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

From: Pict <pict_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:27:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CD72AB45.15756%pict_at_pict.co.uk>

Martin,
With respect.

(1) I strongly suspect many meteorites are gravitationally differentiated.
Extraterrestrial cumulates are thought to exist, and irons and pallasites
would probably not be formed in the absence of gravity. Large asteroids
are eminently large enough to have gravity effect their composition. Vesta
is unlikely to be homogenous. In fact in the absence of gravity it is hard
for me to personally see how any magma can be differentiated into denser
and less dense components. In the absence of gravity a vast boiling
solution of 'rock' would just result in a relatively homogenous froth of
gaseous bubbles and minerals would it not? However I agree that small
scale compositional layering due to gravity is rare, but terrestrial
weathering may produce layering where the internal composition is
unaltered and the exterior is mineralogically and chromatically distinct.

(2) I have a piece of Norton County with a fusion crust that can
realistically be described as frothy. Bubbles have formed on the exterior
to the extent that a tunnel has formed through the crust. A vesicular
exterior to a meteorite is not unseen.

Peter,
Everybody that has commented thus far has eminently more experience in the
visual identification of meteorites than you or I. Looking at the replies
you received, I see that Anne Black wrote "very, very terrestrial", the
complement of which would be 'very, very unlikely to be from outer space'.
Graham Ensor tempered his opinion of your images as "typical" of slag. The
opinions were honest, devoid of ego or any semblance of arrogance, and
most certainly did not resemble a "vociferous outcry". They did
communicate to you politely, and in good faith, how unlikely it was in
their opinion, that the rocks depicted in the images were meteorites. You
ponied up some snaps, speculated they might be Park Forest, asked if they
might be meteorites, and solicited an opinion. You got two, which to my
mind were fairly worded interpretations of the evidence you provided.
Apparently you have taken exception to these opinions, which is your
right. However if you required a qualitative exposition of the reasoning,
would it not have been a better strategy to politely ask for it, rather
than be such a boor?

Everybody, here, that I am aware of, will try, and help, if they are
inclined. However, please, try, and be a bit more polite, if the initial
response, does not meet your expectations. In chief, you seem to have
imparted, an unfathomable desire, it being untenable as well as
resoundingly unplumbed, to go to bed with Jane Austen. My library is
elsewhere, and my kindle is indisposed.

Regards,
John


On 22/03/2013 23:55, "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrot

>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-72157633065874
>89
>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
>
>______________________________________________
>
>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 07:27:07 AM PDT