[meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?

From: Rob McCafferty <rob_mccafferty_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <499515.17765.qm_at_web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

An adept postulate most erudite in its expression.

I could not have put it better myself.

Rob McC
(I'm assuming that anyone not needing a dictionary for the above will realise I'm not being sarcastic)



--- On Sun, 2/15/09, Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
> To: "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com>, "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 3:03 AM
> Dear Jason, List,
>
> > Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact
> dynamics
> > but as to how that plays into our understanding of the
> > evolution of the solar system...it doesn't,
> really.
>
> Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact
> feature, the concept of "impact" as a possible
> event was
> nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied,
> pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational
> natural world.
>
> Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call
> a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater,
> but
> the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the
> first to understand the possibility of impact as a
> geological
> process (without understanding the scale on which it was
> possible) and that understanding led straight to the late
> Gene
> Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of
> resistant scientists into the realization by patiently
> rubbing
> their noses in it for decades.
>
> Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about
> the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology,
> as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial
> impact
> on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater
> "proved" to be
> of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental
> geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms
> don't always shift quickly.
>
> In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science
> was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or
> unique feature in the Solar System, an individual
> characteristic
> of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was
> virtually
> universally understood that the 1000's of craters that
> covered
> the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the
> Moon
> was substantially biased toward finding (mostly
> non-existent)
> evidence of volcanic activity.
>
> Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner
> 4
> did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those
> you-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief
> caused
> by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that
> followed)
> was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a
> two-by-four.
> Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway...
>
> The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact
> of
> impact as a geological process (the title of the book that
> nailed it
> down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System
> with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The
> reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is
> because
> you are on the "modern" side of the conceptual
> divide. Until
> the understanding of impact, solar system formation models
> were divided between "accretion" and
> "coalescence." Very
> few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any
> more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand
> with impact theory.
>
> If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of
> impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was
> --
> then it might well be the "most significant in
> increasing our
> understanding of the evolution of our solar system."
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
> To: "Meteorite-list"
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most
> scientificallyimportant meteorites?
>
>
> Hola All,
> I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post
> my Graham
> asked for a list of ten of "the most important
> meteorites with regard
> to science," and he then went on to ask: "Which
> ones have been the
> most significant in increasing our understanding of the
> evolution of
> our solar system, and what they have taught us?"
> I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask
> for a list
> of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of
> meteoritics as
> a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most
> scientifically
> interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if
> L'Aigle had
> been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of
> the
> situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while
> it did help
> to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did
> little to
> tell us of the history of the formation of the solar
> system.
> And Michael's list is more of a list of the most
> beautiful/interesting
> meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's
> just a
> different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute
> to our
> knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly,
> but they
> are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for
> non-scientific
> reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as
> a
> crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand
> impact
> dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding
> of the
> evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really.
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood
> <mlblood at cox.net> wrote:
> > Hi Jason and all,
> > First of all, I think it should be mentioned
> that any such
> > List is inevitably biased.
> > Next, that said list cannot possibly
> "nail" a specific 10
> > meteorites.
> > Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here
> are 10
> > Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit
> full
> > Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least
> one "why"
> > Per each:
> >
> > 1) Canyon Diablo:
> > prototypical and stable iron from what was
> > recognized as the "only" impact crater for a
> very long time. It
> > Can be added that it was also the original site of the
> Nininger
> > Museum
> >
> > 2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more
> than
> > Doubled the total weight of known CR material
> available.
> > It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer
> stones
> > Striking homes and patios
> >
> > 3) Esquel: "The queen of the Pallasites"
> with fantastic color,
> > Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities
> large enough
> > To allow any collector to have one of the few stable
> Pallasites.
> >
> > 4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that
> comprise the
> > "building blocks" of life, perhaps the most
> "studied" of any meteorite
> > Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm
> hypothesis. Again,
> > a witnessed fall and a hammer.
> >
> > 5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists,
> this specimen has
> > A unique physiology. Also a hammer.
> >
> > 6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized
> meteorite in "the new
> > world."
> > Also a hammer.
> >
> > 7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a
> forthcoming article on the
> > Status of L'Aigle as a hammer).
> >
> > 8) Ensischeim: "The meteorite from hell."
> (also a hammer if you care to
> > consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This
> is one of the
> > richest
> > events ever in the "lore" of meteorites.
> >
> > 9) Sikhote-Aline: producing thousands of what are
> pretty much agreed to be
> > the world's most visually impressive iron
> individuals. Also a rare Iron
> > witnessed fall.
> >
> > 10) Sylacauga: the only fully documented human
> striking meteorite.
> >
> > I could easily add several more, but these are
> just my 2 cents
> > worth, anyway. I am likely wrong, as my wife
> repeatedly assures me
> > I am.
> > Best wishes, Michael
> >
> >
> > On 2/14/09 4:59 AM, "Martin Altmann"
> <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jason,
> >>
> >> Even though we're living in a fast world and
> the "modernism" of our days
> >> may
> >> give the impression, that new scientific
> recoveries are drawn out of the
> >> nothing.
> >> But science and ideas are always integrated in
> traditions and contexts
> >> and
> >> are built on earlier steps.
> >> Chladni hadn't invented the idea, that the
> stones may stem from outside.
> >> He connected the idea that they come from space
> with the fireballs, the
> >> existing stones and reports about the falls and
> postulated additionally,
> >> that they could survive the atmospheric travel.
> >> That approach was ridiculous for his contemporary
> scientists.
> >> After the period of "enlightment" it was
> impossible that chunks fall from
> >> sky, Newton required empty spaces between the
> planets or at it best,
> >> cause
> >> they were Aristotelians, they had to be
> atmospheric products.
> >> (Although Tycho had measured long before the
> parallaxes of comets, to
> >> find
> >> out that they move indeed in space).
> >>
> >> So Chladni's weird theory never would have
> been accepted, if there
> >> wouldn't
> >> have happened that proof, the mighty shower of
> L'Aigle, conveniently
> >> close
> >> to the Acad?mie de sciences.
> >>
> >> Therefore L'Aigle is for me a benchmark.
> Without L'Aigle no Chladni, no
> >> Schreibers, no Daubr?e...no modern meteoritics.
> (At least not to the
> >> advanced stage we have today).
> >>
> >> Shhht Jason, btw. Chladni isn't that much
> known as Father of meteoritics,
> >> but for his "Acoustics", he certainly is
> partially responsible for the
> >> gig
> >> tootling out from your speakers, while you're
> writing to the list :-)
> >>
> >> Sure it's only an ordinary chondrite, but you
> don't meet the meaning of
> >> this
> >> milestone, if you look with today's eyes on
> it.
> >>
> >>> It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there
> are thousands
> >>
> >> Which gives in fact to that class an especially
> high scientific
> >> importance,
> >> doesn't it? The chondrites conserved the most
> original information about
> >> the
> >> origin of our solar system, the processes who lead
> to the formation of
> >> planets and they resemble much more the stuff we
> are all made from, than
> >> any
> >> differentiated meteorite, which tells us rather
> the history and
> >> development
> >> of his individual parent body. And ready we
> aren't yet with the
> >> chondrites.
> >> Ho many theories of chondrules genesis we have at
> present? Eleven?
> >> Look the recent decade, the discovery of
> protoplanetary discs around
> >> other
> >> stars..... and so on.
> >> Only because they are so readily available to the
> collectors and despite
> >> the
> >> antartcic ones so cheap like never before (yes
> Mrs.Caroline Smith.
> >> Fletcher,
> >> Hey, check the museum's archives, had to pay
> much more than you),
> >> they shouldn't be disregarded.
> >>
> >> Hey, and confess Jason! The sight of something
> like that
> >> http://www.chladnis-heirs.com/36.956g.jpg
> >> doesn't it made your mouth water?
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, each warehouse telescope for 30 bucks is
> better than that, which
> >> Galilei pointed to the Moon or Jupiter. But what
> for an importance it
> >> had!
> >> Would we have a Hubble Space telescope now,
> without that use of the lousy
> >> lense 400 years ago? (Although maybe
> Galileo's or Copernicus' role is
> >> maybe
> >> sometimes somewhat overrated, media stars...
> Copernicus' system was in
> >> practise inoperative and he had his Islamic and
> antique antecessors - I'm
> >> a
> >> fan of Tycho, which was much more important for
> modern astronomy and our
> >> view of the world, as he was the first, who
> trumped the Islamic
> >> astronomy.
> >> Without the results of his large-scale
> instruments, no Kepler, no Newton,
> >> no
> >> Oberth, no Rovers on Mars, no security that the
> pieces in the Chladni
> >> Boxes
> >> really originated from the red planet...).
> >> Of course it's never a continuously direct and
> mono-causal development...
> >> Chance and accident are also factors.
> >> Allende and Murchison e.g. never would rank in the
> importance among the
> >> first places, if they hadn't such large tkws
> or if they had fallen in the
> >> oceans and if there the Moon labs weren't just
> ready, when they felt.
> >>
> >> But in general L'Aigle was the proof.
> >> Scientifically important, because with that fall,
> the concept of
> >> meteorites
> >> had to be accepted and the branch of this science
> was born at all.
> >>
> >> So it's my number one - only in my personal
> opinion of course.
> >>
> >> If we follow your criteria, Jason, everything but
> the very new had to be
> >> ruled out and most probably we would have to make
> a ranking of the so far
> >> unique - the ungrouped and similar exotics, where
> we don't have fully the
> >> clues, what exactly it could be.
> >>
> >> Off now, have to jump into my carriage without
> horses.
> >> (Hmmm was that important? Quite an unacceptable
> junk...
> >> http://kuerzer.de/unimport
> >> and we certainly would prefer a Lamborghini :-)
> >>
> >> Best!
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> >>
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im
> Auftrag von Jason
> >> Utas
> >> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 02:21
> >> An: Meteorite-list
> >> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10
> most
> >> scientificallyimportantmeteorites?
> >>
> >> Hola Martin,
> >> I would have to disagree - when you go that far
> back, you wind up
> >> dealing with meteorites that are of historic,
> rather than scientific
> >> interest. L'Aigle may be something of an
> exception because it did
> >> lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites,
> but, from today's
> >> scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it
> very important, never mind
> >> giving it a place in the top ten. It's an
> ordinary chondrite, of
> >> which there are thousands - it's no more
> special than, say, Tenham or
> >> Gao - from a purely scientific point of view.
> >> One might as well call the earliest fossils found
> the most important,
> >> simply because they were found back in the day and
> led to our
> >> recognition of what they really
> represented...while they may be
> >> important, I would hesitate to call them extremely
> important from a
> >> scientific point of view.
> >> Regards,
> >> Jason
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann
> >> <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
> >>> I choose L'Aigle as N?1.
> >>>
> >>> Cause else they wouldn't have recognized,
> that Chladni was right and
> >>> that
> >>> they are from space.
> >>>
> >>> Best!
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von:
> meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> >>>
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im
> Auftrag von
> >>> ensoramanda at ntlworld.com
> >>> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55
> >>> An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >>> Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10
> most scientifically
> >>> importantmeteorites?
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Just thought it might be interesting to
> discover list members opinions
> >>> on
> >>> what they would choose as the most important
> meteorites with regard to
> >>> science? Which ones have been the most
> significant in increasing our
> >>> understanding of the evolution of our solar
> system, and what they have
> >>> taught us?
> >>>
> >>> Graham Ensor, UK.
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> >>> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >>>
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> >>> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >>>
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >>
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >>
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


      
Received on Sat 14 Feb 2009 10:17:38 PM PST