[meteorite-list] Re: [meteorite-list]Tektite:Lunar/Terr..A more complete response-was words/flaw etc

From: E.L. Jones <jonee_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:43:30 2004
Message-ID: <3B4AAF0D.95AFC0EC_at_epix.net>

Dear Karl, surely you don't take offense at a post addressing your
question. I thought we are just having a good friendly exchange of
information. In retrospect maybe your post does require more comment.
It is, however, in good taste to send emails directly to the person you
are talking to as opposed to posting them to the list.

I was addressing your one question about target rock and discussing that
there should or should not be inclusions under different conditions.
That answer was silica rock be it sand, beach sand dune sand or a sand
stone. I posed questions that weren't directed at you particularly but
bear upon the debate about evidence. . Nor was I stating proof. I was
defining the form proof/evidence would take when it is found. The
inclusions of high pressure forms of quartz and the presence of silica
glass are indicators not favoring Lunar origin.

I wasn't nit picking. Some assertions you've made aren't so small and
 I am challenging ...ok lets do nit pick now.... You felt I over used
fancy words? As to those "Fancy words"-- they are called "mineral
names". I agree that the naming scheme for mineral names makes it a lot
harder to understand mineralogy. I included a reference to quartz
minerals knowing many who read the post would like some details which I
wasn't covering in the discussion. I also included a statement why these
minerals were "germane" to the issue of origin. "Fancy Science" aka
(creative problem solving) is what is needed to solve the tektite origin
conundrum.

 You said you felt that tektites are lunar in origin..I have heard the
silicate meteorite hypothesis both as a definition for lunar material
and as a stand alone substance from parts unknown... Where is the data,
any data? I am neither for or against any tektite theory...I asked that
evidence be presented. I would say that the term "silicated meteorite"
as you use it is misleading as the silicates of silicated irons are
pyroxenes not silica aka Silicon Dioxide, Sand, Quartz.

 As to the rest of your post that you asked me to read: I don't
disagree that-- based generally upon bulk chemistry and structure alone,
we can't exclude both origins. BUT the chemistry doesn't fit an origin
outside the Earth Moon system, the mechanics of how they arrived on
earth and the distribution from the moon doesn't fit well, the age
matching with a terrestrial impact craters is a strange coincidence if
they aren't connected. On the other hand the lunar to earth tektite ring
(like Saturn's) theory of ice age causation is intriguing and there
might be room in that one for distribution answers were it not for the
contrary evidence of impact association with regards to age and trace
element matching.

As to water or lack of water in tektite glass... we don't know how hot
they were heated, nor to what extremes of pressure or vacuum, nor how
volatile water is under those conditions, nor how much of the water
content was exposed to super high temperatures, nor if it was exposed to
high temps at all for that matter. There is some supposition/evidence
that tektite glass accreted from a mist of glass globules down to sub
mm particles. IF so, then the most of the water(H2O) could have been
lost from the target rock materials while molten. I find the water
content evidence argument lacking foundation because there are other
explanations for water content.

I didn't previously mention your shale to tektite to obsidian claim
because -- it is way off base, misleading, frankly-- unsupported in any
area I can think of.. In my opinion, unless you can offer more
specifics, it isn't a good example. Even if you were trying to state
that there is a radical difference in earth rock and Tektite glasses
that is a far stretch to say glass is like shale The flow similarity to
obsidian has been one of the major points of lunar volcanism origins. If
tektite glass was shock glass of lunar origin it should resemble
maskelynite;diplectic /felspathic glass, but they are very high silica
glass. So I am at a loss as to your assertions that tektite glass is
more akin to shale than volcanic glass. The presence of shocked quartz
minerals fits the Earth origin argument much better than unspecified
assertions that tektite glass is mystical: therefore non terrestrial.

Regards,
Mr. Jones
> Joseph Hum wrote:
>
> in reply to Mr. Jones
> i would say you have some knowledge, but
> fancy words offer little proof
> also, if you don't nit pic and attempt interpret them( my in
> individual statements) askew
> read my entire first letter
> i said tektites could be both and something ELSE
> a weird silicate meteorite
> i was presumptuous in my opening statement
> sorry
>
>
> Regards
> Karll
Received on Tue 10 Jul 2001 03:31:11 AM PDT