SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
[A] Baylor University study [DOI: 10.1029/2019GL082252] [DX], published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, combined data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) missions and found the huge blob lurking over a hundred miles beneath the South Pole-Aitken basin.
The mass, which isn't immediately obvious on the surface, appears to be dragging down the lunar landscape above it by around half a mile. In terms of size, lead author of the paper, Peter B. James, compared it to a pile of metal five times the size of Hawaii's big island.
[...] The scientists have a number of theories for where this mass could have come from, including one that involves the solidification of an ocean of lunar magma.
The leading theory posits the mass comes from an asteroid with an iron-nickel core that smacked into the lunar surface four billion years ago. Scientists calculated that a sufficiently dispersed impactor core could remain suspended in the Moon's mantle rather than sink to the core.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:53AM (4 children)
I'm just a fanatic for the truth.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:58AM (3 children)
Yeah. You, Kelly Anne Conway and her ever-so-obsessed with fact boss are all on the same page, I'm sure.
Have you considered volunteering for the Trump 2020 campaign. You have just the skills they're looking for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:02AM (1 child)
Lol, the political drivel erupts forth! You couldn't hold it in any longer, like a nasty case of diarrhea of the mouth!
Damn Im good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:22AM
{heavy,}metals may be from supernova, but that crap is proof Hawking Radiation is real.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:22PM
I haven't responded to this trope before, but I will here. Let's suppose there's a rectangular box sitting in a field. Observer A sees it from a diagonal to the long axis. Observer B sees it end-on. Observer A reports seeing a rectangular solid. Observer B reports seeing a two-dimensional square. Are they both reporting facts, or is Observer B just a fucking liar and a complete goddamn idiot?
Another scenario: There is a burning building with 1000 people inside. A fireman runs in and out for a half hour carrying them out. He saves 999 of them, but 1 person, an old woman, perishes. Observer A reports that the fireman failed to do his job and save an old lady from a burning building. Observer B reports that the heroic fireman saved almost everyone single-handedly. Are they both reporting facts, or is Observer B just a fucking liar and a complete incompetent idiot?
In both scenarios, one might even say Observer A was reporting facts, and that Observer B was reporting alternative facts. Are Observer B's facts damnable lies because they are false, or because we don't like them?
Now, this whole meme began with the attendance at Trump's inauguration. There was a difference on the reported crowd size. The media swore, swore, swore that Trump's people had it wrong. Trump's people insisted more were there than the media would allow. I can't say how many people were there because I wasn't there, myself. But I also can't say because estimating crowd size is notoriously inaccurate and skewed according to political bias.
For example, in every mass protest I have ever attended the media has always, always pooh-poohed the numbers unless it was a message that fit their narrative. You can see it in the photos they publish in the newspapers or show on the TV. Every conservative protest is shown to be puny and pathetic, with photos showing a pitiful few in an empty street because they found the ragged edge of the crowd far from its epicenter. Poorly-attended progressive protests, if they fit the narrative the reporter or publisher is pushing, take the photos from a low angle, front and center to hide the true numbers.
Journalists themselves call it "lying with facts."
When my progressive friends and I went to the UN to protest the invasion of Iraq after 9/11, the media reported "tens of thousands." But starting on Lexington Avenue, several avenues away from the UN, there were already people filling that avenue as far as the eye could see in both directions, and the closest we ever got to the UN was 3rd Avenue because there were too many damn people to move. In short, there were millions and millions of protesters on the East Side of Manhattan that day, but the media only said "tens of thousands" in order to minimize it, because it was inconvenient to Bush & Cheney's bloodlust.
So, yeah, when that same set of media outlets tell me there weren't many people at the inauguration that day, it's possible they were right, but I personally don't trust them further than I can spit.
Washington DC delenda est.