[meteorite-list] (no subject)

From: M Yousef <diamondmeteor_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:41 2004
Message-ID: <F39CULueavxG6m4sGc100005346_at_hotmail.com>

Dear Rob, and All;
I really thank you very much for your time in replying to my posts. I really
apreciate it.
Maybe you left me no choice to discuss and explain my points why I am
claiming it is a meteorite, but before I back off I will give it another
final try. The reason is that I am now more sure and certian it is, than you
are sure and certian it is not. Please bear with me and read this maybe long
and boring email, and I promise will not bother you after that.

For me, with my little expertise, it is very simple: those rocks are igneous
and they are NOT volcanic so they must be meteorites. By the first visit to
the region anyone can easily judge that there is no "fresh" volcano there,
and even if you want to consider the other old and weathered volcanic
mountains in the region you would certainly decide those rocks do not belong
to them at all. The rocks that I found, are all placed at the surface of
what was a sea or a river before. You can see the rock from as far as 100m
because it is so different from the surroundings. There is no volcano that
throws a few rocks and retire.
The rocks are distributed in an almost half circle of a few km's diameter.
>From the beginning I could anticipate where to find more rocks. This circle
is distinct by a rim of mountains of more than a 100m high. The rocks of
those montains all point to the centre of the circle. Some BIG stones have
been thrown away of the rim in a way not even those who built the piramids
would be able to move them. The distribution of the stones and rocks off the
rim all clearly suggest how they have been carried away by a huge explosion.
You can even calculate the shock energy with good precision by measuring the
average mass of stones in relation to their distances from the rim. There
are lots of other physical, chemical and geological evidences of a big
crater. If this was my field of study or interest I would not take so long
to decide that I have got a huge meteorite crater.
For me this is really enough, but surely I am trying to do all possible
tests to confirm that.

Now, I may agree with you; no quartz have been found in meteorites before
(this is not correct by the way, see reference bellow), no fossils could
come down with a meteor, no white meteorites, meteorites do not stick and
melt into local rocks,,,, but with all these NOs I have got a meteorite!!!
So it must be something new, and very interesting.

But now I will tell you why I was amazed how so many of you quickly gave me
a negative reply. Sorry Rob, you did not misread me, and I did not mean to
praise you for your skill in identifying meteorites. But it seems that all
those who replied may have only "practical" experience with meteorites, or
they did not take what I said or what I put in the site seriously; if they
read it at all. I dont blame though, but can anyone tell me:
* How could quartz crystals form on virtually all sides of a stone, and only
at the surface?
* How could quartz crystals form on a fossil, from all sides too?
* How did those thumprints appear on all sides of this white stone in the
gallery?
* How this white stone (must be calcium something) could be so compact and
hard that it almost scratches glass?
* Did you see the last two pictures (the inside and outside of one sample)
and how the signs of a BIG shock clearly present that a child could tell?
* You would not believe me if I say that even my little boy (three years
old, AbdulAllah, who brought me the first rock when we were on a picnic)
when he saw the iron rock that is stuck to the local rock he literally asked
me: why those two rocks are attached together?
* Did you see the fusion crust in some samples?
* I told you that most of the rocks are magnetic and very compact.
SO WHAT ON EARTH YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT TO AT LEAST CALSSIFY THESE AS
METEOWRONGS to give them little attention and study?

If anything of what I said above appeals to you, I would welcome any help
and would be happy to provide samples for serious scientists and researchers
in order to identify this METEORITE and to solve the fossil(s) riddle.

Finally, please forgive me if I got little angry, but I got some bad replies
that I do not deserve. However I repeat my thanks and appreciation to those
who spent time to write good, though negative, replies.

Regards

Mohamed

______________________________________________________________________
              Detection of quartz in chondrites
Authors: Semenenko, V. P.; Melnikov, V. S.
Affiliation: AB(Akademiia Nauk Ukrainskoi SSR, Institut Geokhimii i Fiziki
Mineralov, Kiev, Ukrainian SSR)
Journal: In: Space environment and the earth. (A78-38378 16-91) Kiev,
Izdatel'stvo Naukova Dumka, 1977, p. 96-100. In Russian.
=========================================================================





In Reply TO:
---------------------------------------

As I said:
> > It could not be anything terrestrial.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Matson, Robert" <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_saic.com>
To: <diamondmeteor_at_hotmail.com>; <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:10 AM
Subject: Catching up on Met-Central


>Hi All,
>
>Been slurping my Sunday coffee and catching up on weekend
>email -- mostly posts to Meteorite Central. I wish to respond
>to several posts, but I want to start with the most bizarre
>one first.
>
>I enjoy obscure humor as much as the next guy/gal, but I have
>to admit that Michael Casper's latest post about his eBay
>auction has me completely stumped. Either it is a very
>private inside joke (which I'm supposing is lost on most
>everyone here), or perhaps Michael just enjoys being
>eccentric and taunting us mortals. In either case, I do
>look forward to his 4-sigma posts -- their apparent randomness
>(both in content and in timing) suggests extreme intelligence,
>and I'm hoping that with perseverance I'll eventually "get it."
>
>Moving on to Mohamed Yousef's posts:
>
> > I was amazed how so many of you quickley gave me a negative
> > reply.
>
>Don't forget the likelihood of a language barrier here, folks.
>Perhaps we're misreading the tone of this statement. It could
>simply be high praise for our skill in so quickly identifying
>a non-meteorite! ;-) (I hesitate to call it a "meteorwrong",
>a term I prefer to reserve for rocks which at least superficially
>resemble meteorites in one or more features.) But in all
>seriousness, I would like to offer a more constructive reply.
>
> > ... maybe I concentrated on the crystals and left out whole
> > samples which looks more like what is avaialable in meteorite
> > sites.
>
>Agreed. First word of advice, Mohamed: go through all your
>various samples, identify any with quartz crystals, and set
>them aside. Quartz (such as what appears in the majority of
>your on-line images) is a show-stopper.
>
> > With all the negative replies I got so far, I STILL INSIST it
> > is a meteorite.
>
>Because?
>
> > It could not be anything terrestrial.
>
>Because?
>
> > Although I am not an expert in the field ...
>
>Since you freely admit this, why are you loathe to accept
>the opinions of multiple independent people who are?
>
> > ... but I am a physicist, PhD student in Cosmology ...
>
>All well and good, but it sounds like geology and meteoritics
>are not your fields of expertise. Just as there are probably
>few geologists who know much about Feynman diagrams or the
>Chandrasekhar limit, a physicist or cosmologist probably has
>little need for understanding mineralogy or petrology.
>
> > ... during the last few months I visited almost all sites
> > about meteorites and read a few books.
>
>We applaud your curiosity in a subject outside your primary
>field(s) of interest. The more you read on the subject, the
>more you will learn.
>
> > I tried all pre-tests on these rocks and they passed.
>
>I see a reference to magnetism on your pages, so that's
>certainly an example of a good test (but mind you, not a
>requirement for being a real meteorite). However, you haven't
>enumerated all your tests, and clearly they are incomplete
>if quartz-containing rocks are "passing".
>
> > Please also try to solve with me the fossil riddle; I know
> > it is not possible to have such fossils in a meteorite but
> > this is what I found.
>
>Your question is asked and answered in the same sentence.
>You "know it is not possible to have such fossils in a
>meteorite". It's as simple as that -- any rocks with
>terrestrial fossils have been on the earth for a very
>long time indeed. Few meteorites last longer than a
>few tens of thousands of years in the harsh earth
>environment.
>
>Try not to be discouraged that your first candidate meteorites
>are in fact terrestrial. As you learn more, you will refine
>your identification criteria, and fewer and fewer candidates
>will meet those criteria. With enough time, knowledge and
>patience, you will find your first meteorite, and you will
>probably recognize it the instant you see it.
>
>Moving on to Robert Beauford's post, asking for help on some
>questions related to fall rates:
>
> > What proportion of visible meteors, or shooting stars, results
> > in a meteorite being left on the ground? Would it be accurate
> > to say far less than 1 in 10000(??)
>
>I think that's in the ballpark. Certainly less than 1 in 2000.
>Thanks to meteor showers like the Leonids, Perseids, Geminids
>and so forth, most visible meteors are associated with cometary
>dust and debris smaller than the size of a pea. There must be
>some active meteor observers on this list -- just ask them what
>fraction of their observations produced meteors brighter than
>magnitude -9 (probably a reasonable lower-limit for a meteorite-
>producing event). I've seen perhaps 4 in my life (one of which
>back on August 31, 1984, definitely produced multiple meteorites),
>versus more than 10,000 regular meteors.
>
> > 1 object over 10 grams falls per (how many square miles) per
> > year.
>
>My best estimate, based on recoveries in California and Nevada
>is around 5000 square miles. This assumes you count meteorites
>from the same fall only ONCE (even though most falls produce many
>individuals, each over 10 grams.) Even so, 5000 square miles is
>probably an upper limit. It could quite easily be half this.
>
> > An object over 1 kilo (2.2 lbs) might fall in a given 1 square
> > mile piece of land only once in every (how many) years?
>
>Here, there are some theoretical, exponential scaling laws you
>can use to estimate comparative fall rates between stones above
>10 grams and stones above 1000 grams. I'm sure it's at least
>a 20:1 ratio (i.e. at least 100,000 square miles). Hopefully
>someone on the list can provide more definitive data.
>
>Cheers,
>Rob
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Received on Sun 06 Jan 2002 10:15:46 PM PST