Dear Mike just when you think you have the book ready to publish and you know all there is to know someone changes a chapter... So let me revisit what we thought we knew about trinitie formation
I got this blurb today from Geology at about.com but the link to the WSMR Military website isn't there yet again. Since the new theory was published in 2005 I stand partially corrected about the origin of trinitite--there is a fallback theory paper! "The trinitite appears to have formed as sand was sucked up into the nuclear fireball and fell back in a rain of molten glass, according to a new theory(link to http://www.wsmr.army.mil/wsmr.asp?pg=y&page=591). It was always assumed that trinitite formed on the ground under the fireball's direct glare, but science thrives by revisiting assumptions in the search for truer explanations. " from Geology at about.com Newsletter All references to the "new theory " have been removed from the White Sands Missile Range web site and aren't on the Los Alamos Labs public site. So I don't know if the "new theory" has been withdrawn. The rayed star pattern of deposition, the lack of any trinitie more than 1200 ft from GZ and the fact that the trinitite deposits were generally concentric with GZ--e.g. not scattered down wind, makes me think that any fall back theory will need to go a long way to explain this away. In the interest of fairness and previous discussion I thought I'd share this snippet pending locating the text of the theory. Elton ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
