[meteorite-list] Why isnt documenting meteorites stressed enough? (Diregard Previous Post)

From: Mark Bowling <minador_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <601066.29770.qm_at_web54504.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Interesting point Carl, I have met people who have collected rocks on both sides of the ocean which appear to be the same.? Not sure what analysis were performed to prove it...

Clear skies,
Mark B.
Vail, AZ


----- Original Message ----
From: "cdtucson at cox.net" <cdtucson at cox.net>
To: Meteorite List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; Paul Heinrich <oxytropidoceras at cox.net>
Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 10:03:23 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Why isnt documenting meteorites stressed enough? (Diregard Previous Post)

Paul,
Interesting points here.
Falls a bit outside of the field of meteoritics but, still a fair use for old strewnfield co-ords.
I wonder Paul. Has this data ever been used in such a way? I can think of one example that this theory sorta works with.
As far as I know there has only been two places on Earth where Carbonado ( black) Diamonds have been found as a strewnfield. Africa and South America.
I believe this put together a theory as further evidence that the two continents were once attached. If you take a look at a world map it is easy to see that they do fit neatly together into one another.
This Black diamond strewnfield makes a rather tight enough foot print which can be seen as a single strewnfield encompassing a contiguous part of both continents.
So, this does I suppose add to the evidence that these two Continents were once one. But I also suppose that much of the science is still within the material itself as it has to be dated as well as the land around it also has to match up in order to prove this theory.
Of course the alternative theory is that the black Diamond (Africa / South American) strewnfield was just really really big and covered half the globe.
Be that not the case, here we have it. A Scientific use for a strewnfield data that is not primarily just for? finding more of the same meteorites.
Yeah, Paul you win.
Carl

--
Carl or Debbie Esparza
Meteoritemax
---- Paul Heinrich <oxytropidoceras at cox.net> wrote: 
> Please disregard my previous post as the bottom part of
>? it was chopped off when I sent it
> 
> Eric wrote:
> 
> "Meteorite fragments found on dry lake beds or
> anywhere on "old ground", do in fact move. In
> my opinion coordinate data is still valuable, but
> not as valuable as say data from a fresh meteorite
> fall."
> 
> As a geomorphologist, I would disagree. Such data
> from either "old ground" or "prehistoric falls" might
> be just as valuable as data from fresh falls. The
> distribution data from prehistoric falls, if collected
> and preserved might be useful in evaluating the type
> and rate of the geomorphic processes that modify and
> the age of the landforms on which they are found.
> This is because a meteorite strewn field in many ways
> is a chronostratigarphic equivalent of a volcanic ash
> beds in terms of providing a "deposit" that is of the same
> age / point in time everywhere that pieces of it are found.
> The way that individual meteorites belonging to a single
> strewn field are moved about could be used to infer how
> the surface of a landform has been modified and at what
> rate since the meteorite fall creating it occurred. If the
> strewn field data was collected and was accessible, I
> would suspect that geomorphologists would use that
> data in a wide variety of novel ways that neither I or
> nobody else on this list could at this time predict or image.
> 
> Of course, once the "taphonomic" processes determining
> how meteorites are moved around after a fall and whether
> or not they are preserved are understood, I suspect that a
> person can "back engineer" the process to predict where
> to look for "fossil meteorites" from past falls even if they
> have been buried. I still think that there a number of
> Chinese falls, where even though they occurred centuries
> ago, a person has a significant chance of still being able
> to find meteorites from them if their "taphonomy" could
> be figured out and predictions made as to where exactly
> to look.
> 
> Looking at some of the phrase diagrams that
> archaeologists have made showing the relationship
> between different physical characteristics of soils
> and sediments and the long term survival of iron
> artifacts, it is quite clear that iron objects, including
> meteorites, under specific circumstances can survive
> even in wet soils and sediments that they become
> buried in for significantly long periods of time.
> They might be bit too rusty for many collector's
> tastes. Still, they still have scientific value even in
> less than pristine condition.
> 
> Just Some Thoughts,
> 
> Paul H.
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Received on Sun 14 Mar 2010 01:33:56 PM PDT