[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Strange Mystery of the Albion Meteorite (Iron)
- To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
- Subject: Re: The Strange Mystery of the Albion Meteorite (Iron)
- From: Jim Hurley <hurleyj@arachnaut.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:00:12 -0700
- Old-X-Envelope-To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
- Organization: Mind Your Own, a division of None of Your
- References: <l03020902b1aacf0fc2cd@[134.50.237.73]>
- Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-From: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"gf6g-B.A.uQD.U_dh1"@mu.pair.com>
- Resent-Sender: meteorite-list-request@meteoritecentral.com
It is interesting to note that Taylor argues in 'Stellar Evolution'
that it is a common scientific problem to oversimplify what is not
understood.
He spent quite a bit of time in the book trying to weigh various
pro and con arguments based on the scientific evidence, experimental
evidence, and what might be called 'simplification based on lack of real
data'.
The latter usually becomes 'givens' or 'initial assumptions' when they
escape
criticism for very long.
I'm not trying to get into an argument here, just trying to show a
little of the change in thought since 1975.
Martin Horejsi wrote:
> It is reasonable to think that all H chondrites came from the
> same asteroid. All L chondrites came from the same asteroid, as did LL
> chondrites. This may be an oversimplification of the situation, but it is
> easier to assume that like classes have like sources even though a
> reasonable reaction would be to think there are many related asteroids thus
> producing similar meteorites but from different parent bodies.
Follow-Ups:
References: