[meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and Kingsley

From: Mark Grossman <markig_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:13:27 -0500
Message-ID: <6D69BC3F056949D5AAA2E89D774B7D34_at_QED>

Shawn,

"Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call"

Did I miss something here? Wasn't the first sentence of your post yesterday
as follows:

"A couple weeks ago I made a post about the Weston fall and the rivalry
between Silliman and Woodhouse."

No Shawn, you brought it up again after I thought the issue was closed for
several weeks, and I just responded to what you initiated - again -
yesterday.

Now if you can't sort out who brought up what, how the heck are you going to
be able to sort out the accomplishments of Woodhouse and Silliman?

"I do believe that Silliman?s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a
scientific discovery for science"

So tell me - specifically - what did Silliman discover when he analyzed the
Weston meteorite - that wasn't already discovered? Tell me - specifically.
Chrome? No, he said it wasn't present after performing an analysis, and
then it was discovered in Weston the following year by someone else.

So, you ask, what happened on Dec 14, 1807? - a meteorite practically fell
in Silliman's lap, and he was professional enough to analyze it, and
brilliant to promote it. But his analysis was nothing special
scientifically. And he believed that comets circled the Earth! And yes,
Woodhouse didn't accomplish much after the Weston fall like Silliman - too
bad he died in 1809.

You stated:

"Now if you stand by your statement which I believe you do, then wouldn?t
you have to agree that Chladni?s work is not a particularly impressive
analytical work on meteoritical science? You have to admit that Chladni
never step foot in the field and nor did he examine meteorites in his
earlier publications on meteorite falls. All he did was reiterate past
events, folklore, and stories about meteorite falls and retell the events,
nothing more nothing less."

Don't put words in my mouth. Einstein never did any field work either, and
he did his experiments in his head! Howard also never did any field work,
but we still remember his great analytical work, which was groundbreaking,
unlike Silliman's.

Chladni thought out of the box as far as his contemporaries go. Silliman
did professional but not exceptional science. Silliman is not in the same
league as Chladni.

If Weston wasn't the first meteorite to fall and be recovered in the US, and
if the Thomas Jefferson issue regarding Silliman never existed, do you
really think that Silliman would still have such a reputation as far as
meteoritics? Or would he be remembered more like Woodhouse as far as the
meteorite goes?

The event and his persona caught the public's attention. He was in the
right place at the right time and took advantage of it. What if the
meteorite had fallen near Philadelphia in Woodhouse's territory and Silliman
was trying to obtain a sample for analysis? What would you think then?
Would we be talking about Silliman and the meteorite at all? Silliman was
one lucky guy.

Can you honestly look anyone in the eye and say that Silliman ranks with the
likes of Edward Howard or Benjamin Franklin regarding scientific
accomplishment? He is simply not on the same level.

Enough said on my part. And as far as quoting Prince and the Hittites, see
what Cathryn Prince had to say about my thoughts on Silliman at the end of
the book review post on Meteorite Manuscripts (see websites below, click on
the link to the left of the pencil icon at the end of the book review for
comments).

Mark

Mark Grossman
Meteorite Manuscripts

http://meteoritemanuscripts.blogspot.com

http://twitter.com/MetManuscripts

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Meteorite-Manuscripts/152949358073543?v=wall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Alan" <photophlow at yahoo.com>
To: <markig at westnet.com>
Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 3:25 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report
bySilliman and Kingsley


Hello Mark and Listers,

Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call, all
I posted was the analysis and field report done by Silliman and Kingsley on
the Weston meteorite fall in 1807.

Mark you said

?There is a difference between scientific discovery vs. scientific
promotion/education - - Sillimans work on the Weston meteorite falls into
the latter category.?

Please remind me what happened on December 14 1807 around Weston,
Connecticut? O yeah, a meteorite fall. And who were the only scientists that
went to the meteorite fall, o yeah Silliman and Kingsley. What did they
discover, mmm that the stones that people found were actually meteorites
from space which comfirmed with other meteorite falls in Europe from
Silliman?s and Kingsley?s anyalasis and field study report. I do believe
that Silliman?s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a scientific discovery
for science and meteoritic science and that the Weston meteorite was first
of its kind in the New World.

Mark you said

?It may have brought Silliman, as well as the U.S., a
lot of publicity and fame, but as far as science goes, it was not a
particularly impressive piece of analytical work, considering that Silliman
himself admitted that he followed in the footsteps of Howard and others.?

Now if you stand by your statement which I believe you do, then wouldn?t you
have to agree that Chladni?s work is not a particularly impressive
analytical work on meteoritical science? You have to admit that Chladni
never step foot in the field and nor did he examine meteorites in his
earlier publications on meteorite falls. All he did was reiterate past
events, folklore, and stories about meteorite falls and retell the events,
nothing more nothing less.

In Princes book, A Professor, A President, And a Meteor, she explains that
the Hittites people from 3200 years ago understood that meteors came from
space. ?The Hittites realized the stones yield iron, naming iron kuan. Some
scientists consider this the earliest known name for meteoritic iron.)
(Prince pg121) Chladni hypothesized that masses of stone and iron do, in
fact fall from the sky.( Marvin, 2007 The origins of modern meteorite
research) But from your statements above this would put Chladni in the
category of not having particularly impressive work cause people before him
hypothesized rocks came from space.

But as for meteoritical science goes, Chladni is a GODFATHER and as for
Silliman goes, he transformed meteoritcal science in the New World with his
discovery with the first meteorite fall in the Americas. Here is a link to
his analysis report down below.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DbkAAAAAYAAJ&dq=silliman%20%20meteorite%20transactions%20Transactions%201809&pg=PA323#v=onepage&q&f=false


Shawn Alan
IMCA 1633
eBaystore
http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html


[meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and
Kingsley
Mark Grossman markig at westnet.com
Thu Mar 10 23:04:26 EST 2011

Previous message: [meteorite-list] Transfer of geological, marine artefacts
illegal: MECA | Oman Observer
Next message: [meteorite-list] All Shook Up!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn,

Since you brought up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic again today,, I want to be
sure you understand that I am not trying to inflate the work of Woodhouse at
the expense of Silliman. I am trying to present a balanced perspective of
what both Woodhouse and Silliman accomplished.

If you really want to learn about Woodhouse, see J. J. Beer, "The chemistry
of the founding fathers", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 53, no. 7
(1976), pp. 405-408.

It's available at the following link:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/ed053p405

Regarding Silliman's low opinion of Woodhouse, Beer, who taught at the
University of Delaware, states: "the long-run evaluation of Woodhouse by
his colleagues and subsequent historians is different." He then goes on to
outline Woodhouse's accomplishments.

See page 407 of the article.

There is a difference between scientific discovery vs. scientific
promotion/education - - Sillimans work on the Weston meteorite falls into
the latter category. It may have brought Silliman, as well as the U.S., a
lot of publicity and fame, but as far as science goes, it was not a
particularly impressive piece of analytical work, considering that Silliman
himself admitted that he followed in the footsteps of Howard and others.

Again, everything is on the Meteorite Manuscripts post on Prince's book,
which can be viewed at the links below.

Mark

Mark Grossman
Meteorite Manuscripts
Briarcliff Manor, NY

http://meteoritemanuscripts.blogspot.com

http://twitter.com/MetManuscripts

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Meteorite-Manuscripts/152949358073543?v=wall


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Previous message: [meteorite-list] Transfer of geological, marine artefacts
illegal: MECA | Oman Observer
Next message: [meteorite-list] All Shook Up!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list
Received on Fri 11 Mar 2011 05:13:27 PM PST