Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Pink Diamond Suevite Breccia


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, billpeters said:

You've got to be kidding.

That is just a low quality crystal carved into a diamond shape that looks like the Moon from the top. It has no relationship to a meteorite no matter what Hong Yun Zhu calls it. 

billpeters

Well, why won't anyone explain the obvious flat cleavage? I could sell this as is if the buyer knew a little geoscience. This is a raw meteoric diamond, I was looking for a diamond meteorite and found pink breccia that turns into already flat, cleaved, diamond crystal. I know because cleaving a diamond is a months prepared for procedure, and the presence of cleavage in raw diamonds can be used as an identifying feature. ūüĎĬ†

Whether or not the lunar diamond is real, well, why post it with nobody following the page? Diamond is not rare in space. This isn't the first example of a foreign meteorite not in-line with western science yet.

Thank you.

20190916_010638.jpg

Edited by WillM
Typos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This topic is sorta a "conundrum", but I don't think you can scrape your "diamond" on it.

This topic is a catsasstrophe as well as a corundum. A real abdomination.     

Shoot. You’re right. So here, I found a meteorite of my very own! It must have been part of the same fall because it looks nearly identical! It’s got giant clasts, impact fractures, fusion crust, and

Posted Images

Take all of your lunar diamond meteorites and sell them for a few hundreds of millions of dollars each. I am done responding to your posts.

billpeters 

Edited by billpeters
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billpeters said:

Take of of your lunar diamond meteorites and sell them for a few hundreds of millions of dollars each. I am done responding to your posts.

billpeters 

Bill, 

Thank you for your time on here and I actually liked hearing your responses. I am not sure if this is lunar or not yet and that just adds to the mystery. I will post about meteorite theory on here shortly, would not mind your input. 

Will

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took some specific gravity measurements, and although I have never unearthed the entire impact site, these appear to have varying specific gravity. From 2.5 to 2.7. This is the same as quartz. My question is, does this rule out diamond completely? The cleavage shouldn't be there if it is quartz? It could be a combination of the diamond and land mass that it hit, averaging it with other minerals that it fused with. Thank you.

Edited by WillM
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wet/dry washer said:

specific gravity for diamond- 3.52.

Thank you. I was also saying that suevite was made of country rock, with a specific gravity of like 2 combined with the diamond high specific gravity of 3.5 is 2.7. The cleavage is warped but planar, only one big crystal looks like a diamond from the surface. I will have to make sure it was only surface rock tomorrow.

Edited by WillM
Forgot something
Link to post
Share on other sites

WillM.

In your post above you wrote: "This isn't the first example of a foreign meteorite not in-line with western science yet. "

What country were these meteorites found in?

I was under the impression that science was the same all over the globe. Is there another kind of science besides "Western Science" where you live?

 

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

WillM.

In your post above you wrote: "This isn't the first example of a foreign meteorite not in-line with western science yet. "

What country were these meteorites found in?

I was under the impression that science was the same all over the globe. Is there another kind of science besides "Western Science" where you live?

I have seen a few meteorites like mine for sale in other languages, pages that are global but people from other countries than the U.S. where I live (where they never find meteorites). Other ones I saw like mine once were on an Australian website. I also just recently found out it is illegal to sell an Australian meteorite out of the country. Yes, there are more meteorites than any country's authourity has data on.

Edited by WillM
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wet/dry washer said:

lowest specific gravity for meteorites is 3.5.

that's what me read. and don't remember what type they were referring to.

I went back and there seemed to be some buried under the grass, and some spead out on purpose between bushes. I only thought it was diamond because I found a dark gray clastic matrix with a cubic crystal inside *attached nearby, it also had strongly magnetic iron inclusions.

 I took a picture of how deep the "quartz" go and the deeper the more pink it was. It is probably deeper. I found a new little meteorite today that has glypts, and a bigger one with a clear crust and a hole that shows air went into it, both slightly magnetic, I attached photos of them also.

Suevite is country rock and meteorite, getting them mixed up with display quartz seems natural, however how some of the quartz is pink itself is weird. A diamond checker might not even do. I will have to suspend study of this until I can get a graduated cylinder to check the density.  Otherwise it looks like sloppy landscaping.

If you ask me, flat holes with no lip around the rim is diagnostic of a meteorite. Bubbles pop, and they leave evidence that they did so. This evidence is material leading into the air gap at a curve. Meteorite holes get flattened by air as they expand,  that is also where glypts come from

 

20190918_113844.jpg

20190918_114108.jpg

20190918_113914.jpg

20190918_105741.jpg

20190918_105736.jpg

20190918_113828.jpg

20190918_113810.jpg

Edited by WillM
Typos add
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WillM said:

I have seen a few meteorites like mine for sale in other languages,

Seeing something for sale as a meteorite does not make it a meteorite de facto.

 

More pictures of lava rocks... boorb

Edited by Mikestang
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mikestang said:

Seeing something for sale as a meteorite does not make it a meteorite de facto.

 

More pictures of lava rocks... boorb

 

3 hours ago, GeoJack said:

Wow, just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in...

Image result for picard palm plant

 

2 hours ago, Stillweaver hillbelli said:

Quartz can be almost any color of the rainbow- iron, the cause

I have seen similar rocks in meteorite forums that go uncontested. With assurance. I sm not saying that makes the diamond suevite any more valid. As long as the heating to explode the rock thing works I would say it was, because I heated one of my "nonlinear flow feature" rocks and it "popped" loudly at a lighter. 

I guess it has to be quartz, odd that it is the average of Earth and Diamond specific gravity. The magnetic effects would be explained by iron as well. 

I attached photos of stones from my recent expedition. As you can see, one of them has a fresh "rainbow" "oil slick" fusion crust that looks like magic candy.  I was happy to have found some of my first such "classic" looking specimens. (I have some extra to post later too). 

As you can see,  this has the black fusion crusted regmaglypts we all know well. There is a charred shatter from spalling. They are as obvious a new specimen as I am probably going to get although.

Thanks

 

 

20190918_164723.jpg

20190918_164628.jpg

20190918_164918.jpg

20190918_164858.jpg

20190918_164832.jpg

20190918_164740.jpg

Edited by WillM
Typos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mikestang said:

More slag and/or lava rocks.

Whatever you say, glypts don't make themselves, and a piece of slag or lava can not trick me into think it's a meteorite, just like when everyone meets me and thinks I am mexican when I am half black. Not looking for your approval nor is it needed for me to recognize a meteorite in the field. Not trying to be right it's just the facts. These ones are not worth arguing over lol Who cares if they are meteorites? 

Edited by WillM
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mikestang said:

More slag and/or lava rocks.

I have attached a rock I found just today. This time with a methodical observational sketch of each of it's four sides accompanied by a picture. This is just to see if it helps get the picture through, becsuse these seem obvious to be meteorites to me. This new rock has rusted iron clasts throughout in a range of sizes and shapes. The clasts are strongly attracted to a cheap magnet. The matrix is glypted in every dimension and is weakly attracted to a strong magnet. So the features and the composition line's up with a stony-iron. It even has 2 natural holes straight through like a drill.

I drew the pictures, I was going to draw them before but now I just want to make sure we are on the same page here. These are honeycomb flow features in 3 dimensions. If you are telling me it could still not be a meteorite after that, I will take your opinion as "it didnt get through" unless you can show me a piece of slag I could draw on each of it's sides with the same pattern. I was not trying to get these confirmed, but here you go, I never find stony-irons. 

20190919_144109.jpg

 

20190919_143649.jpg

 

20190919_144905.jpg

20190919_144847.jpg

20190919_144432.jpg

 

image3A7752_mirror.jpg

image3A7754_mirror.jpg

image3A7756_mirror.jpg

Edited by WillM
Pics
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

Has 0 traits of a meteorite.

Okay I will stop posting them here then, it's definitely not slag. Because I have to use my imagination, I look crazy. It has that ratio I brought up. The holes are turning into the edges as a function of meteoritics itself. The tendency for the hole to ablate the edge can be given as a quantum shear ratio in a well blended matrix. (This is not including molecules) The tougher the material, the closer to the edge the hole has to be to ablate it, that's why regmaglypts are distinctive in irons, and they more often do not have holes. Then it gets weaker up to stony-irons where there is chaos in the appearance with more or less gasses in the matrix contributing to hole formation. Until you reach stony meteorites that don't show edge ablation from holes because any holes are rounded out, yet they have perfect edge ablation through time, more reactive to change than iron. In an iron the edges are the holes and they therefore have sturdier shape

That is my basic theory on why meteorites take shape. If it makes sense.

Edited by WillM
Forgot something
  • well done 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, WillM said:

If it makes sense.

Not much of anything you say makes any sense and that's not just my opinion. Many others have the same opinion and they are very knowledgeable meteorite collectors...hunters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Morlock said:

Not much of anything you say makes any sense and that's not just my opinion. Many others have the same opinion and they are very knowledgeable meteorite collectors...hunters.

Yes, as I have said before, I need to write the paper and get it peer reviewed, in fact, after I post this content, I am googling the structure of a scientific paper. I will begin at once. People here know what they are talking about, but lets not ignore that the Venus rocks, if they were real, could be that composition. The problem, is connecting chemistry to aerodynamics. Meteorwrongs are harder to comeby than all this " sag" I have been finding. No need to try to convince people if it takes a paper to even begin to prove the point. I will start with a rational hypothesis based on data, and take cold measurements. The hole next to an edge is under the influence of reverse vortices that cause it to be a reactive element, such that the hole will appear to have "affected" the edge. I have to commision research.

Thanks

Edited by WillM
Typo
  • well done 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, WillM said:

I am googling the structure of a scientific paper.

I get the impression you lack any credentials, experience, or expertise to produce such a document given this statement alone.  I think you know enough words to put them in an order that appears meaningful, yet lack any real understanding of any subject matter you have broached here thus far.  Good day.

Edited by Mikestang
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

I get the impression you lack any credentials, experience, or expertise to produce such a document given this statement alone.  I think you know enough words to put them in an order that appears meaningful, yet lack any real understanding of any subject matter you have broached here thus far.  Good day.

You know you won the argument when they start insulting you I guess because it is a lot easier than you are trying to make it out to be, so I had to check my senses. And it's my first paper too. You should get educated, you don't need credentials to get published.

Edited by WillM
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...