[meteorite-list] A Bunch of Irregular Stones I Found (+How I Think They May Have Originated)

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:55:10 +0100
Message-ID: <003301ce2793$5ce943f0$16bbcbd0$_at_de>

Hmmm Peter,

>If you wanted to help, you might have suggested why a folded portion of an
outer >layer of stone, revealing an inner layer of a different color, is
common on non->meteorites, such as "slag",

O.k. I help you. But vice versa.

1. Meteorites don't have layers.
For layers you need in 1st instance: gravitation.
Meteorites stem from too small bodies, that those would have sufficient
gravitation, that layers can settle.


>This has a surface with a "bubbly" appearance

2. Meteorites don't have bubbles.

So you found and described already by yourself the two strongest and most
absolute criteria for exclusion that an object could be a meteorite.

3. Freud was a lousy geologist.

Best!
Martin

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Peter
Richards
Gesendet: Samstag, 23. M?rz 2013 02:17
An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] A Bunch of Irregular Stones I Found (+How I
Think They May Have Originated)

Gary D. Matson said:
"In this particular case, your pictures are not at fault. They show enough
that apparently a number of experienced members here are willing to offer
strong opinions (even if not always quantifying
it) that what you have is not meteoritic. [If I were to put a number on my
own certainty, having just looked at your pictures for the first time, I'd
feel safe in pegging it at the 4-sigma level (99.994%)].:
-Gary, I said "qualify," not "quantify," in case you didn't notice that. It
is a suggestion. It's true that sometimes the risk of failing to qualify an
argument is negligible, or "nil," and, in those cases qualifying them may
seem absurd. However, "in all likelihood" isn't that difficult to write,
even twice, and I think it would be a step in the right direction, in all
scientific pursuits, my own included, if, everyone whether or not a
designated expert, or person of great experience, were more cautious with
their language. The saying goes "pride comes before the fall," and you can
realize that easily, even if you haven't in fact been proven wrong, when you
make a realization that you are still able to question your own idea. Maybe
it is taken for granted that these are all theories, shared herein. If
that's the case, what's the harm in re-stating the fact? I think everyone
may be better off, even when one is rather sure, if the risk is not taken,
but to each his own, regarding that.

Graham Ensor said:
"why ask one of most experienced group of meteorite enthusiasts and experts
(all of which are passionate about helping others to search for new finds
and material) for an opinion based on a visual analysis/photos of your
samples if you are certain for yourself and are willing to dismiss a
unanimous verdict..."if you are that certain they are meteorites then you
should submit samples to an experienced university for scientific analysis

-Graham, I shared the material in order to facilitate some discussion about
the possibility that meteorites are depicted therein. I am not completely
certain "for myself," and, in this case, haven't made the mistake of
directly alleging that I am so. I was hoping for a more "scientifically"
accurate conversation, as I stated. Perhaps if, for example, you cared to
state explicitly that it was your opinion, you would encourage yourself to
verbalize those internal processes which led to your conclusion, which,
might put off a final consensus, or "unanimous verdict" as you've put it,
and call for more effort in ascertaining the "truth," but with the advantage
of significantly reduced chances of a reaching a "false positive" stance.
For example, you might have responded to my written material as well, or
anything specifically. If you wanted to help, you might have suggested why a
folded portion of an outer layer of stone, revealing an inner layer of a
different color, is common on non-meteorites, such as "slag", or encouraged
me to photographically document that feature more attentively by opining
that no such fold was clearly visible. After all, as per Doug Schmitt, (I
infer) we could, possibly, be responsible for extinction of life on this
planet due to a meteorite strike, or response to a meteorite-strike in the
form of nuclear warfare, if we fail to appropriately qualify our assertions.
Regarding the idea that I should submit samples to a university for
analysis: it is a consideration, but if anyone had an "educated" and fully
convincing opinion to offer here, maybe I would have been dissuaded from
pursuing that, but again, I haven't ascertained that what I've seen here has
been especially constructive, so I'll have to 'play it by ear.' Herer is a
link to a set better documenting what apparently is a surface that's been
peeled back, and which folded:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324 at N08/8580635967/in/set-7215763306587489
0/
Peter Richards
P.S. Thank you anyone who can stand me having to hone my photography skills
"on the fly" for this.
______________________________________________

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 Sat 23 Mar 2013 02:55:10 AM PDT