[meteorite-list] (refute) An alternative origin of tektites

[Charles O'Dale]

Graham and list:

This is the information I refuted his article with. If anyone observes a 
mistake in my information, PLEASE speak up!

..................................................................................

I will quote from the article statements with <quote> .... <unquote> and 
follow
immediately with my question.

Many of your references are from O'Keefe (1976), much has happened since 
1976, see below.

<quote> Evidence suggest, however, that the physical process and conditions 
required to remove water (refining) from common soils and rock are not 
created in an instantaneous impact event. <unquote> WHAT EVIDENCE? "Impact 
Physics Constraints on the Origin of Tektites"; Melosh gives an excellent 
hypothesis on how tektites are terrestrially formed by bolide impacts 
without invoking a moon source combined with earth rings.

<quote>. since the presence of atmospheric resistance retards the velocity 
of ejected material within a short distance. <unquote> The molten tektites 
were ejected along the vacuum shaft turbulence in the atmosphere caused by 
the passage of the large bolide traveling at >12 km/sec, is the common 
explanation as to the method the tektites kept their velocity and traveled 
long distances. You did not mention this.

<quote> ... absence of target fragments and projectile contamination in 
tektites ....<unquote> The following empirical evidence refutes this 
statement. Using Re-Os isotope systematics, found evidence for a small 
meteoritic component in the Haitian glasses. C. Koeberl - Other tektites 
have nickel-iron spherules (as inclusions) typical of iron-nickel meteorites 
and coesite, a high pressure form Of SiO2 (quartz) often associated with 
impact craters. Richard Jakiel - Recent findings of shocked quartz within 
tektite layers has strengthened even more the conclusion that tektites form 
by impact melting of terrestrial sediments. Chemical analysis of the Ivory 
Coast tektites has shown that they have many similarities with 2 billion 
year old crustal Archean rocks in Africa; these are the kinds of rocks that 
Bosumtwi crater formed in. Further study has shown that the tektites and 
rocks from Bosumtwi are have similar enough compositions to consider 
Bosumtwi to be a source of the tektites, Schnetzler and coworkers (1967). . 
with major and trace element analysis, volatile analysis, all showing that 
the protolith for tektites was terrestrial continental sediment, Koeberl, 
1990 in the journal Tectonophysics.

 <quote> ... the tektites in all four strewn fields belong to a single 
family and thus originated from a common source.<unquote> This statement is 
contradicted by your statement quoted next:

<quote> The North American, Central European, and Ivory Coast tektites are 
chronologically (though not necessarily in chemical composition) linked to 
three impact craters, namely Chesapeake Bay for the North American, Ries 
Kessl for the Central European, and Bosumtwi for the Ivory Coast <unquote> 
Do you disqualify radiometric dating or are you ignoring radiometric dating 
methods? What does "though not necessarily in chemical composition" mean? 
There is empirical evidence that states that tektites are linked in chemical 
composition to their respective bolide impact craters. The area around the 
Ries Crater, in Germany, is probably the source for Moldavites -- the age of 
the crater, 14.7 million years old, is identical with the age of Moldavites 
(tektites).  Precision age determinations on the Haitian glasses and impact 
melt from the Chicxulub crater have shown that both material are identical 
in age to each other and with the K-T boundary, at 65 Ma. Some 1,700 
(tektites) have been found in Georgia to date, and potassium-argon 
geochronology has dated them to around 35 million years of age (the age of 
the Chesapeake Crater). Both the K-Ar and Fission track analyses of Ivory 
Coast tektites, Ivory Coast microtektites, and Bosumtwi Glass correspond to 
an age of approximately 1.3 million years old (the age of the Bosumtwi 
Meteorite crater).



<quote> Australasian strewn field. impact structure.. has not yet been found 
<unquote> Four out of five (see previous paragraph) of the tektite strewn 
fields have been identified with an associated crater. Are you implying that 
there is no crater associated with the Australasian strewn field and are you 
basing your ring hypothesis on this one unresolved condition? Also,  Glass 
and Wu [1993] identified shocked quartz and coesite in many cores from the 
Australasian strewn field taken within 2000 km from the supposed source area 
located on the Indochina Peninsula. Would you agree that this strongly 
implies that the source of these tektites is from a bolide impact?

<quote>. atmospheric heating could produce sufficient heat for complete 
degassing of argon and thus reset the K-Ar clock <unquote> Based on your 
statement, the atomic clocks in meteorites would be reset, as they would 
have had the same amount of "atmospheric heating" as the tektites. They were 
not, and neither were the tektites. The reason for this is that it isn't 
friction, but ram pressure that heats the meteoroid. When a gas is 
compressed it gets hot, like when a bicycle pump is vigorously used to 
inflate a tire. A meteoroid, moving at 33,500 mph (15 kilometers a second) 
or more compresses the air in front of it violently. The air itself gets 
very hot, which is what heats the meteoroid and melts the outer skin. This 
molten skin is immediately blown away from the main bolide body, thus the 
internal temperature of the meteorite is kept constant (leaving the internal 
argon unmolested). And, just my opinion, if an object totally melts (to 
reset its atomic clock) while traveling at 12 km/sec through our atmosphere, 
I cannot imagine it retaining any mass at impact. Look what happens to 
meteors. It has been accepted that the K-Ar clocks of the tektites were 
reset upon their respective bolide's impact and within the terrestrial 
impact melting process.

Charles O'Dale 08 November 2004





> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:02:51 -0700
> From: "Graham Christensen" <voltage at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] An alternative origin of tektites
> To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Message-ID: <005501c534fe$df4b03a0$c3e13b8e at megavolt>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> Really? I don't know a lot about tektites so I just assumed the guy would
> have done his research. What kind of emperical evidence do you have that
> refutes it?
>
> Interested in learning more,
> Graham
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Graham Christensen
> voltage at telus.net
> http://www.geocities.com/aerolitehunter
> msn messenger: majorvoltage at hotmail.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Charles O'Dale" <codale0806 at rogers.com>
> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 6:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] An alternative origin of tektites
>
>
>>I had replied to the author of that piece of pseudoscience refuting all of
>>his points. He answered once with more pseudoscience. I refuted his reply
>>and have not heard from him since. The article was full of "it could have
>>happened this way" without the empirical evidence to back it up.
>>
>> I had complained to the editors of the RASC journal regarding the lack of
>> screening of their articles. Got lip service from them. I was shocked 
>> that
>> a reputable journal from the RASC would publish an article that could be
>> refuted so easily with empirical evidence. It showed a complete lack of
>> scientific research on articles received.
>>
>> I can forward the word file of my correspondence to anyone who is
>> interested.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Charles O'Dale
>> Meeting Chair
>> Ottawa RASC
>> http://www.ottawa.rasc.ca/astronomy/earth_craters/index.html
>>
>>>
>>> Message: 8
>>> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:00:33 -0700
>>> From: "Graham Christensen" <voltage at telus.net>
>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] An alternative origin of tektites
>>> To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>> Message-ID: <022e01c531f3$08805810$c3e13b8e at megavolt>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>>> reply-type=original
>>>
>>> I read an article in the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada journal
>>> that
>>> said that the Earth once had a ring of tektites or a system of rings
>>> around
>>> it and when the supercontinent pangea formed, the earth's gravitational
>>> field became lop-sided and the tektite material in the ring ended up in
>>> an
>>> orbital resonance with pangea and the tektites formed a clump or "ring
>>> arc"
>>> that was directly over pangea at perigee. When pangea broke up, the
>>> resonance dissapeared and the ring arc's orbit began to decay The shape
>>> and
>>> distribution of the australasian tektite strewnfield and the ablasion
>>> characteristics of the tektites is consistent with a ring arc's orbit
>>> decaying and eventually bringing the material crashing to earth at a low
>>> angle.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the tektites associated with the chesapeake bay crater may
>>> infact have been dragged down by the impactor's gravitational field as 
>>> it
>>> passed through or near the rings and this may be the case with other
>>> tektite
>>> fields as well.
>>>
>>> I have the article here on paper but I can't find it on the internet. 
>>> I'm
>>> not sure if this has been posted before but if anyone's interested I
>>> could
>>> type up the text and E-mail it to the list.
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Graham Christensen
>>> voltage at telus.net
>>> http://www.geocities.com/aerolitehunter
>>> msn messenger: majorvoltage at hotmail.com