| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> | | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> |
| | + | Yeah, I can't even get on it. |
| | + | |
| | lol, some poor soul is now wondering why his Meteorite ID chart is being flooded with traffic! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.59|141.101.98.59]] 12:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC) | | lol, some poor soul is now wondering why his Meteorite ID chart is being flooded with traffic! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.59|141.101.98.59]] 12:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| | I'd like to see some analysis of the linked flowchart, or a least an explanation of the title text comment. Why does "Did you see it fall" have only an "yes" option, that leads to "not a meteorite" [[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 12:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) | | I'd like to see some analysis of the linked flowchart, or a least an explanation of the title text comment. Why does "Did you see it fall" have only an "yes" option, that leads to "not a meteorite" [[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 12:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
| − | : Because actually seeing a meteorite fall and recovering it is an incredibly rare event (690 times since 1900), but ''stories'' about how they saw a meteor fall and went out and found a rock in the middle of a crater are a dime-a-dozen. So if someone shows up with a rock they think is a meteorite, odds are they will say they saw it fall, but odds are it's not a meteorite. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.231|162.158.214.231]] 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :: You missed the "have only a yes option". It lacks a "No" path. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.179|108.162.218.179]] 20:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::: I assume the reason for that is that the chart has run out of ideas why you'd even think it's a meteorite at that point [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.59|141.101.98.59]] 08:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::Looks like the chart was updated since then; now it has "No" arrow that also leads to "not a meteorite" -- [[User:Ата|<span style="color:SteelBlue">Ата</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ата|<span style="color:#80A0FF">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 20:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::What chart? What "No" arrow? Not this comic. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]], I was talking about the ''[http://meteorites.wustl.edu/check-list.htm Meteorite or meteorwrong]'' flow chart. -- [[User:Ата|<span style="color:SteelBlue">Ата</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ата|<span style="color:#80A0FF">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 07:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | I'm wondering if this is related to the recent claims in British newspapers (Warning, Daily Mail content [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3745346/Homeowner-makes-world-discovery-glowing-METEORITE-lands-garden-lights-cigarette-it.html Link] [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.83|141.101.98.83]] 12:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC) | | I'm wondering if this is related to the recent claims in British newspapers (Warning, Daily Mail content [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3745346/Homeowner-makes-world-discovery-glowing-METEORITE-lands-garden-lights-cigarette-it.html Link] [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.83|141.101.98.83]] 12:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
| Line 21: |
Line 14: |
| | | | |
| | Here's some explanation on why seeing a meteorite fall is unlikely: http://www.meteoritemarket.com/metid2.htm Located at point 48A from http://meteorites.wustl.edu/realities.htm (Linked on the full chart) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.43|141.101.70.43]] 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC) | | Here's some explanation on why seeing a meteorite fall is unlikely: http://www.meteoritemarket.com/metid2.htm Located at point 48A from http://meteorites.wustl.edu/realities.htm (Linked on the full chart) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.43|141.101.70.43]] 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | I just tried fixing it up FOUR TIMES, and got an edit conflict each time. The later ones didn't even change anything. I'd contribute, but not if this keeps happening. [[User:Papayaman1000|Papayaman1000]] ([[User talk:Papayaman1000|talk]]) 14:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Sorry about that, but I hope my edits fixed this. There is now an extended explanation of the title text. I'm finished for now, so please improve where needed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Yeah, I can't even get on it. {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.27}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Well, thanks Randall for 'borrowing' my chart ....
| |
| − |
| |
| − | http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,11,279733,279757
| |
| − |
| |
| − | UPDATE: I have heard from Randall and we're sorting things out! --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.125|108.162.215.125]] 04:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Interesting, have included this in a trivia! What did you sort out then? Guess he just got the same idea from the chart he links to, as you had...? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Great I can see that Randall has now credited Jolyon with the idea in the header above {{xkcd|1723}}. Have amended the trivia to cover this. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | »Any meteor big enough to glow and be visible while falling will leave a large impact crater, rather than simply sit on the ground as a rock.« Doesn't many meteors break up and fragment while still in the air? Such an event could be highly visible on the sky yet yield meteorites sitting on the ground. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.70|141.101.80.70]] 09:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − | :The missing bit is IMHO that for finding meteorite based on seeing it fall it would need to be still visible in low attitudes. In case of breakup, you will see the breakup but will have no way to guess where the meteors landed, as the breakup will change the trajectory. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::I think the explanation was not clear enough and have improved. But agree with Hkmaly that also a breaking up meteor will result in lots of meteorites that while falling the last part of the way, was not visible to the naked eye (day or night). If the rock had not broken up but hit the ground, it would have been visible all the way, but would have been completely destroyed in the impact (leaving a crater) and no meteorite would have been left to find. So again you would not find a meteorite that you saw land! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I think it's important to note that from a certain perspective, this graph is wrong 100% of the time. Technically, speaking from a super-geological timeframe, our planet is nothing but a big mashed up mass of meteorites... or would our planet simply be a large meteoroid and thus not a meteorite yet as we have not finished plummeting into the sun? [[User:Joshupetersen|Joshupetersen]] ([[User talk:Joshupetersen|talk]])
| |
| − | :As Earth has now cleared it's trajectory around the sun it is deemed a planet and thus not a meteoroid. Any stone that has been molten after landing on the Earth is now part of the Earth. This thus rules out all rocks that hit the Earth before it got a solid crust in the first place. Any rock that can be determined to have fallen to Earth after that, and has never been molten after landing is a meteorite and not a part of the original Earth. So technically you comment is, from any perspective, 100% wrong all the time ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
