Hi Jason,
Even though we're living in a fast world and the modernism of our days may
give the impression, that new scientific recoveries are drawn out of the
nothing.
But science and ideas are always integrated in traditions and contexts and
are built on earlier steps.
Chladni hadn't invented the idea, that the stones may stem from outside.
He connected the idea that they come from space with the fireballs, the
existing stones and reports about the falls and postulated additionally,
that they could survive the atmospheric travel.
That approach was ridiculous for his contemporary scientists.
After the period of enlightment it was impossible that chunks fall from
sky, Newton required empty spaces between the planets or at it best, cause
they were Aristotelians, they had to be atmospheric products.
(Although Tycho had measured long before the parallaxes of comets, to find
out that they move indeed in space).
So Chladni's weird theory never would have been accepted, if there wouldn't
have happened that proof, the mighty shower of L'Aigle, conveniently close
to the Académie de sciences.
Therefore L'Aigle is for me a benchmark. Without L'Aigle no Chladni, no
Schreibers, no Daubrée...no modern meteoritics. (At least not to the
advanced stage we have today).
Shhht Jason, btw. Chladni isn't that much known as Father of meteoritics,
but for his Acoustics, he certainly is partially responsible for the gig
tootling out from your speakers, while you're writing to the list :-)
Sure it's only an ordinary chondrite, but you don't meet the meaning of this
milestone, if you look with today's eyes on it.
It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands
Which gives in fact to that class an especially high scientific importance,
doesn't it? The chondrites conserved the most original information about the
origin of our solar system, the processes who lead to the formation of
planets and they resemble much more the stuff we are all made from, than any
differentiated meteorite, which tells us rather the history and development
of his individual parent body. And ready we aren't yet with the chondrites.
Ho many theories of chondrules genesis we have at present? Eleven?
Look the recent decade, the discovery of protoplanetary discs around other
stars. and so on.
Only because they are so readily available to the collectors and despite the
antartcic ones so cheap like never before (yes Mrs.Caroline Smith. Fletcher,
Hey, check the museum's archives, had to pay much more than you),
they shouldn't be disregarded.
Hey, and confess Jason! The sight of something like that
http://www.chladnis-heirs.com/36.956g.jpg
doesn't it made your mouth water?
Well, each warehouse telescope for 30 bucks is better than that, which
Galilei pointed to the Moon or Jupiter. But what for an importance it had!
Would we have a Hubble Space telescope now, without that use of the lousy
lense 400 years ago? (Although maybe Galileo's or Copernicus' role is maybe
sometimes somewhat overrated, media stars... Copernicus' system was in
practise inoperative and he had his Islamic and antique antecessors - I'm a
fan of Tycho, which was much more important for modern astronomy and our
view of the world, as he was the first, who trumped the Islamic astronomy.
Without the results of his large-scale instruments, no Kepler, no Newton, no
Oberth, no Rovers on Mars, no security that the pieces in the Chladni Boxes
really originated from the red planet...).
Of course it's never a continuously direct and mono-causal development...
Chance and accident are also factors.
Allende and Murchison e.g. never would rank in the importance among the
first places, if they hadn't such large tkws or if they had fallen in the
oceans and if there the Moon labs weren't just ready, when they felt.
But in general L'Aigle was the proof.
Scientifically important, because with that fall, the concept of meteorites
had to be accepted and the branch of this science was born at all.
So it's my number one - only in my personal opinion of course.
If we follow your criteria, Jason, everything but the very new had to be
ruled out and most probably we would have to make a ranking of the so far
unique - the ungrouped and similar exotics, where we don't have fully the
clues, what exactly it could be.
Off now, have to jump into my carriage without horses.
(Hmmm was that important? Quite an unacceptable junk...
http://kuerzer.de/unimport
and we certainly would prefer a Lamborghini :-)
Best!
Martin
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason
Utas
Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 02:21
An: Meteorite-list
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most
scientificallyimportantmeteorites?
Hola Martin,
I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up
dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific
interest. L'Aigle may
