[meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and Kingsley
Mark Grossman
markig at westnet.com
Fri Mar 11 20:35:35 EST 2011
"Now Mark, I don’t know why you’re comparing Silliman to Edward Howard or
Benjamin Franklin’s scientific accomplishments"
Exactly my point! You haven't a clue.
This is where I bow out of this discussion - carry on without me Shawn!
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Alan" <photophlow at yahoo.com>
To: "Mark Grossman" <markig at westnet.com>
Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report
bySilliman and Kingsley
Hello Mark and Listers,
Mark this is what your said……
“"Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call"
Did I miss something here? Wasn't the first sentence of your post yesterday
as follows:
"A couple weeks ago I made a post about the Weston fall and the rivalry
between Silliman and Woodhouse."
No Shawn, you brought it up again after I thought the issue was closed for
several weeks, and I just responded to what you initiated - again -
yesterday.”
You are leaving some stuff out. Lets go back a day ago and see what I posted
and this is what I said…..
Shawn said this
“A couple weeks ago I made a post about the Weston fall and the rivalry
between Silliman and Woodhouse. What I didn't post is the analysis/ field
study report that was done by Silliman and Kingsley published in
Transactions in 1809 and read in front of the American Philosophical Society
on March 4, 1808. This report at the time catapulted American into the
international lime light of the meteoritic science scene and has been hauled
to be "no scientific paper had before appeared in the United States which
excited so much attention and comment as this." (THE American Chemist,Volume
V.—July, 1874, To June, 1875.)
Ok so please tell me where I am talking about the rivalry about Silliman and
Woodhouse all I said was what happened in the past and the post is about
Silliman’s and Kingsley report not about a rivalry which in a past post you
said this Mark….
Mark Said this
“Since you brought up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic again today,, I want to
be sure you understand that I am not trying to inflate the work of Woodhouse
at the expense of Silliman. I am trying to present a balanced perspective of
what both Woodhouse and Silliman accomplished.”
I am sorry Mark but there is nowhere in my first post about “Weston 1807
meteorite fall - Analysis report by Silliman and Kingsley” that I bring up
the rivalry which you try to say I did, I only state what was covered in the
past and you say this…
Mark said this
“No Shawn, you brought it up again after I thought the issue was closed for
several weeks, and I just responded to what you initiated - again -
yesterday”
It is fun, I like how you take stuff out of context and re contextualize it
to support your arguments when there is no validity.
Now you keep asking me what did Silliman discover and I keep telling you
this……
Please remind me what happened on December 14 1807 around Weston,
Connecticut? O yeah, a meteorite fall. And who were the only scientists that
went to the meteorite fall, o yeah Silliman and Kingsley. What did they
discover, mmm that the stones that people found were actually meteorites
from space which confirmed with other meteorite falls in Europe from
Silliman’s and Kingsley’s analysis and field study report to further prove
the theory with meteorites and where they come from. I do believe that
Silliman’s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a scientific discovery for
science and meteoritic science and that the Weston meteorite was first of
its kind in the New World.
Now Mark, I don’t know why you’re comparing Silliman to Edward Howard or
Benjamin Franklin’s scientific accomplishments. Each accomplishment is in
their own right and own scientific field. Did Howard or Franklin become the
first scientists to the Weston meteorite fall no, Silliman and Kingsley were
the first and from their analysis and field study they discovered that these
stone were meteorites which proves from other meteorite falls in Europe
that stones come from space and the fact of the matter is that this was the
first time it had happened in the NEW WORLD.
So yes I can say Silliman had a large impact in meteoritical science for
America. Again I can flip it and say did Silliman discover electricity, no
or did Howard, no. Each has their own right in the scientific community and
Silliman’s right is his role with Weston meteorite fall.
Now lets go to the topic about Prince and the Hittites people quote I used
and this is what you had to say about it….
Mark said this
"Enough said on my part. And as far as quoting Prince and the Hittites, see
what Cathryn Prince had to say about my thoughts on Silliman at the end of
the book review post on Meteorite Manuscripts (see websites below, click on
the link to the left of the pencil icon at the end of the book review for
comments)".
How does that pull into this post? And speaking of what Prince said , Ill
post it now :)
“Dear Mr. Goodman,
Thank you for reading my recently published book so closely and for offering
scholarly critique of the subject matter. You are clearly quite
knowledgeable about this subject and I would love to learn more from you, I
will be subscribing to your blog! Your points are well taken. As you noted,
I admire Benjamin Silliman, a historical figure who has been largely
overlooked in the general population. I feel that Silliman successfully
brought science into the American academy and perhaps even more importantly
helped build science as a discipline in the young nation. Moreover, he made
science accessible to the public in a way no one had before.
Cathryn Prince
www.cathrynprince.com
I like the part where she says as you noted, I admire Benjamin Silliman, a
historical figure who has been largely overlooked in the general population.
What I cant understand is why you made a comment back to her on your blog
and this is what you said…
Mark said this
Hi Cathryn,
Thank you for the nice comments. I too admire Benjamin Silliman - my very
first blog post involved a CDV signed by Silliman that I added to my
collection. His work on the Weston meteorite was professional -- not
exceptional. I believe Franklin and Hare had more to do with the birth of
science in America than Silliman, although the latter certainly helped
popularize and grow science in the young nation. Thanks again! Mark
Did we read the same books I am on page 130 and I find it odd that you keep
bringing up Franklin and Hare had more to do with the birth of science.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the book about AMERCA and science in and
around Weston/ Philadelphia at the beginning of of 1800’s which Prince
focuses on the Weston meteorite fall and chemistry? Now I could see some of
her statements being overly imaginative if the book was about general
science in America, but it is not. The book focuses on key events and issues
about chemistry and meteoritical science in America and how these events,
Weston meteorite fall, political, science, daily life and Silliman’s role
help push America into the spot light in meteroitical and chemistry science
on an international level in the 1800's.
Now that is history and I only states what history says.
"no scientific paper had before appeared in the United States which excited
so much attention and comment as this." (THE American Chemist,Volume
V.—July, 1874, To June, 1875.)
"the earliest and best authenticated account' of the fall of a meteor in
America."( APPLETONS' CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY VOL V.
PICKERING-SUMTER 1888 pg. 528
"SILLIMAN, Benjamin, scientist, was born in North Stratford, Conn., Aug. 8,
1779 : son of Gold Selleck Silliman (q.v.) and Mary Fish (Noyes) Silliman.
He was graduated at Yale, A.B., 1796, A.M., 1799.... In 1805, he went abroad
to study a year at Edinburgh and to buy books and apparatus. On his return,
he studied the geology of New Haven, and in 1807 he examined the meteor that
fell near Weston, Conn., making a chemical analysis of fragments, this
report being the first scientific account of any American meteor."
Cited from: THE TWENTIETH CENTURY BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF NOTABLE
AMERICANS I904
"An elaborate account of this meteor has been published by Messrs. Silliman
and Kingsley, of Yale College, Connecticut."
Source
http://books.google.com/books?id=4JMEAAAAYAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false
Silliman’s successes, his role, his education from Yale, to Philadelphia and
studying abroad in London and Europe transformed the presence America had on
the international meterotical science/ chemistry level at the turn of the
century from the Weston meteorite fall.
Thank you
Shawn Alan
IMCA 1633
eBaystore
http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html
--- On Fri, 3/11/11, Mark Grossman <markig at westnet.com> wrote:
From: Mark Grossman <markig at westnet.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report
bySilliman and Kingsley
To: "Shawn Alan" <photophlow at yahoo.com>
Cc: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 3:13 PM
Shawn,
"Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call"
Did I miss something here? Wasn't the first sentence of your post yesterday
as follows:
"A couple weeks ago I made a post about the Weston fall and the rivalry
between Silliman and Woodhouse."
No Shawn, you brought it up again after I thought the issue was closed for
several weeks, and I just responded to what you initiated - again -
yesterday.
Now if you can't sort out who brought up what, how the heck are you going to
be able to sort out the accomplishments of Woodhouse and Silliman?
"I do believe that Silliman’s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a
scientific discovery for science"
So tell me - specifically - what did Silliman discover when he analyzed the
Weston meteorite - that wasn't already discovered? Tell me - specifically.
Chrome? No, he said it wasn't present after performing an analysis, and then
it was discovered in Weston the following year by someone else.
So, you ask, what happened on Dec 14, 1807? - a meteorite practically fell
in Silliman's lap, and he was professional enough to analyze it, and
brilliant to promote it. But his analysis was nothing special
scientifically. And he believed that comets circled the Earth! And yes,
Woodhouse didn't accomplish much after the Weston fall like Silliman - too
bad he died in 1809.
You stated:
"Now if you stand by your statement which I believe you do, then wouldn’t
you have to agree that Chladni’s work is not a particularly impressive
analytical work on meteoritical science? You have to admit that Chladni
never step foot in the field and nor did he examine meteorites in his
earlier publications on meteorite falls. All he did was reiterate past
events, folklore, and stories about meteorite falls and retell the events,
nothing more nothing less."
Don't put words in my mouth. Einstein never did any field work either, and
he did his experiments in his head! Howard also never did any field work,
but we still remember his great analytical work, which was groundbreaking,
unlike Silliman's.
Chladni thought out of the box as far as his contemporaries go. Silliman did
professional but not exceptional science. Silliman is not in the same league
as Chladni.
If Weston wasn't the first meteorite to fall and be recovered in the US, and
if the Thomas Jefferson issue regarding Silliman never existed, do you
really think that Silliman would still have such a reputation as far as
meteoritics? Or would he be remembered more like Woodhouse as far as the
meteorite goes?
The event and his persona caught the public's attention. He was in the right
place at the right time and took advantage of it. What if the meteorite had
fallen near Philadelphia in Woodhouse's territory and Silliman was trying to
obtain a sample for analysis? What would you think then? Would we be talking
about Silliman and the meteorite at all? Silliman was one lucky guy.
Can you honestly look anyone in the eye and say that Silliman ranks with the
likes of Edward Howard or Benjamin Franklin regarding scientific
accomplishment? He is simply not on the same level.
Enough said on my part. And as far as quoting Prince and the Hittites, see
what Cathryn Prince had to say about my thoughts on Silliman at the end of
the book review post on Meteorite Manuscripts (see websites below, click on
the link to the left of the pencil icon at the end of the book review for
comments).
Mark
Mark Grossman
Meteorite Manuscripts
http://meteoritemanuscripts.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/MetManuscripts
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Meteorite-Manuscripts/152949358073543?v=wall
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn Alan" <photophlow at yahoo.com>
To: <markig at westnet.com>
Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 3:25 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report
bySilliman and Kingsley
Hello Mark and Listers,
Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call, all
I posted was the analysis and field report done by Silliman and Kingsley on
the Weston meteorite fall in 1807.
Mark you said
“There is a difference between scientific discovery vs. scientific
promotion/education - - Sillimans work on the Weston meteorite falls into
the latter category.”
Please remind me what happened on December 14 1807 around Weston,
Connecticut? O yeah, a meteorite fall. And who were the only scientists that
went to the meteorite fall, o yeah Silliman and Kingsley. What did they
discover, mmm that the stones that people found were actually meteorites
from space which comfirmed with other meteorite falls in Europe from
Silliman’s and Kingsley’s anyalasis and field study report. I do believe
that Silliman’s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a scientific discovery
for science and meteoritic science and that the Weston meteorite was first
of its kind in the New World.
Mark you said
“It may have brought Silliman, as well as the U.S., a
lot of publicity and fame, but as far as science goes, it was not a
particularly impressive piece of analytical work, considering that Silliman
himself admitted that he followed in the footsteps of Howard and others.”
Now if you stand by your statement which I believe you do, then wouldn’t you
have to agree that Chladni’s work is not a particularly impressive
analytical work on meteoritical science? You have to admit that Chladni
never step foot in the field and nor did he examine meteorites in his
earlier publications on meteorite falls. All he did was reiterate past
events, folklore, and stories about meteorite falls and retell the events,
nothing more nothing less.
In Princes book, A Professor, A President, And a Meteor, she explains that
the Hittites people from 3200 years ago understood that meteors came from
space. “The Hittites realized the stones yield iron, naming iron kuan. Some
scientists consider this the earliest known name for meteoritic iron.)
(Prince pg121) Chladni hypothesized that masses of stone and iron do, in
fact fall from the sky.( Marvin, 2007 The origins of modern meteorite
research) But from your statements above this would put Chladni in the
category of not having particularly impressive work cause people before him
hypothesized rocks came from space.
But as for meteoritical science goes, Chladni is a GODFATHER and as for
Silliman goes, he transformed meteoritcal science in the New World with his
discovery with the first meteorite fall in the Americas. Here is a link to
his analysis report down below.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DbkAAAAAYAAJ&dq=silliman%20%20meteorite%20transactions%20Transactions%201809&pg=PA323#v=onepage&q&f=false
Shawn Alan
IMCA 1633
eBaystore
http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html
[meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and
Kingsley
Mark Grossman markig at westnet.com
Thu Mar 10 23:04:26 EST 2011
Previous message: [meteorite-list] Transfer of geological, marine artefacts
illegal: MECA | Oman Observer
Next message: [meteorite-list] All Shook Up!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn,
Since you brought up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic again today,, I want to be
sure you understand that I am not trying to inflate the work of Woodhouse at
the expense of Silliman. I am trying to present a balanced perspective of
what both Woodhouse and Silliman accomplished.
If you really want to learn about Woodhouse, see J. J. Beer, "The chemistry
of the founding fathers", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 53, no. 7
(1976), pp. 405-408.
It's available at the following link:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/ed053p405
Regarding Silliman's low opinion of Woodhouse, Beer, who taught at the
University of Delaware, states: "the long-run evaluation of Woodhouse by
his colleagues and subsequent historians is different." He then goes on to
outline Woodhouse's accomplishments.
See page 407 of the article.
There is a difference between scientific discovery vs. scientific
promotion/education - - Sillimans work on the Weston meteorite falls into
the latter category. It may have brought Silliman, as well as the U.S., a
lot of publicity and fame, but as far as science goes, it was not a
particularly impressive piece of analytical work, considering that Silliman
himself admitted that he followed in the footsteps of Howard and others.
Again, everything is on the Meteorite Manuscripts post on Prince's book,
which can be viewed at the links below.
Mark
Mark Grossman
Meteorite Manuscripts
Briarcliff Manor, NY
http://meteoritemanuscripts.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/MetManuscripts
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Meteorite-Manuscripts/152949358073543?v=wall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous message: [meteorite-list] Transfer of geological, marine artefacts
illegal: MECA | Oman Observer
Next message: [meteorite-list] All Shook Up!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list
More information about the Meteorite-list
mailing list