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

From: Graham Ensor <graham.ensor_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:10:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJkn+kaXvX9az26BjGRuK1BnorYNxTRxj7c=QTJL+A-Hv94X3A_at_mail.gmail.com>

Now I know where the phrase "being slagged off" comes from....

"slag something or someone off (Slang) criticize, abuse, malign, slam,
insult, mock, slate, slang, deride, berate, slander, diss (slang,
chiefly U.S.), lambast(e), flame (informal) People keep slagging me
off."

Now I know why many folks with experience are wary to help
newcomers....It's such a shame when that's what we all enjoy doing
most of the time and then after courteous helpful advice with pointers
where to go and research more we then get "slagged off".

G

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Frank Cressy <fcressy at prodigy.net> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Your description alone of a folded back "fusion crust" indicates it's not a
> meteorite and probably slag. The extreme heat of atmospheric entry literally
> melts off the outer layer of a space rock. That molten material is blown off
> and lost. The fusion crust on a meteorite is essentially the remaining charred
> surface of the rock. The only way I could see this happen is to have fusion
> crust pool on the backside of an oriented meteorite, (a rare occurrance) AND
> also have that same crust fold back on itself (an extremely rare occurrance,
> leaning near the impossible). I've never seen that and have looked a several
> thousand meteorites, in person and as photos.
>
> A piece of slag on the other hand, was once entirely molten, and the "crust" on
> it was where the rock had started to cool off and this outer layer "froze" over
> the molten interior. This "crust" or rind can COMMONLY fold back on itself.
> Hope this explanation may help you separate your rites from wrongs.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Peter Richards <pedrichards at gmail.com>
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Sent: Sat, March 23, 2013 10:23:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] A Bunch of Irregular Stones I Found (+How I Think
> They May Have Originated)
>
> Mike G (Galactic Stone & Ironworks) said: "I've had dozens of people
> get pissy or go ballistic when told their
> slag is not a meteorite. Some people just don't want to hear bad news
> and they shoot the messenger"
>
> I am saying, Mike, apparently, attitudes like yours are those that
> predominate. The result I think is to discourage what Graham Ensor
> says is desired. ie. "new blood," and facilitate the maintenance of an
> "old boys club," as they say. For what its worth, I think the cultural
> problems I've alleged exist are rather pervasive throughout the
> scientific, academics communities, as well as society at large, so
> it's not only here. Such and attitude is seemingly so prevalent, and
> domineering, that even when I raise some valid points about precision
> in language, and a failure to verbalize the "ingenious" workings of
> the brain, rather than back something up with one's "experience," and
> "past accomplishments," or "social position" many people continue to
> prove me right. If you are going to accuse something of being "slag"
> or "clinkers," I would think it might be common courtesy to, also,
> explain why your "brain" had deduced this. Likewise, "what are the
> features most uncharacteristic of meteorites that would lead one to
> believe the chance is small that they could be, or that it is not
> worth exploring?" would be another appropriate topic, according to my
> opinion.
>
> John (Pict at Pict.co.uk) said:
> "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? "
> My entire point is that the language was an attempt to disqualify any
> asking for "exposition of reasoning." I think it's rather clear that
> the language I was lamenting the use of suggested this. That is my
> opinion. Again, not many have explained why my take was daft there,
> but there have been some "me too"s, "harumphs" etc. to the effect that
> it was, indeed. Again, I don't see the rationale.
>
> These are admittedly strange "objects". I haven't maintained they are
> definitely meteorites, yet I have maintained that they should be given
> a fair take. "Easter egg syndrome," as Adam Hupe has written, consists
> in "believing meteorites are found easily," which I haven't
> maintained. I said I believe that if a community wanted to be actually
> scientific, and not only apparently so, they would not base their
> judgements on things like "that was too easy," or "the chances are too
> low," alone!
>
> Finally, what I have learned is to make an attempt to be more
> "to-the-point" while asking anything in a forum, and to verbalize my
> thought processes.
> So, you have 1. the folded back, apparently peeled layer, which might
> have been heat modified. It is thick, maybe around 1mm, which I've
> read is unusually large for a fusion crust, but is seemingly within
> the bounds of reason. 2. The cliff-like sides on another of the
> "objects". 3. A frothy smooth surface on another side. 4. (something I
> had forgotten about, yesterday, until after these exchanges) What
> appear to be surfaces which have perhaps uncannily corresponding
> surfaces, and shapes at large. That is to say the overall dimensions
> are similar, and specific surfaces have features which are "mirrored"
> almost as a casting and a mould, although, of course, these are much
> more imperfect than that description. What I can say about this is
> that it's not pseudo-science. It may not provide absolute proof, but
> it is a method derived from logic, ie. if these were meteorites they
> would, before ablating, have been of one piece, and therefore it is
> likely that some of the features remain from the irregular fracturing,
> which could be compared, in a metaphorical sense, to a fingerprint.
> Here is a set in which I attempt to depict what I have observed while
> considering the aforementioned possibility (note: all my photos in
> this photostream depict nothing more than stones, my hand holding
> them, and ordinary objects in the background, fyi):
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324 at N08/8582349428/in/photostream
> (showing surfaces with corresponding features separated)
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324 at N08/8581248239/in/photostream/
> (showing those masses "aligned" as they theoretically would have been
> before fracturing)
> Basically, what I am looking for is described by an "old cliche," and,
> in my defence, it would have been closed-minded of me not to consider,
> and make an attempt to explain, why closed-mindedness seems to be at
> work.
>
>
> Peter Richards
> ______________________________________________
>
> 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 03:10:52 PM PDT