Slashdot Mirror
Meteorite Crashes Through New Zealand Roof
freitasm writes "The New Zealand Herald and Stuff are reporting on a 1.3kg, four billion-year-old rock that fell through the roof of a house in suburban Auckland, New Zealand. Their insurance company will pay for the hole in the roof and couch and two holes in the ceiling. The meteorite itself, a chunk of an asteroid, could have been basketball-sized when it impacted Earth's atmosphere at 15km a second. By the time it hit the house, its velocity had probably slowed to 100-200m a second."
What insurance policy covers meteor impacts? If there's anything in the world that might happen that could be called an Act of God, surely 'smiting with flaming rocks from the heavens' qualifies?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It would be better if they didn't claim, they could sell the meterite for more than the damage. But the insurance premium would go up.
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
In the U.S. if it lands on YOUR land it's yours. Laws differ from Country to country however. I saw a price quoted in one report of over $6,000 for that meteorite, they can (and probably will) get MUCH, MUCH more than that. "Merl"
First off, you attack the person rather than their statement. This is called an Argumentum ad hominum. It's a logical fallacy and carries no weight. Personally, I think James (parent's parent) raises quite a good point. The loss in energy is quite impressive.
*scribbles on back of envelope*
The heat it deposited in the atmosphere is enough to vaporize more than 200 liters of water previously at room temperature. (In a really really rough calculation). For what's essentially a piece of rock, I thought that's quite cool.
So, to me, the comment was interesting. So, whatever the motives, the comment is a good one and should be rewarded as such
Also, moderators have mod points for a reason: They're good active members of the slashdot community. Don't tell them what to do, let them make up their own mind. That's what they're there for.
One of the things which we fail to do is mock skeptics when they are wrong. The idea of rocks falling from the sky was rejected by all scientists at one time - despite the eye witness testimony of those who had seen it happen. The people who had seen it happen were dismissed as liars, as hoaxers, and as hallucinogenic; they were not gifted great thinkers like all skeptics are known to be.
An example of current skeptical thought: the idea of an elephant startling at the sight of a mouse is 'scientifically' ridiculous. I have never seen an elephant startle at a mouse, however I have seen a full grown African elephant startle and flinch back at the sight of a common gray squirrel. This occurred at the Houston Zoo in the early 1980's. That behavior is not unreasonable if it is viewed from the elephant's perspective; elephants have poor eyesight, and the serpentine movement of a running rodent when seen by an elephant could easily be mistaken for the movement of a poisonous snake - which is one creature that might cause an elephant to startle.
I know for a fact that the idea of an elephant flinching at the sight of a small rodent is a reasonable idea since I have personally seen it happen, and that the skeptics are dead wrong in this respect. Since skeptics never apologize when they are wrong I would like take this opportunity to say to all of the skeptics of the world most formally: "You are of my own personal knowledge completely full of shit".
Skepticism is very important in science; it keeps people from being gullible. Skepticism is healthy scientific behavior up to a point, when it goes beyond that point it is wrong and destructive. An example may clarify what that point is: saying "Your experiment show evidence of 'X' but it could also be explained by 'Y' or 'Z'" is an example of proper skepticism. However to mock someone and in general act like a turd is going beyond the point of healthy skepticism and into a destructive unscientific area.
The original Viking lander experiments on Mars all sent back evidence of life existing on Mars. Healthy skepticism would have been to say: "The results are inconclusive because they could have also been caused by certain rare chemical compounds, further testing to rule out those rare compounds is required". Instead we are told there is "no evidence of life", the people who designed the experiments are ridiculed publicly, and the test data is ignored as 'poor science'. As a result of skepticism gone wild no follow up experiments have been performed, and everyone 'knows' that there is no life on Mars.
Flaming rocks DO fall from the sky, Elephants DO startle at small rodents, the Viking experiments DO need to be followed up, and 'skeptical' scientists who use mockery need to be publicly humiliated by being forced to wear Dunces caps with the words "Rocks don't fall from the sky!" stenciled on them.
There are even more reasons for not using Carbon dating:
(1) Carbon dating only works if you know the initial proportion of C13/C14 at the time of 'death' (or creation). The current assumption is that this proportion is quite constant on Earth. However, this proportion is likely to be very different in space (and on other planets of course) so you cannot date anything from out of space with Carbon dating even if it organic.
(2) Carbon decays quite rapidely so it cannot ve used to date millions of years and even less billions.
Well to me, a house is on the earth's surface. Its roof is an insignificant elevation above the surface, when compared with the height of the earth's atmosphere. So a meteor that hits a house's roof is a meteorite, in my usage.