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

From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <*meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com*> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:45:05 -0400 Message-ID: <CAKBPJW84vLoggRGxoDmHDt66_bKmLYJ-4CFCnjYaGN+3-Ec1Xg_at_mail.gmail.com> · meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 3/23/13, Pict <pict at pict.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> 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
>