I do not have enough knowledge to voice anything that resembles qualified criticism nor should I wield occam's razor in that scientific field, but… I find it hard to accept the impact melt theory without a bit more information. Some of the lingering questions I have are: - Why did these impact melts only happen back then? Over what timeframe did these impact melts happen? Why did they stop, why do they not happen now? What were the special conditions back then? - Was it _one_ impact, between two source bodies? Or was it _multiple_ impacts, between multiple source bodies? - How large were these bodies? When did they form? Did they form in parallel to the other planetary objects, did the formation of these chondrule source bodies predate the formation of the planets? What was different about these bodies compared to today's inventory of objects in the Solar System? - What happened to the rest of the source bodies? Surely not all material from those source bodies turned into chondrules? Some must have accreted again? Maybe I am simply missing a layman compatible "narrative", like I can see for the "shock wave" theory, where the narrative could be a simple: A "shock wave" during early solar system formation swept away the volatiles and melted the small grains that have accreted so far… Maybe this is at odds with some of the evidence, but such a theory makes (to my mind) fewer assumptions… Very very likely I miss the full picture here, so some more eduction for me (and quite possibly others as well) would be most welcome.
Would be interesting to see people who would try to connect the origin of the chondrules with the "photoevaporation / solar system formation shock wave" theory (cf. Dispersal of Protoplanetary Disks - Uma Gorti (SETI Talks) ) So what about shock wave melt, as opposed to impact melt (53:00, 53:11)?
Our pleasure, glad you liked the "Origin of Chrondrules" talk!
Thank you! I found a used copy of your book!! Yay!
I do not have enough knowledge to voice anything that resembles qualified criticism nor should I wield occam's razor in that scientific field, but…
I find it hard to accept the impact melt theory without a bit more information. Some of the lingering questions I have are:
- Why did these impact melts only happen back then? Over what timeframe did these impact melts happen? Why did they stop, why do they not happen now? What were the special conditions back then?
- Was it _one_ impact, between two source bodies? Or was it _multiple_ impacts, between multiple source bodies?
- How large were these bodies? When did they form? Did they form in parallel to the other planetary objects, did the formation of these chondrule source bodies predate the formation of the planets? What was different about these bodies compared to today's inventory of objects in the Solar System?
- What happened to the rest of the source bodies? Surely not all material from those source bodies turned into chondrules? Some must have accreted again?
Maybe I am simply missing a layman compatible "narrative", like I can see for the "shock wave" theory, where the narrative could be a simple: A "shock wave" during early solar system formation swept away the volatiles and melted the small grains that have accreted so far… Maybe this is at odds with some of the evidence, but such a theory makes (to my mind) fewer assumptions…
Very very likely I miss the full picture here, so some more eduction for me (and quite possibly others as well) would be most welcome.
Very interesting! Isotopic remnants showing that solids form within days of the supernova that happened before the solarsystem formed, wow!
This was an amazingly interesting seminar! I enjoyed it immensely!
Bravo ! Update
Has anyone looked into the Hydroplate Theory? Dr. Walt Brown has a different take on the origins of meteors and the formation of Chondrules.
Would be interesting to see people who would try to connect the origin of the chondrules with the "photoevaporation / solar system formation shock wave" theory (cf. Dispersal of Protoplanetary Disks - Uma Gorti (SETI Talks) )
So what about shock wave melt, as opposed to impact melt (53:00, 53:11)?
I really enjoyed the talk although the person handling the recording camera needs a talking to. ( sharing the slides showed to the audience).
Keep in mind that this was recorded 11 years ago when we were new at the process. - Beth
at 0:16:25 what are do the units a/a on the graph mean/represent? I am assuming abundance.
The cameraman should be fired.
2:54
The musical intro is stupid and useless.