Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hi Jason, all - Rocks like Graves Nunataks (GRA) 06128 and 06129, like NWA 011, Ibitira, Semarkona, Kaidun - they do much more individually to further our knowledge of the solar system. - Jason The significance or value of all knowledge lies in its worth to humans. There is no measure other than people: value is the result of valuing, just as price is the result of sale. Thus the meteorite(s) that demonstrated to Europeans that accretion was still occurring is number one (and two). The meteorites that demonstrated that that accretion could be explosive come next. The meteorite that showed that comets accrete with more power than asteroids is next. As Sagan said, we're all bits of star stuff, so the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites which demonstrated that follow. The knowledge of the formation of our solar system has use in our power and energy systems, so some of the primitive chondrites follow. E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hi Jason and all, First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such List is inevitably biased. Next, that said list cannot possibly nail a specific 10 meteorites. Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here are 10 Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit full Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least one why Per each: 1) Canyon Diablo: prototypical and stable iron from what was recognized as the only impact crater for a very long time. It Can be added that it was also the original site of the Nininger Museum 2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more than Doubled the total weight of known CR material available. It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer stones Striking homes and patios 3) Esquel: The queen of the Pallasites with fantastic color, Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities large enough To allow any collector to have one of the few stable Pallasites. 4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that comprise the building blocks of life, perhaps the most studied of any meteorite Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm hypothesis. Again, a witnessed fall and a hammer. 5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists, this specimen has A unique physiology. Also a hammer. 6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized meteorite in the new world. Also a hammer. 7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a forthcoming article on the Status of L'Aigle as a hammer). 8) Ensischeim: The meteorite from hell. (also a hammer if you care to consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This is one of the richest events ever in the lore of meteorites. 9) Sikhote-Aline: producing thousands of what are pretty much agreed to be the world's most visually impressive iron individuals. Also a rare Iron witnessed fall. 10) Sylacauga: the only fully documented human striking meteorite. I could easily add several more, but these are just my 2 cents worth, anyway. I am likely wrong, as my wife repeatedly assures me I am. Best wishes, Michael On 2/14/09 4:59 AM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: Hi Jason, Even though we're living in a fast world and the modernism of our days may give the impression, that new scientific recoveries are drawn out of the nothing. But science and ideas are always integrated in traditions and contexts and are built on earlier steps. Chladni hadn't invented the idea, that the stones may stem from outside. He connected the idea that they come from space with the fireballs, the existing stones and reports about the falls and postulated additionally, that they could survive the atmospheric travel. That approach was ridiculous for his contemporary scientists. After the period of enlightment it was impossible that chunks fall from sky, Newton required empty spaces between the planets or at it best, cause they were Aristotelians, they had to be atmospheric products. (Although Tycho had measured long before the parallaxes of comets, to find out that they move indeed in space). So Chladni's weird theory never would have been accepted, if there wouldn't have happened that proof, the mighty shower of L'Aigle, conveniently close to the Académie de sciences. Therefore L'Aigle is for me a benchmark. Without L'Aigle no Chladni, no Schreibers, no Daubrée...no modern meteoritics. (At least not to the advanced stage we have today). Shhht Jason, btw. Chladni isn't that much known as Father of meteoritics, but for his Acoustics, he certainly is partially responsible for the gig tootling out from your speakers, while you're writing to the list :-) Sure it's only an ordinary chondrite, but you don't meet the meaning of this milestone, if you look with today's eyes on it. It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands Which gives in fact to that class an especially high scientific importance, doesn't it? The chondrites conserved the most original information about the origin of our solar system, the processes who lead to the formation of planets and they resemble much more the stuff we are all made from, than any differentiated meteorite, which tells us rather the history and development of his individual parent body. And ready we aren't yet with the chondrites. Ho many theories of chondrules genesis we have at present? Eleven? Look the recent decade, the discovery of protoplanetary discs around other stars. and so on. Only because they are so readily available to the collectors and despite the antartcic ones so cheap like never before (yes Mrs.Caroline Smith. Fletcher, Hey, check the museum's archives, had to pay much more than you), they shouldn't be disregarded. Hey, and confess Jason! The sight of something like that http://www.chladnis-heirs.com/36.956g.jpg doesn't it made your mouth water? Well, each warehouse telescope for 30 bucks is better than that, which Galilei
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly, but they are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for non-scientific reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as a crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand impact dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood mlbl...@cox.net wrote: Hi Jason and all, First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such List is inevitably biased. Next, that said list cannot possibly nail a specific 10 meteorites. Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here are 10 Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit full Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least one why Per each: 1) Canyon Diablo: prototypical and stable iron from what was recognized as the only impact crater for a very long time. It Can be added that it was also the original site of the Nininger Museum 2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more than Doubled the total weight of known CR material available. It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer stones Striking homes and patios 3) Esquel: The queen of the Pallasites with fantastic color, Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities large enough To allow any collector to have one of the few stable Pallasites. 4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that comprise the building blocks of life, perhaps the most studied of any meteorite Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm hypothesis. Again, a witnessed fall and a hammer. 5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists, this specimen has A unique physiology. Also a hammer. 6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized meteorite in the new world. Also a hammer. 7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a forthcoming article on the Status of L'Aigle as a hammer). 8) Ensischeim: The meteorite from hell. (also a hammer if you care to consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This is one of the richest events ever in the lore of meteorites. 9) Sikhote-Aline: producing thousands of what are pretty much agreed to be the world's most visually impressive iron individuals. Also a rare Iron witnessed fall. 10) Sylacauga: the only fully documented human striking meteorite. I could easily add several more, but these are just my 2 cents worth, anyway. I am likely wrong, as my wife repeatedly assures me I am. Best wishes, Michael On 2/14/09 4:59 AM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: Hi Jason, Even though we're living in a fast world and the modernism of our days may give the impression, that new scientific recoveries are drawn out of the nothing. But science and ideas are always integrated in traditions and contexts and are built on earlier steps. Chladni hadn't invented the idea, that the stones may stem from outside. He connected the idea that they come from space with the fireballs, the existing stones and reports about the falls and postulated additionally, that they could survive the atmospheric travel. That approach was ridiculous for his contemporary scientists. After the period of enlightment it was impossible that chunks fall from sky, Newton required empty spaces between the planets or at it best, cause they were Aristotelians, they had to be atmospheric products. (Although Tycho had measured long before the parallaxes of comets, to find out that they move indeed in space). So Chladni's weird theory never would have been accepted, if there wouldn't have happened that proof, the mighty shower of L'Aigle, conveniently close to the Académie de sciences. Therefore L'Aigle is for me a benchmark. Without L'Aigle no Chladni, no Schreibers, no Daubrée...no modern meteoritics. (At
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hello Graham, Sterling, John, Jeff, Walter, Rob, All, With regards to Sterling's point - true enough, but that's taking the historical angle again - we didn't believe that impact craters existed, we find a crater surrounded by meteorites, and eventually enough research added up to prove that it was indeed an impact crater. But this could have been done at any other crater that wasn't badly eroded...it's like L'Aigle in the sense that you're talking about a paradigm shift that could have been caused by any meteorite, any crater. In fact, the meteorite itself in this case becomes irrelevant - you're talking about a crater being important, not the irons. And the irons are fairly typical IAB's, chemically very similar to a number of other irons. I think the trouble is that we need clarification when making such a list because, as a number of you are saying, we're all just making lists based on our interpretation of Graham's request. I saw his question as a demand for a list of meteorites which were of particular scientific note, and made just such a list - but even I became sidetracked in my mentioning of the first lunar and martian meteorites ever recognized, for they fall into the historically, rather than scientifically important category. Their discovery was of note, but the meteorites themselves...while not typical, they're nothing too out of the ordinary. So what determines whether or not a meteorite is of scientific interest? I believe that mentioning things like L'Aigle or Canyon Diablo in this case is wrong because the meteorites, while they did cause major shifts in how we see the solar system and how it works, are relatively ordinary. But beyond that...I believe Greg Hupe had a good point when he mentioned that there are a great number of meteorites that are of great scientific interest that are more or less ignored because they come from NWA. I think it's going to take looking beyond what we think of as rare, because what we know as collectors isn't really what's scientifically important. In many cases, we never get a chance to buy those rocks, and there's good reason for it. I see it in a number of the lists mentioned; at least one person mentioned Calcalong Creek - without even making note of ALHA81005, the first recognized lunar meteorite. Why? Calcalong Creek is a rare and beautiful meteorite, granted, but is it particularly scientifically important? No. But - it was the first lunar meteorite available to the public. Rocks like Graves Nunataks (GRA) 06128 and 06129, like NWA 011, Ibitira, Semarkona, Kaidun - they do much more individually to further our knowledge of the solar system. I couldn't make a list of ten, because saying which unique meteorite or trait of a particular meteorite holds greater importance isn't something I see as rewarding...thinking about it just makes me realize how fortunate we are to be able to actually collect and touch these pieces of the very distant past. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner 4 did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those
[meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
Hello Graham, The list would probably include primitive stones such as Ivuna, Orgueil, Murchison, Tagish Lake, and Allende, as well as ordinary chondrites like Semarkona, etc. - and don't forget Krymka. They all contain information about the earliest days of the solar system - they're some of the oldest rocks we have. Other meteorites of particular scientific interest include older achondrites such as Shallowater aubrite, angrites, etc. They teach us about the earliest changes that began to occur in primitive bodies billions of years ago. And while some name angrites to be from Mercury, there is no confirmation of this hypothesis - the evidence to date is purely circumstantial, and points to their having come from a km+ sized body in the terrestrial planted O-isotope range...nothing more. See Melinda Hutson's aricle in the May 2008 Meteorite Magazine. With regards to planetary specimens, EETA79001 (the first recognized martian meteorite), ALHA 78001 (life?), and ALHA81005 (first recognized lunar meteorite). You could probably include Shergotty, Chassigny, and Nakhla, simply because they were the type specimens of those. They've taught us much about Mars and the Moon - don't think I need to elaborate that much. If you wanted to stretch it to other meteorites, I would include ungrouped stones because, individually speaking, they are more important than more common stones. Things like ungrouped chondrites and achondrites offer us views of unique parent bodies...it's hard to get more important than that. You might throw some unique irons or stony irons in with that lot - the trouble is that irons seem to be too ill-understood, even in today's day and age. But, a list of 10...I wouldn't ask for such a short list... Regards, Jason On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:55 PM, ensorama...@ntlworld.com wrote: Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:46:43 -0800, you wrote: martian meteorite), ALHA 78001 (life?), and ALHA81005 (first You mean 84001. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites?
OK Allende Murchison ALH84001 Tagish Lake Canyon Diablo (for it's Crater) Nakhla Calcalong Creek Orgueil Lost City (camera network data, orbit) Peekskill (videos, orbit data) --- On Fri, 2/13/09, ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com Subject: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 3:55 PM Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
