[meteorite-list] Origin of chondrules
From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:29:23 -0400 Message-ID: <CAKBPJW9onBoP+Vv1nGWkgL6cRm=aj1X2_MV7QL8hDS78BFtKeA_at_mail.gmail.com> Hi Mendy, Peter, and List, Science is fluid affair and nobody agrees 100% on anything. The origin of chondrules, whatever that process that might actually be, is theorized based on the evidence we see today. That evidence is partial and we are only seeing a tiny part of the creation process. >From that evidence, we postulate and theorize. But, nobody was alive to witness the creation of chondrules, so lacking first-hand direct evidence, we have to make observations via the scientific method. I don't know the authors of the paper in question. I have not read the paper in question. But, suffice to say, MAPS is not the Journal of Cosmology. If the paper appeared there, then it must have some merit or value. The peers are that reviewed the paper (whoever they are) are surely qualified to determine whether or not the authors of the paper have followed the scientific method properly. They observed, they tested, they authored, they published. It is up to the scientific community to embrace or deny the results, by replicating those results independently. If the authors followed the correct protocols in conducting their research, then their theory (even if wrong) can add positively to the body of knowledge, even if most of the other scientists disagree with the theory. Think of these journals as like bulletin boards for scientific theory. Scientists put their work out their on the board to announce something to the world and their peers. The bulletin board can be crowded and filled with contradictory messages. The rest of the scientific community can pick and choose between the things on the bulletin board. Over time, the erroneous or misguided work is pushed aside and the work with merit is forwarded by the scientific method. What makes meteoritics exciting for the layman, in comparison to many other fields that are less-accessible, is that we (the laymen) have direct access to the same scientists who publish many of these papers. There aren't too many fields where you can read a paper, post questions to a mailing list, and get authoritative answers from some of the best minds in the field. I won't even name them, for fear of leaving someone out, but we have the brightest minds in meteoritics lurking on this list and they often take time out of their work to educate us nagging laymen. That is exciting to me. :) Best regards, MikeG -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 ------------------------------------------------------------- On 3/13/13, Mendy Ouzillou <ouzillou at yahoo.com> wrote: > Peter, > > No one disputes science is messy, but Jim's point is valid. Drs. Rubin and > Grossman have forgotten more than I will likely know in regards to > meteoritics, but I also feel a bit frustrated. I expect papers in a journal > like "Meteoritics and Planetary Science" to be thoroughly reviewed before > being published. It's not an issue of a few esoteric differences, it's about > the paper as a whole being rejected by esteemed and respected > meteoriticists. > > Again, Jim's question is valid. Was this paper peer reviewed? I'm sure it > was, which leads to the next question. How was it allowed to be published if > it is so far off? > > The answer is important to me because I do not have the time to read > everything. I have time to read selected books and articles and want to make > sure I am properly furthering my education. > > Best, > > Mendy Ouzillou > > On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:05 PM, "Peter Scherff" <PeterScherff at rcn.com> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > I find this all delightful. Science is messy. Theories compete for > acceptance. The one that best fits the facts and is able to predict future > discoveries wins! > If I wanted absolute truths I would read books that the religions of > the world are based on. > Thanks, > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com > [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jim > Wooddell > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:46 AM > To: Meteorite List > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Origin of chondrules > > Hello Alan, Jeff, Mendy, > > I find this response somewhat bothersome. > > I recently read a paper that little old me, not being anyone close to being > a scientist, can shoot dozens of holes through because of the use of > outdated obsolete information and now I read this from Alan and Jeff, who I > look up to and consider piers in this field. > > The fact is, people read these papers, therefore they must be true!!! > It's like the TV commericial where the girl read something on the > interenet, > so it must be true because no one can put stuff on the interent that isn't > true! > > So, what is going on with these papers? People are creating papers that > are > supposed to be pier reviewed and here we have two piers shooting them down > in a public forum? What happen to the process of pier review and if this > particular paper is completely wrong! Who were the piers? > > I am not going to appologise for being a little critical about this but > come > on guys, has it just become a paper mill? It sure beginning to seem that > way. I am completely missing the point of publishing papers with outdated > and obsolete information (when the new data is in > hand) and papers that we are reading completely wrong! > > I honestly do read these papers and try to ingest as much as I can, but > here > of late, it seems I am completely wasting my time reading them and then I > read your responses! Arrrrrgh. > > Jim Wooddell > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Jeff Grossman <jngrossman at gmail.com> > wrote: >> I second what Alan wrote, at the 90% level. With my remaining finger, >> I'll add that the worst problem may be that these molten planetesimals >> must magically keep metallic and silicate melts mixed together in >> order to make chondrules, many of which have abundant metal. I think >> this would be physically difficult, to say the least. >> >> I think the ideas in this paper are philosophically quite attractive, >> joining modern research on cosmochronology with dynamical models of >> the disk. But despite this new way of thinking, the basic tenets are >> quite retro. Many people up through the 1960s hypothesized that >> chondrules were fragments of igneous rock. Then modern research on >> them began. Study after study found problems with these models, many of > which Alan outlined. >> Although the new model is a twist on the old ones, it still is subject >> to the same tests... and it cannot pass most of them. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> On 3/13/2013 2:03 AM, Alan Rubin wrote: >>> >>> I'll be happy to give my opinion on the paper. I think it is >>> completely wrong. Here is my reasoning: >>> 1. Many chondrules are surrounded by secondary igneous shells, still >>> others by igneous rims. These shells and rims indicate that the >>> chondrules haev experienced more than one melting event. >>> 2. Many FeO-rich (i.e., Type-II) porphyritic olivine chondrules >>> contain relict grains of different FeO contents and different >>> O-isotopic compositions, again indicating multiple melting. This is >>> very hard in a collision model. >>> 3. One might expect molten planetesimals to have well-mixed melts. >>> If the chondrules are mainly from the larger planetesimal (the >>> target) as one would expect, the O isotopic compositions of the >>> chondrules would probably be mass-fractionated and lie on a slope-1/2 >>> line on the standard three-isotope diagram. We don't see this. >>> 4. One might also expect that as the planestimal melted and began to >>> crystallize, it would become chemically fractionated, unlike the >>> unfractionated, solar, compositions of chondrules in primitive > chondrites. >>> 5. The occurrence of microchondrules in the fine-grained rims around >>> some normal-size chondrules and the apparent melting of pyroxene at >>> the outer surface of the chondrule to form the microchondrules >>> indicates chondrule melting by a mechanism capable of melting only >>> the outer surface of the chondrule. This is totally inconsistent >>> with the formation by splashing by the collision of molten >>> planetesimals. >>> 6. There are correlations between chondrule size, the proportion of >>> different chondrule types, the proportion of those with igneous rims >>> and secondary shells that are difficult to explain by splashing but >>> come naturally to a model invoking multiple melting in dusty nebular > regions. >>> 7. The non-spherical shapes of most CO chondrules indicates very >>> rapid cooling or else they would have collapsed into spheres. This >>> might be okay except for the fact that the large size of their >>> phenocrysts require a growth period thousands of times longer than >>> the time it would take a molten droplet to collapse into a sphere. >>> This again indicates a flash heating mechanism. >>> 8. The fairly rare occurrence of chondrule-CAI mixtures are difficult >>> to explain by colliding molten planetesimals, but are sinple to >>> explain by melting of a mafic dustball that had and old CAI fragment > inside. >>> 9. Each chondrite group has its own distinctive narrow range of >>> chondrule sizes. In fact, about 90% of the chondrules in any group >>> have diameters within a factor of 2 of the mean size. One would >>> expect molten planetesimals to produce a similar size of chondrules >>> range > for each group. >>> Furthermore, chondrule size is correlated with lots of other >>> chondrule properties (proportions of textural types, numbers with >>> rims and secondary shells, etc.) that are hard to explain by molten > planetesimals. >>> 10. And, I just don't see how we get the different chondrule textural >>> types by that model. Some chondrules lack olivine, others lack >>> pyroxene, some are coarse grained, some are fine-grained, some have a >>> mixture of different size grains, some include relict grains. This >>> seems impossible to produce by the molten planetesimal model. >>> Since I only have 10 fingers, I'll stop there. >>> >>> >>> Alan Rubin >>> Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of >>> California >>> 3845 Slichter Hall >>> 603 Charles Young Dr. E >>> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567 >>> phone: 310-825-3202 >>> e-mail: aerubin at ucla.edu >>> website: http://cosmochemists.igpp.ucla.edu/Rubin.html >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mendy Ouzillou" >>> <ouzillou at yahoo.com> >>> To: "met-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:06 PM >>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Origin of chondrules >>> >>> >>> And now for something completely different ... Meteorite talk. >>> >>> >>> I am in the process of reading through a fascinating article in >>> latest issue of "Meteoritics and Planetary Science" called "The >>> Origin of Chondrules and Chondrites: Debris from Low Velocity Impacts >>> Between Molten Planetisimals." >>> >>> This paper is very well written and readable even by a novice such as >>> myself. What I find interesting is the proposal for a (somewhat) new >>> theory that chondrules did not instantly form from clumps of heated >>> nebular dust but instead formed 1.5 to 2.5MY after the formation of >>> CAIs. the paper states that chondrules formed from splashing when two >>> differentiated planetisimals collided at a relatively slow speed of > between 10 to 100m/s. >>> Without being able to review the previous papers, I have to say that >>> to me this makes a great deal of sense and appears to solve many of >>> the inconsistencies that have been raised in some of the older books >>> that I have read. >>> >>> Note: there is a typo in the paer on page 2177. Is states "A strength >>> of the splashing model is that it can explain why chondrules are >>> mostly between >>> 1.5 and 2.5MYr younger than CAI ...". The sentence should read >>> "older", no "younger". >>> >>> Dr. Jeff Grossman, would love to hear your thoughts on this paper. >>> >>> Mendy Ouzillou >>> ______________________________________________ >>> >>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com >>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>> ______________________________________________ >>> >>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com >>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> >> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > -- > Jim Wooddell > jimwooddell at gmail.com > 928-247-2675 > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >Received on Wed 13 Mar 2013 11:29:23 AM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|