Talk:Meteorite

message: I want to know about that subject. And, I want to sort them in usable order.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.252.176.86 (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we classify the meteorites with Soil Mechanics(like as USCS)? 

message: The article says that the probability is the same over the surface of the Earth. Since an object in space will be attracted by the Sun's gravity, it seems that the probability of an Earth-surface strike would be higher near the equator.Jarhed (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probability of meteorite strike on Earth surface 

message: It would be very nice to have some quantitative estimates here about the rates of meteor falls as a function of mass and size.  The current text says ~500 meteorites per year, but no reference is given, and there is no information about the size distribution.  I think there must be estimates in the professional literature, probably common knowledge to experts working in the field.  Wwheaton (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantitative estimates of number and mass/size distribution? 

message: There are several articles online about a recent find in western China; e.g. http://www.space.com/12416-giant-meteorite-china-discovery.html
Also, there are claims in China of an enormous and ancient meteorite near Shenyang, Liaoning, China, but these seem specious.
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang#Attractions
http://www.shenyang.world-guides.com/shenyang_attractions.html
the only picture I've found of the 'meteorite' is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/31300965@N04/4837740358/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbozzo (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meteorite finds in China 

message: or should we be using proper SI spelling?  Metre, not meter. 68.71.8.95 (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "proper"?  No, there are two proper spellings in English.  see Metre.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.19.24 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: It depends on whether this article was started in American English or British. Kortoso (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  hundreds of meters in diameter or more, 

message: Use of this term is not clear. Is this "first cosmic velocity"? 
Should have a link to this then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Kortoso (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cosmic velocity"? 

message: Just a thought, it might be nice to have a section on ancient beliefs that meteorites came from thunderstorms or from volanoes - which were held by scientists also right until the late eighteenth century. And Aristotle's belief that a meteorite was lifted by a strong wind and then dropped.
And to mention Ernst Friedrick Chladni who first put forward the theory that the meteorites came from fireballs, in a book "On the Origin of the Mass of Iron Discovered by Pallas and Others Similar to It, and on Some Natural Phenomena Related to Them"
There's a summary here The Impossible Rocks that Fell from the Sky
And wikipedia has a section on his book here: Ernst_Chladni#Meteorites
Robert Walker (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion - say something about history of understanding of meteorite and thunderstones

message: In case anyone would like to incorporate some pop culture and info about identifying meteorites— 
xkcd has a recent comic about the appeal and unlikeliness of identifying a meteorite. A mention of it could be a nice addition to the article, in the finds section or in a popular culture section, for instance. The comic also mentions a more helpful version of the chart and "Note: Jolyon, founder of mindat.org, made a similar chart way before me!" —Verbistheword (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic about identifying meteorites 

message: ‎Meteoritekid made this good-faith edit with the edit comment, "The source also does not state that he found the stone: the claim you're making is unsubstantiated", which suggests that "the Los Angeles meteorite, a Martian meteorite that was found by an unidentified mineral collector and later purchased and identified by Robert Verish". The previous version said that the meteorite was "a Martian meteorite that was found by Robert Verish". 
The source, Meteoritical Bulletin entry for Los Angeles meteorite, says "Martian basalt (shergottite) Two stones, weighing 452.6 and 245.4 g, respectively, were found by Bob Verish in his backyard while he was cleaning out a box of rocks that was part of his rock collection.  The specimens may have been collected ~ 20 years ago in the Mojave Desert.", but does not mention anyone other than Verish or any purchase. Am I missing something? The phrase "his rock collection" suggests that he found the specimen. I don't see support in the source for the claim that it "was found by an unidentified mineral collector and later purchased and identified by Robert Verish". What do others think?
I suggest that the entry simply say, "the Los Angeles meteorite, that was identified by Robert Verish as being Martian in origin", if it's unclear whether Verish or someone else actually found the specimen. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd treat this remark as a "citation needed" and revert and add this extra cite - it's from JPL so reasonable support that it was indeed found by Bob Verish. . See also the separate Los Angeles (meteorite) article which has it formatted as a ref. Robert Walker (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Where did you get that stuff about Verish "buying it from an unidentified mineral collector" ? That's not in the source you gave . It doesn't pass the smell test either; mineral dealers don't waste their time trying to sell ugly little rocks because mineral collectors don't buy them. Unless they're known meteorites, of course. There aren't many people that hang around desert blowouts looking for those ugly little rocks, and 20 years before 1999 that was a really exclusive club (n~1). That edit seems a little disrespectful to somebody that must have spent a lot of time out in the desert.... Geogene (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Alan Rubin, at UCLA. I say this with the utmost respect, but it is clear that you are not familiar with the meteorite market, or how many meteorites have been brought to light in the US over the past century or so.  The latest revision, that plainly states that Mr. Verish "identified" the stone, should resolve any issues.Meteoritekid (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal communication isn't usable as a source. reverted you, and if you want to change the article, find a reliable source for it. The one given doesn't support your assertion.... On second thought, if everyone else is fine with using weasel words, I'm not going to make a big deal of it. It's still OR. Geogene (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "New Mars Meteorite Found In California" By Ron Baalke January 30, 2000 is very clear about the genesis of the entry at the Meteoritical Bulletin Database entry of the Los Angeles Meteorite. It is based in part on Baalke's interaction with Verish and shows that Verish found the specimens and gave them to Alan Rubin at UCLA for analysis. I recommend that the entry read, "a Martian meteorite whose significance was identified by its discoverer, Robert Verish". HopsonRoad (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense.  Ron Baalke's site is a personal website.  I could publish a webpage describing what I'm saying here, tomorrow.  The Meteoritical Bulletin entry was written by Alan Rubin and accurately describes the scenario Robert Verish related to Alan Rubin when he arrived at UCLA with the two stones.  At the time, Robert Verish stated that the meteorite was found among a large collection of rocks in his back yard, some of which had been purchased from a local prospector.  He didn't know where in the Mojave they were from, or when they were found.  But Robert recognized them as possible meteorites.  This is why the Meteoritical Bulletin clearly states that the stone was "found by Bob Verish in his backyard while he was cleaning out a box of rocks that was part of his rock collection.  The specimens may have been collected ~20 years ago in the Mojave Desert."  This is important.  Robert didn't even know that the stones were found in California, or the Mojave.  This is the information that was given to UCLA, and the information that was published in the Bulletin. That story has slowly changed over time; by the time Ron Baalke put his page up, Robert was undoubtedly the finder, they were found in the Mojave desert somewhere in California, etc., etc., etc. Meteoritekid (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for writing, Meteoritekid. You say that https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/la.html is a personal website, yet it has a "jpl.nasa.gov" url—it would be illegal for a government employee to use an government server as a "personal website". Furthermore, it references Bob Verish's personal website, which shows him as the finder. Verish's site, in turn refers back to Baalke's article under the "The Los Angeles Meteorite JPL web page" at the top left. The two sites are contemporaneous, which suggests that Verish endorses Baalke's rendition of the story. So, it makes sense to me. And my recommended text, "a Martian meteorite whose significance was identified by its discoverer, Robert Verish", remains pertinent. How about Geogene and Robert Walker? HopsonRoad (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that proposed text, but would also be okay with not naming the discoverer at all, since that's not generally done with other meteorites mentioned in the article. Geogene (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how these kinds of webpages work at institutions.  Researchers' and professors' personal pages can contain anything they want. Many put photos up from recent vacations and family photos.  If you google around, most contain research interests, and/or other things they find interesting. Bob Verish's personal website actually includes the word "finder" in quotation marks.  It is the only URL (or word?) on the website in quotation marks.  This clearly suggests that he may not be the original finder of the stone.  The people who discovered that the meteorite was from Mars and realized its significance were the scientists at UCLA who analyzed it.  I think Geogene hit the nail on the head.  None of the other meteorites have finders named. This whole situation is odd. No names, anywhere, makes more sense. Meteoritekid (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Please see my most recent edit.  It includes some additional information, including the Old Woman Meteorite, which was somehow left out of the original write-up, and notes that amateur collectors were finding meteorites on lake beds as early as the mid-1960s.  It should resolve all issues, as it treats all of the finds from the Southwest equitably and removes any potentially inaccurate statements. The Lucerne Valley CK4 should also be added to the article, as it is the first CK chondrite found in the United States.  I will add it after surveying the Bulletin for additional rare meteorites. Meteoritekid (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Meteorite—unclear provenance 

message: The wording of the lead sentence is a bit confusing:A meteorite is a solid piece of debris from an object, such as a comet, asteroid, or meteoroid, that originates in outer space and survives its passage through the Earth's atmosphere and impact with the Earth's surface or that of another planet.It suggests that meteors that reach the planet's surface but don't survive the impact aren't meteorites. What does "survive" mean in this context? If the object shatters, are the pieces not meteorites or meteorite fragments? According to reliable sources (e.g., 1 2 3), the suitability of the -ite suffix hinges on the object's reaching the surface (i.e., not being burned up in the atmosphere), not whatever happens on impact. I'd be bold but would first rather hear from a regular article watcher or two. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's a related problem:<Blockquote>Meteorites that survive atmospheric entry and impact vary greatly in size.</blockquote>Again, as I understand the definition based on the reliable sources I linked above, if it doesn't survive atmospheric entry, it technically is not a meteorite. I've gone ahead and made some changes based on my comments here. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage and impact or just passage? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Meteorite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002442/http://www.internationalspace.com/pdf/NEOwp_Chapman-Durda-Gold.pdf to http://www.internationalspace.com/pdf/NEOwp_Chapman-Durda-Gold.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414211419/http://fireball.snu.ac.kr/koreamet/ to http://fireball.snu.ac.kr/koreamet/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: meteorite 51.219.13.234 (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  space