Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums
WillM

Does this composition verify that my meteorite is from Venus?

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Regmaglitch said:

I just love the Slag coefficient in the equation...

 

 

I don't know if you are saying it is slag, all I am really trying to say with the image is that a hole "wants" to turn into an edge. The math presents a classic problem in mathematics of squaring the circle. It is like material assuming the path of least resistance. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, WillM said:

I don't know if you are saying it is slag, all I am really trying to say with the image is that a hole "wants" to turn into an edge. The math presents a classic problem in mathematics of squaring the circle. It is like material assuming the path of least resistance. 

I can see your ablative theory and process but doesn't there have to be a known quantity as a bench mark for a quantitative or comparative analysis? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 11:29 PM, Morlock said:

I've never seen a meteorite of any type with vesicles like those in your picture. Will defer to the experts as to whether or not it's a venusian meteorite.

As to the array full spectrum I will leave that discussion up to those who know that field. There has never been a confirmed meteorite from Venus. It would be extremely difficult for an asteroid impact to blast rock out into the higher Earth orbit, but not impossible. Get you hands on actual, confirmed meteorites, read and learn about their characteristics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BMc said:

I can see your ablative theory and process but doesn't there have to be a known quantity as a bench mark for a quantitative or comparative analysis? 

I have reverse engineered a boat from photograph so the benchmark is direct observation and I cite the paper "A Fluid Dynamic Mechanism of Meteorite Pitting" that has in itself flow equations. Otherwise the data is simply the specimens that I have collected and directly observed the ablation toward the edges in a consistant manner with no anomolies. I am not sure what more of a benchmark there could be, it is a chaotic system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SAMIYA said:

As to the array full spectrum I will leave that discussion up to those who know that field. There has never been a confirmed meteorite from Venus. It would be extremely difficult for an asteroid impact to blast rock out into the higher Earth orbit, but not impossible. Get you hands on actual, confirmed meteorites, read and learn about their characteristics.

 

23 hours ago, Au Seeker said:

WillM,

I know very little about meteorites other than what I have learned here on the forum.

That being said, you seem to be somewhat thorough on some of your research.... BUT I have a very hard time following any of your posts since all of your data and info you post tends to be all clustered together, if you could do me a little favor and research paragraphs and try to apply that knowledge to your future posts so it would be easier for me to follow along, it would also help me learn more about meteorites or what's not a meteorite. 

 

You can draw with the pattern. You could write a computer program with it to generate random pseuedo-meteorites. I am personally a line artist and I have fun using the shapes. The pattern comes from gravity and atmospheric effects.

These are molecularly different than any meteorite, and so the chemical shear forces along with the turbulant boiling flow mechanics give them a unique shape. "A Fluid Dynamic Mecanism of Meteorite Pitting" goes over a handful of different meteorites and uses direct observation to predict the vortices as illustrated. These have an average of all of these shapes, such that there can be near perfect prediction of features, potentially for some we don't  know about.

Each shape is a function of fluid dynamics. There are no other types of shapes than these in these stones. You can combine these in any way and be able to find it somewhere. There are even a few samples that directly resemble known meteorites. These features work together in a way that is unmistakable. I go over it deeper:

 "Stagnation regions":

Centers of vortex flow or divergence. These are like the center of air flow. You can say the area of greatest displacement of material by the wind. Features radiate with stagnation regions, even irregular ones. Where the air tends to stagnate.

"Radial shoulder pitting orientation":

Pitting radial toward the skirt. These are basically streamers that flow in line that are found in a radial pattern. They are always relative to the overall orientation. It can sometimes be the cause of holes.

"Rounding to ogive erosion sequence":

This is the first rounding and then gothic shaping through time lines expressed as intervals. One can easily estimate the erosion pattern marked by crests. This has to do with the timing of the compromising of the materials's integrity through the atmosphere relative to the heat of the object.

 Vortex erosion crests":

These are vortices that reverse flow and form lipped edges. The propagation of material is evident at right angles on the edges of a blast. The reverse flow allows for wild possibilities.

"Vortex pits":

Lipped edging caused by the flow of air reversing on one side. These are created by a cyclone that sweeps material into a lipped shape. It is from the reverse underflow of material once air has psssed over the lip.

"Double vortex crests"

Pitting that is occurs just before the crest. These pits are in tandem and parallel to each other such that the cyclone is synergetic. Moulding of the material by vacuum occurs.

"Streamer knobs"

These are flows that reverse and terminate as a knob. There are many in my samples. The vortex forces air out of the stagnation region and escapes as a pointed tip in line with the area of stagnation.

"Stagnation skirt orientation"

The consequence of orientation and symmetry between diverging and converging stagnation points on opposite sides. This overall shape is found in many meteorites and is characterized by a smooth front face and regmaglypted back face from turbulant flow as the edge turns into a rim in some instances.

"Projection crests"

Protuberances and stagnation points that follow a wake. These can be found in many meteorites. This is one of the ways that the "honeycomb" structure's propagation and the lipping of the edges come together.

"Streamers"

Stretched material that forms edges. These are found with many variations but they are marked by a certain direction of material flow being held during the crucial last phases of ablation.  

"Radial flow divergences"

These are flows that are radial to a stagnation region. The radial pattern in never off of a stagnation region.

"Right angle flow crests"

This is the tendency of s crest to produceflows at a 45 degree angle relstive to the wake of the crest, a kind of "squaring off". This is one of the most dramatic ways that a flow can change direction. 

This is my hypothesis. Citing this research paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1959SCoA....3...47W 

20190910_162306_mirror2.jpg

Edited by WillM
Spacing
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WillM said:

 

This is my hypothesis. 

 

My hypothesis is that you have a load of slag. :25r30wi:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

My hypothesis is that you have a load of slag. :25r30wi:

I guess you are hating on me then too. I don't care what anyone thinks after all that over compensating work synergizing entire academic fields, you still want to say it's some crap you have seen before. But you are absent to the fact that I am not someone who has been seen before myself and let me tell you, it sucks to have to put up with everyone's delusion's that I am someone I am not. Never judge a book by it's cover, and if you do, make sure you take time to breakdown the abstract shapes of it's geometric structure through calculus before. And put it to words. Moral of the story. :poostorm:

Edited by WillM
Emoji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but... mother nature does life her way, not your way bb.

you could meet me at the Tucson show in January when me introduces evidence for the martian fall rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wet/dry washer said:

but... mother nature does life her way, not your way bb.

you could meet me at the Tucson show in January when me introduces evidence for the martian fall rocks.

I will try to make it to the Tucson show and meet you for sure thank you

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WillM said:

I have reverse engineered a boat from photograph so the benchmark is direct observation and I cite the paper "A Fluid Dynamic Mechanism of Meteorite Pitting" that has in itself flow equations. Otherwise the data is simply the specimens that I have collected and directly observed the ablation toward the edges in a consistant manner with no anomolies. I am not sure what more of a benchmark there could be, it is a chaotic system.

So we have noticed . . .  :) But even though the flow equations published by D.T. Williams adhered to the scientific method and was accepted by the scientific community (perhaps with minor disagreements among a few), how is your specimen proved to be a meteorite, much less a meteorite from Venus?  I don't see anyone on the forum disagreeing with the math but as has been repeatedly stated, the subject specimen fails the basic meteorite identification/elimination test(s)  And, regarding his experiments, even D.T. Williams cautioned: "None of this evidence is strictly speaking a proof, and of course, a rigorous proof is out of the question since no tests can be made on the pitting of meteorites during astroballistic flight" Williams further states: Paraphrased: In searching for an aerodynamic mechanism to explain flow lines and meteorite pitting, one need not be limited to a supersonic speed of the flow . . . Which is apparent throughout his experiments which were conducted at subsonic speeds! 

Therefore, it would seem reasonable to examine the subject specimen with consideration of a hypothesis that the pitting, thumb prints and flow lines, (if any), may have been (and in fact more likely), to have been caused by the affect of fluid/flow dynamics at subsonic speeds of an earthly origin . . .  such as a blast furnace or similar environment that could possibly offer a more plausible identification.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WillM said:

I guess you are hating on me then too. I don't care what anyone thinks after all that over compensating work synergizing entire academic fields, you still want to say it's some crap you have seen before. But you are absent to the fact that I am not someone who has been seen before myself and let me tell you, it sucks to have to put up with everyone's delusion's that I am someone I am not. Never judge a book by it's cover, and if you do, make sure you take time to breakdown the abstract shapes of it's geometric structure through calculus before. And put it to words. Moral of the story. :poostorm:

I'm not hating on you WillM. I normally root for the underdog and the downtrodden. I do hope you are successful in reaching a satisfactory conclusion in your quest. I am somewhat intellectually concerned that your hypothesis may have exceeded your investigative process, in that you seem to have reached a conclusion and are working backward to prove your theory. (Instead of taking it by the numbers, as they say in the military) Concluding the validity of a Venusian meteorite by using principles of fluid mechanics would seem to be a quantum hypothetical leap in logic, that's all.  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BMc said:

So we have noticed . . .  :) But even though the flow equations published by D.T. Williams adhered to the scientific method and was accepted by the scientific community (perhaps with minor disagreements among a few), how is your specimen proved to be a meteorite, much less a meteorite from Venus?  I don't see anyone on the forum disagreeing with the math but as has been repeatedly stated, the subject specimen fails the basic meteorite identification/elimination test(s)  And, regarding his experiments, even D.T. Williams cautioned: "None of this evidence is strictly speaking a proof, and of course, a rigorous proof is out of the question since no tests can be made on the pitting of meteorites during astroballistic flight" Williams further states: Paraphrased: In searching for an aerodynamic mechanism to explain flow lines and meteorite pitting, one need not be limited to a supersonic speed of the flow . . . Which is apparent throughout his experiments which were conducted at subsonic speeds! 

Therefore, it would seem reasonable to examine the subject specimen with consideration of a hypothesis that the pitting, thumb prints and flow lines, (if any), may have been (and in fact more likely), to have been caused by the affect of fluid/flow dynamics at subsonic speeds of an earthly origin . . .  such as a blast furnace or similar environment that could possibly offer a more plausible identification.

These were found nowhere near a furnace or factory or any type of man-made structure, and were extremly hard to find. Do you mean to say that even with every single aspect matching a meteorite, it somehow still can't be? I need to chemically test more specimens. Somehow the single word regmaglypt is used to I.D. meteorites, that is nothing compared to multiple scientific drawings, you aren't making a conclusion, you are describing the basis of a strange attractor or average of displacement of chaos as a product of turbulence. Basic chaos theory. Like I have said, they've strapped earth rocks to a rocket with cameras and recorded the rocks "boiling" on re-entry, I believe it was a NASA study. That alone goes against any other "theory" I have heard and quite frankly is counter-intuitive based on all previous accounts of meteorite atmospheric effects I have been able to read about. The scattering of this kind of material is unheard of unless someone played a prank, and these are not recreatable chemically in a lab. The breccia proves it came from shattering of some sort, the uneven disbursement of "so called vesicles" shows it can't be evenly mixed. These do not fail the basic tests, they are all crusted and the vesicles are beveled with an extra material layer. The discoloration shows it was a burned rock that cooled assymetrically sometimes with perfect orientation. The paper I cited utilizes subsonic flow to make pseuedo-meteorites out of salt cubes. They resemble these. These show fracture from flow. As any rock is hard to fracture on Earth.

 

Thank you.

Edited by WillM
Chemically, typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BMc said:

I'm not hating on you WillM. I normally root for the underdog and the downtrodden. I do hope you are successful in reaching a satisfactory conclusion in your quest. I am somewhat intellectually concerned that your hypothesis may have exceeded your investigative process, in that you seem to have reached a conclusion and are working backward to prove your theory. (Instead of taking it by the numbers, as they say in the military) Concluding the validity of a Venusian meteorite by using principles of fluid mechanics would seem to be a quantum hypothetical leap in logic, that's all.  :)

I don't think it is any leap in logic other than the fact that the paper goes over examples of real meteorites.

You have to see them in person, going over the pattern really makes it pop out as a meteorite. This one I will be selling also has an example of olvine that is clearly translucent, also with all of the flow features. One prfessor from U of M said "you can see it has glypts" "they don't look like meteorites based on the pictures" the other professor endorsed me immediatly once he saw I found 6 different oriented stones. The rocky/smooth orientation, not the skirts. The fact is, you can go deeper and deeper with them and the predicting feels like magic. I am only forming it as a hypothesis to help the science in the forum, otherwise it is considered a conclusion and the results are a complete success.

Edited by WillM
Spelling
  • Hmmmmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WillM said:

Do you mean to say that even with every single aspect matching a meteorite, it somehow still can't be? 

No aspects match any meteorite. It is full of gas bubbles, silica and oxidized metal. It is slag.

Why are you trying to convince us? We are not meteorite experts and we don't classify meteorites. We hunt them. And yours does not look like any meteorite we have ever seen. It does however look just like slag and we all have seen tons of it. Your assay bears that out.

Your reasons for thinking it is a meteorite make no sense whatsoever. When pressed on matters of chemistry and physics you can't provide an answer. So IMHO you have not provided any evidence that it is a meteorite and your argument is less than convincing. 

And then there is the alien life form growing from the rock. I'm flabbergasted. I thought poodles carved by Spanish masons was a bizarre leap of logic. You my friend have taken the trophy.

It seems you are desperate for someone to believe you. You have found bob and he is a good fellow. I honestly don't think you are going to get much more satisfaction here. No one thinks you have found a meteorite and until you can get an expert to look at it that is not going to change.

Relax a bit Bill. Stop drawing pictures and thinking about flow lines. Get some rest and avoid the stimulants. Wake up early tomorrow and call someone who can prescribe a mild SSRI. Schedule an appointment with someone who will listen to your meteorite story and adjust the medication accordingly.

Then after a few of weeks of medication, light exercise and regular discussions with a therapist you can come back and read these posts. It will all seem so silly. We can talk about the old days when we first met and how much you have changed. We can discuss real meteorites and how to recognize them. It will be a bright new day.

Or you can draw a bunch of pictures and obsess on the shape of slag. And try to make someone on the internet believe you have found a Venutian meteorite with an alien life form growing on it. :idunno:

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, WillM said:

These were found nowhere near a furnace or factory or any type of man-made structure, and were extremly hard to find. Do you mean to say that even with every single aspect matching a meteorite, it somehow still can't be? I need to chemically test more specimens. Somehow the single word regmaglypt is used to I.D. meteorites, that is nothing compared to multiple scientific drawings, you aren't making a conclusion, you are describing the basis of a strange attractor or average of displacement of chaos as a product of turbulence. Basic chaos theory. Like I have said, they've strapped earth rocks to a rocket with cameras and recorded the rocks "boiling" on re-entry, I believe it was a NASA study. That alone goes against any other "theory" I have heard and quite frankly is counter-intuitive based on all previous accounts of meteorite atmospheric effects I have been able to read about. The scattering of this kind of material is unheard of unless someone played a prank, and these are not recreatable chemically in a lab. The breccia proves it came from shattering of some sort, the uneven disbursement of "so called vesicles" shows it can't be evenly mixed. These do not fail the basic tests, they are all crusted and the vesicles are beveled with an extra material layer. The discoloration shows it was a burned rock that cooled assymetrically sometimes with perfect orientation. The paper I cited utilizes subsonic flow to make pseuedo-meteorites out of salt cubes. They resemble these. These show fracture from flow. As any rock is hard to fracture on Earth.

 

Thank you.

By all means, continue testing. Sub-sonic flow mechanics would seem to be worthy of further consideration. IMO. Good Luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am completely taken aback at the amount of people who don't believe me, if you don't I suggest you read all of the posts through. On top of that nobody has pressed me for chemical or fluid evidence. If I can convince people it is real on here, I would rather that than suffer the egos of professionals who claim they know everything about the heavens. Nobody can name a flow process as choppy and succinct that would cause shattered parts of flowing features. I have already lost one to another expert who failed to tell me the testing method, I took a professional's word for it and we threw it away because he was supposed to "have a guy". They could really be from Venus like more than 99% sure it matches all data! And advanced sensitive chemical ratio measurements even match a prior version of Venus that would have had reduced manganese during it's early life just like Earth according to recent research. Where are the people with the data to refute me? I have not heard one sound argument besides you don't want it to be one because it looks like slag. I however am more vigilant in my observations. I have discovered the only rusty part-iron inclusions that are in this matrix that includes translucent olvine! Same rock. This matrix is also weakly attracted to a strong neodymium magnet throughout, however the iron clasts are strongly attracted to a cheap magnet and located near the olvine! Attached. So it is a stoney-iron achondrite high-potential planetary fragment? That, I have never even heard of, but I will continue my education. Please would anyone for the sake of science tell me how there could be iron clasted olvine fused to a slightly magnetic rock? That perfectly looks like a meteorite?

 

Thanks everyone.

20190912_011314.jpg

Edited by WillM
Add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bedrock Bob said:

No aspects match any meteorite. It is full of gas bubbles, silica and oxidized metal. It is slag.

Why are you trying to convince us? We are not meteorite experts and we don't classify meteorites. We hunt them. And yours does not look like any meteorite we have ever seen. It does however look just like slag and we all have seen tons of it. Your assay bears that out.

Your reasons for thinking it is a meteorite make no sense whatsoever. When pressed on matters of chemistry and physics you can't provide an answer. So IMHO you have not provided any evidence that it is a meteorite and your argument is less than convincing. 

And then there is the alien life form growing from the rock. I'm flabbergasted. I thought poodles carved by Spanish masons was a bizarre leap of logic. You my friend have taken the trophy.

It seems you are desperate for someone to believe you. You have found bob and he is a good fellow. I honestly don't think you are going to get much more satisfaction here. No one thinks you have found a meteorite and until you can get an expert to look at it that is not going to change.

Relax a bit Bill. Stop drawing pictures and thinking about flow lines. Get some rest and avoid the stimulants. Wake up early tomorrow and call someone who can prescribe a mild SSRI. Schedule an appointment with someone who will listen to your meteorite story and adjust the medication accordingly.

Then after a few of weeks of medication, light exercise and regular discussions with a therapist you can come back and read these posts. It will all seem so silly. We can talk about the old days when we first met and how much you have changed. We can discuss real meteorites and how to recognize them. It will be a bright new day.

Or you can draw a bunch of pictures and obsess on the shape of slag. And try to make someone on the internet believe you have found a Venutian meteorite with an alien life form growing on it. :idunno:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, BMc said:

By all means, continue testing. Sub-sonic flow mechanics would seem to be worthy of further consideration. IMO. Good Luck!

:oregonian_winesmiley:

Edited by WillM
Emoji, and this all was supposed to be in the previous post
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an olvine crust for comparison.

image3A7602_mirror.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found planetary pallasite? You can clearly see the olvine has an iron clast! Very strongly attracted to a cheap magnet.

20190912_023139_mirror.jpg

Edited by WillM
Magnet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

suggest not using a magnet on meteorites, it damages further scientific research. use compass for checking magnetic poles. some will have poles some will not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, Nothing is going to convince him these are not meteorites. Best thing to do is simply ignore him by not replying to his posts as hard as it may be. He'll simply disappear after awhile when he doesn't get the attention he craves.

  • Like 1
  • well done 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad but true, it was funny for a minute. Now this is getting plain boring. :idunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Morlock said:

Guys, Nothing is going to convince him these are not meteorites. Best thing to do is simply ignore him by not replying to his posts as hard as it may be. He'll simply disappear after awhile when he doesn't get the attention he craves.

Nobody craves attention, just real answers not people mad because how rare it could be. No wonder they were never discovered before times a million! I don't know what the use is trying to sell it when nobody wants to agree with reality and instead pretends I didn't do it. I don't need another scientist to agree just because they never saw one before! That is a fact based off of the arrangement of molecules! There are millions of ways this could easily be described as slag to me but nobody wants to actually do science and tell me why it is not a meteorite.  I guess it is too inconvenient that every spec of deep all encompassing data matches meteorite besides people's instincts. I am sure if we always went off people's instincts, there would be quite a few less meteorites in the world, I found a person who can comprehend with me so I am patient, and people bashing me, saying I need mental health help when they are the ones who clearly do. Everyone else around me is the ones panicking. Now you are saying iron is found pre-mixed out of slag. So now somehow pseuedo-science is running the world and it is lucky I was here with the means to play games with ONE ROCK. A lot if people don't realize that we are talking about something that is whole and cannot truly be broken down. So now there are perfect patterns that drive people mad? Let someone get lucky and get this before I did all the science on it, I need the validation, and I am sure someone would be happy to have this. At most I will simply get the atmosphere test but even that is garbage now because I proved it was pallasite. This is a big rock, there are different phases to test. I thought it could be the first verified meteorite through chemistry because there is a NASA chart splitting the inner bodies of the solar system up by this chemical ratio. Had this been Martian or Mercurian, the ratio would have been too close to Earth to say anything based off of the chart! Even in the face of overwhelming intricate evidence science does not accept it. Is there even a way for someone to find a meteorite and sell it without going through hell? Or is this the process?

Please by all means tell me your thoughts on what I have said instead of saying it is slag when we all know slag is not crushed and then remelted and then crushed again.  Tell me why someone would make slag like that, and don't tell me smelting, because the metal is already in metallic form as a super magnetic iron clast. I have never even seen iron clasts on anything bedsides  a meteorite. Could there be one? It is a yes or no question that could be easily answered.

Thank you.

Edited by WillM
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, hardtimehermit said:

Sad but true, it was funny for a minute. Now this is getting plain boring. :idunno:

Is there a way to find a meteorite and sell it quickly? Like if it matches the look of known meteorites? Because we can go there and nobody will have the chance to say it is slag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...