that I missed something very cool. One of the switchbacks is actually at the top of the ridge, on the eastern end, and the curve provides a magnificent view of the famous volcanoes Popocatepetl (20,000 feet) and Iztaccihuatl (17,000 feet), off to the east. I missed them every bit as much as I missed the Vulcan del Fuego.

    So I may not be the guy to send out to find volcanoes…LOL

  • jim coyle

    Steve; You’ve been close so any times surely you’ll get your shot at it. Make THE MOST OF IT!! I had a fellow post on Malaga Bay that the craters at drake Passage and popagai, Chesapeake Bay etc are all electrical discharge scars. I know I’m off the wall a lot but that was just a little too much.

  • jim coyle

    Steve; The meteor-maybe I have is being checked out. I did notice that there is a small area of greenish material on the bottom of the stone. I thought it was algae and scrubbed the crap out of it trying to clean the rock up. After drying it for a couple of days I saw the green was still there. I took some photos including the bottom and sent then out for verification. I started looking at the pic on the computer and noticed that there appears to be some green possible crystals in the green spot that couldn’t be scrubbed away. I’m still looking for a magnifying glass or some thing to bring those spots out clearer. When I use the compute about the time I’m getting close I lose resolution and can’t see a thing. I’m hoping for a touch of olive maybe, Not too tall an order. If you’re going to dream, might as well do it big.

  • Hey Jim, here’s a trick you might try:
    Using a ordinary flatbed scanner, place your rock on it with the side you’re interested in facing down. Cover it, and your scanner with a dark towel. Then scan the area on question at the highest possible resolution.

    2400 dpi is pretty common. And some of the high end scanners can hit 9600 dpi. Whi h is effectively a pretty good microscope.

  • jim coyle

    Thanks Dennis; I tried that but couldn’t get enough resolution that way either. Plus the wife was nor happy about me using her scanner to photograph rocks.

  • jim coyle

    Dennis; I did send you copies of the pics I took of my meteor-maybe. I sent them to your crater hunter email. If you look at the one with my hand in it you will see the green area just to the right and low of center of the pic. if you zoom in you can begin to see the possible crystals in the green zone. If you can look at the other pics do you think that I’m looking at ablation on that stone.

  • Steve Garcia

    I am going to post a comment here on mammoths. This is maybe the least non-appropriate thread to post this on, since a library fire is somewhat akin to early people losing their mammoths. LOL

    I found this at http://history-world.org/Agrarian%20Revolution.htm:

    …Though most humans lived in small hunting-and-gathering bands until well into the era of the agrarian revolution between 8000 and 5000 B.C., some prefarming peoples worked out a very different strategy of survival. They managed to devise more intensive hunting-and-gathering patterns that permitted them to establish semipermanent and even permanent settlements and support larger and more complex forms of social organization. Among the most spectacular of the Paleolithic settlements are those of central Russia.

    Apparently there was an abundance of large but slow woolly mammoths in the region some 20,000 years ago. The hunting techniques of the local peoples produced a supply of meat that, when supplemented by wild plant foods gathered in the area, made it possible for them to live in the same place throughout much of the year. Their dependence on the mammoths is suggested by the bones found in refuse pits at the settlement sites and by the bones of the larger mammoths that were used extensively for the walls and roofing of dwellings.

    The storage pits for food and the other materials found at the sites of the central Russian settlements suggest that the mammoth-bone dwellers
    participated in trading networks that involved groups in the Black Sea region nearly 500 miles away.
    Burial patterns and differing degrees of bodily decoration also indicate that there were clear status differences among the groups that inhabited the settlements. Mammoth-bone communities lasted from about 18,000 to 10,000 B.C., when they suddenly disappeared for reasons that are still unknown.

    The highlighted passages caught my eye.

    The first one, “…refuse pits… Their dependence on the mammoths is suggested by the bones found in refuse pits at the settlement sites and by the bones of the larger mammoths that were used extensively for the walls and roofing of dwellings.

    For the life of me, I have never heard of ONE instance of Clovis Man in North America using the bones of mammoths for anything. With 80% of Clovis sites (meaning at least one Clovis point) being in the SE USA, one would think that SOMEWHERE in that area there would be some account of mammoth bones used to make shelters.

    In fact, over at WUWT I made a big point about there being no “buildings” before the advent of the Natufian culture after the YDB. Do mammoth bones stuck in the ground so as to make a lean-to or two lean-tos together constitute a building? After some serious reading the last three days, I have to say that, no, I don’t think so. A lean-to is not a building.

    But the point NOW is this: Mammoth hunters USED mammoth bones for things. We already KNOW that mammoth bones survive well. They’ve been found widely in the USA and Mexico, including areas of Mexico that were warm and fairly moist. So we should not expect mammoth bones to disintegrate over only 13,000 years.

    Which means: Where are the mammoth-bone structures in N America? Especially where the Clovis artifacts were mostly found? If Clovis Man was mainly a mammoth hunter, where are the bone shelters? Where are the refuse pits?

    There are only 12 solid mammoth kill sites in N America, and all of them are in areas outside the SE USA. This suggests that mammoth kill sites were the exception rather than the rule. All those Clovis points spread all over the Southeast of the USA point not toward mammoth hunting but hunting of other animals. Otherwise we should find mammoth dwellings; no hunter society would leave such unique and useful bones and tusks un-used. ESPECIALLY if Clovis Man came from over Beringia, then their use of mammoth bones would be already part of their culture – because across Beringia was. . . SIBERIA.

    According to that link above, the Siberian mammoth hunters were at least in part fairly well in settlements of some sort. Does this mean that Clovis Man may also have been, up until the moment when HE also had his mammoths “suddenly disappeared for reasons that are still unknown”.

    2.) The highlighted portion about storage pits seems important also because some of the earliest claimed dwellings in the Near East are at a site 70 km east of Amman called Kharaneh IV (see http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031447). The paper that asserts them to be “huts” I think is wrong. The “huts” seem more likely to be a cache or storage pit.

    Clovis Man used caches all over the western USA. They would carry Clovis points and other necessities with them to a good place to hide and store things, and then find or dig a pit and put as much stuff as they didn’t want to carry into the pit and cover it.

    That is damned near exactly what the photos show: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0031447.g006&representation=PNG_I

    On beginning to read this paper, I thought that I’d been caught out – that there actually were dwellings somewhere near Abu Hureyra – and I was preparing myself to go back to WUWT and confess that I’d been ignorant and wrong. But after reading what flimsy evidence there is about the “huts” it is obvious that the authors are stretching credulity, more than a little bit.

    All of this is significant. It is because the picture of the deep ancient past – of the beginnings of man, of the beginnings of civilization and agriculture – are tied in time-wise with the YDB, in some way or another. at some point we need to ask this:
    Of ALL the times when humans could have developed agriculture and begun living in dwellings and settling down to begin civilization, WHY was it just at the end of the YDB?

    The YD itself was an ice age, according to what we all think we know. As such it did NOT lend itself to humans developing anything. That lasted 1300 years. 1300 years of humans doing nothing much more than trying to stay alive – at least in the north. Some anthros tell us it was the hardships that caused humans to develop – “Develop or die”, I guess is their thinking. If so, why didn’t it happen during the OTHER ice ages? And why, when it happened, did it happen in the areas that were NOT terribly affected by the YD ice age?

    Do I know the answers? No. But there are enough holes in the mainstream concept big enough to drive Mack trucks through, so I don’t think they have a very good handle on it.

    Now, add in the possibility of a YDB impact just 1300 years earlier. Does that add another level of complexity to the puzzle? Or did it mean nothing?

    The IMMEDIATE development of agriculture and writing and civilization – all at the same time – at the end of the YD should tell us something.

    We need to be asking what that something is. Eventually we will.

  • Steve Garcia

    This post seems to be a catch-all, so I am posting this tidbit here, just because the dates are REALLY interesting…

    I am able to read the first two pages of “Manifestation of the gothenburg geomagnetic field excursion in sediments on the northwestern Central Russian Upland
    E. G. Gus’kova et al 2009” (link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0016793212050076)

    Abstract
    A paleomagnetic study of sediments at the Baranova Gora and Podol III/1 archaeological sites, located near Lake Volgo on the northwestern Central Russian Upland (56.9°N, 33.2°E), was performed. The paleomagnetic studies at both sites for the first time revealed the development of the Gothenburg geomagnetic excursion (dated 13000-12350 BP) in this region. This made it possible to specify the time interval when the Alleroed climatic phase started developing on the Central Russian Upland.

    I don’t think I agree with the last sentence…

    But I am typing out what I found on the first page (can’t copy-clip):

    … approximately 14-8 ka ago. The Goethenburg geomagnetic excursion, which for the first time was discovered in cores of lacustrine sediments in Sweden (Mörner et al., 1971; Mörner and Lanser, 1974), developed in this time interval. These researchers subsequently managed to reveal the Goethenburg excursion in Canada and Atlantic sediments (Mörner, 1977). According to the lacustrine sediments in Sweden, the excursion developed from 13750 to 12350 BP (Mörner, 1977). According to sediments at the margin of the South CHina Sea, the excursion occurred in the 12960 ± 390 BP interval.

    The magnetic field variations… Further paleomagnetic studies revealed the Goethenburg excursion in different regions of the globe, which made it possible to speak about the global excursion development (Petrova et al., 1992).

    Okay, so now we have geomagnetic excursions (partial reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field) dated to 12,960 ya.

    I have no idea what dating system Petrova et al 1992 used, but for the most part we have to consider the 12960 ya date as coincident with the YDB. Before 2013 the C14 calibrations all put the YDB at 12,900 ya. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong on that!) That pretty much says that the Gothenburg geomagnetic excursion happened at the same time as the YDB.

    What does that say and not say to us?

    It says to us that a possible impact occurred at the same time as a geomagnetic excursion.

    It says to us that the climate changed VERY QUICKLY at the same time as a geomagnetic excursion.

    Three things happened at the same time.

    Questions have to be:

    1. How can a geomagnetic excursion change the climate?

    2. How can an impact and geomagnetic excursions be connected, physics-wise, geology-wise, planet-wise?

    The mind goes into overdrive a bit. . .

  • Steve Garcia

    It didn’t show up as a URL link, but that if you copy-clip that URL it DOES work.

    Also, after “12960 ± 390 BP interval.” there should be a credit to Wang et al, 1991.

  • Steve Garcia

    It took me a while, but I think this is the place to comment on comet origins and the planetary nebular theory again…

    “Comet springs surprise: Rosetta and Philae find Comet 67P not magnetised” at http://phys.org/news/2015-04-comet-rosetta-philae-67p-magnetised.html

    Once again scientists find that their assumptions are incorrect. The article follows the orthodox meme that the comets and asteroids and meteoroids are these pristine things that were around in the beginning of the solar system but never aggregated onto planets, which is where the magnetic expectations came from.

    They have yet to understand now aggregation worked, as this article notes. Here they think larger magnetic particles drew in smaller ones, but that the larger ones would have enough “leftover” magnetism at this time in their history. But this expectation was thwarted by 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which has no magnetism.

    They needed magnetism (are you Electric Universe guys listening?…LOL) to account for certain aspects of the ability of comets to hold together with the spin they have. Given their mandated starting point, it was a good try.

    ROMAP measured a magnetic field during these sequences, but found that its strength did not depend on the height or location of Philae above the surface. This is not consistent with the nucleus itself being responsible for that field…

    …Instead, the magnetic field that was measured was consistent with an external one, namely the influence of the solar wind interplanetary magnetic field near the comet nucleus. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that variations in the field that were measured by Philae closely agree with those seen at the same time by Rosetta.

    Once again, a standard truth of science is that wrong theories predict wrong things and right theories predict things that are found to be true. But as is common with so many theories these days, wrong predictions are not seen to negate overall theories – AS THEY SHOULD – and people just stay within the same main ideas and fiddle with them. Such as when they pull out their “crowbars” to force the new evidence to fit the often-failing main theories.

    They do that in this article, too, and don’t even allow themselves to think that the “comets and asteroids are from the beginning of the solar system” theory might be incorrect.

    I am not surprised, but would wish that at some point someone would begin to question the overall theory…

  • REH

    @Steve Garcia

    Oh yeah, I’ve been following the whole comet stories for awhile. And irregardless of what side of the cosmology fence you fall on, the [i]”top billing gravity causes everything with help from other things which make us uncomfortable, yada yada”[/i] answer is getting stretched more and more thin these days by institutional science.

    Being so stuck on “gravitational accretion” as the mechanism results in increasingly desperate theories and you never hear the “mainstream scientists” question their underlying assumptions.

    —————————-

    Rosetta Mission Update | 67P—The Violent Birth of a Comet
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdfDcVXeKHo

    Rosetta Mission Update | Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMkjPeeVYU

    Rosetta Mission Update | Jets of Comet 67P — Failed “Explanations”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceZqIXkX3u0

  • CevinQ

    A new accretion model
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422104434.htm

    “Working with colleagues from the USA, Denmark and Germany, Anders Johansen has developed a computer simulation for what the process may have looked like. They assumed that the asteroids were formed in a kind of cosmic ocean of chondrules and that the asteroids started out much smaller than they are today.

    According to the computer simulations, the asteroids grew quickly to a diameter of up to 1,000 km, the same size as those found today in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The largest asteroids continued to grow to the same mass as the planet Mars, which has ten per cent of the mass of Earth.

    “We suddenly realised that this rapid process could say something about the formation of the Earth as well,” explains Anders Johansen.

    The research community had previously believed that the Earth was formed through collisions between protoplanets, of the size of Mars, over a period of 100 million years. However, the researchers have not yet understood how the protoplanets themselves were formed.

    “Our study shows that protoplanets may have formed very quickly from asteroids, by capturing chondrules in the same way as the asteroids did,” says Martin Bizzarro, an expert on chondrules from Copenhagen University and also co-author of the paper.

    The researchers’ theory is supported by studies of meteorites from Mars. These studies have previously shown that Mars was formed over a period of only 1-3 million years, which is within the same time span as the researchers have obtained in the computer simulation.

    “Traces of this process remain in asteroids that still contain intact chondrules. The terrestrial planets, however, have all melted after their birth and therefore do not show any direct traces of their original building blocks,” concludes Anders Johansen.

  • REH

    @CevinQ

    Yup, They are really trying hard to get gravity to do everything they “need” it to do.
    —————————————————————
    “…computer simulation for what the process may have looked like..”
    “According to the computer simulations, the asteroids grew quickly…”
    —————————————————————
    Ah, computer modeling!

    By insisting that asteroids and comets are somehow different things, and then ignoring the composition of the objects; things start to get really dicey when it comes to explaining how these objects came about by “gravity”. And this is even when they set the stage by foisting “millimeter-sized particles” upon their very select and complex scenario.

    Yet, somehow, the process is not reflected in observational evidence or in any current process.

    Astronomers Have No Idea How Planets Form (much less asteroids/comets)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YypyHEgEYzw

  • Steve Garcia

    CevinQ and REH –

    Thanks for all the links, guys.

    CevinQ – “Our study shows…” No. A model is not “a study”. A model is a manufactured set of equations, translated into code. The equations are based on assumptions, which may or may not be correct. The output is solely based on the assumptions. NO model in frontier science is reality. They are, at best, reasonable outcomes based on the thining of the people behind them.

    I draw a VERY clear distinction between frontier science models and, say, architectural models, which have EVERY equation proved IN REALITY, over and over, many many times, by the real world experiences of engineers and architects. I am not God here, judging all models, but when models are projected out into the future or into a science that is not at all well, known, the model has NOTHING to tie ALL its equations to reality.

    This is obvious in climate science where the scores of models all come up with different results. If the science behind them was solid, then the results would all be identical. But they aren’t. The case for models is not helped when NONE of them can hindcast any of the recent climate history.

    Beware of ANY paper or article based on models.

  • Steve Garcia

    REH – Wed are on the same page about models and the planetary nebula “fails”, but I am not into the EU stuff. That is okay. We can agree to disagree.

    I am an exploded planet guy. THAT one says that comets and asteroids came from the planet that used to be where the asteroid belt is. And if THAT is true , then the comets and asteroids are not remnants of the early solar system but are instead pieces of that planet which no longer exists.

    Yet, somehow, the process is not reflected in observational evidence or in any current process.

    I wouldn’t go THAT far, but they DO keep on getting surprised by new observations – and that ain’t good for their side. It is just a bad scorecard. I know that they keep on adjusting, and that part of the science is good – that they adjust their thinking to new info. But their main theory should be able to predict more of these things than it does. They are locked into that main theory and t hampers their ability to move the science forward. THEY think that adding the new thing in with new tweaks IS good science. I say it should have predicted these observations and not caught them with their pants down, not once but several times.

  • Steve Garcia

    My comment added to the 67P “Rubble” video on YouTube:

    “I am not an EU kind of guy, but good points are made about the attractive capacity of a comet such as 67P, about the failed “dirty snowball” ad hoc idea. Without looking at the exact makeup of the comet, the assertion that the material of 67P came from a “planetary surface” has no basis. The Allende meteorite, on the other hand, is made up partially of olivine and peridotite – both of which MUST be created at the ultra-high pressures (4 million psi) and temperatures existing about 60 km to 100 km BELOW the surface of a planet such as Earth. One study determined that – gravitationally – such materials need a planet of minimum radius of 2,000 km. That the peridotite and olvine are in a solid matrix similar to granite (but larger crystals) points out the NEED for metamorphic conditions or some equivalent.

    The regoliths – which here are called “debris” – are a common artifact, it seems, on the surface of comets and asteroics. See Itokawa for example. But no one explains HOW solid rocks exist as loose cannons out in space in the first place. They can’t aggregate together, because the relative velocities between impactors out there are too high and are DEstructive rahtr than CONstructive. Even ONE km/sec is 3600 km/sec – higher than even the most destructive military bullets. But impacts out there far exceed even that delta-V. Ergo, collisions out there are tearing things apart, not building them up. The entire aggregating idea is wrong on the most fundamental level.

    Yes, the correct question is, “Where did the regoliths come from?”

    Also, look up “strengthless bodies”. The point about super low gravity is valid. HOW could a solid rock body COMPRESS into a solid rock with the almost zero gravity? It can’t. Invoking impacts is silly, because of the destructive velocities above 1 km/sec I mentioned above. And typical impact craters on Earth have 250 times as much excavated as arrived. It is a negative gain – meaning a loss. You do NOT need to be a rocket scientist to figure these failings out.”

    If the EU guys haven’t gotten all of this (or found reasons to reject it in part or in full), they are missing the boat.