Talk:Polonnaruwa (meteorite)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Geology / Meteorites  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Polonnaruwa (meteorite) is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Meteorites task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

Dubious origin[edit]

Based on the lack of data reported and looking at the images, some experts have commented in blogs and forums that the Polonnaruwa meteorite may not be a meteorite at all. But then the Peradeniya University Geology Division Professor Rohana Chandrajith examined fragments of the same meteor, and concluded that it is a terrestrial rock. Instead of deleting this article, I'd like to highlight its link as another example of pathological science. Cheers, - BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I Agree - Seems like a Good Example of Science That Could Be Better - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


It has to be said they offer very little evidence for that assumtion. Both actually; pro and contra. It should be easy to settle this by presenting isotope data.

i'd like to add a list of published papers on the JoC about the subject to this date (no isotope data anywhere) http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/PolonnaruwaRRRR.pdf http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/Polonn2.pdf http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/Polonnaruwa5R.pdf http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/Polonnaruwa6F1.pdf http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/Polonnaruwa7aa.pdf

amusing: the JoC gives Wikipedia a rebuttal (http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/indexVol21CONTENTS.htm)

quote Skepticism is evident in the Wikipedia report of this paper, which attacks the messenger by referring to the "fringe science" Journal of Cosmology. Nowhere in the diatom Wikipedia article do we see a discussion of cometary panspermia as an alternative to terrestrial evolution to explain the surprising diatom variability in the fossil record. quote end

finally i have to note on Kociolek's comment:

quote There certainly is not any sign of this being fossilized material. (...) the diversity present in the images represent a wide range of evolutionary history, such that the 'source' of the diatoms from outer space, must have gone through the same evolutionary events as here on Earth. There are no extinct taxa found, only ones we would find living today. For me it is a clear case of contamination with freshwater. quote ende

Right. Not all of it appears to be... dead. That is also in agreement with the papers published in the JoC.

Professor Kociolek's knowledge about diatoms certainly easily surpasses my kowledge, wich is not very hard to do in the first place - credits where credits are due, but i see a glaring gap in his reasoning: its not that diatoms must have gone through the same evolutionary events as on Earth, it IS the same species. That is because... hypotetically spoken: it arrived on Earth from space a very long time ago(considering the geological evidence) but also the process CONTINUES to this day. This explains why we find the same specimen. It also leads to a number of testable predictions, such as being disconected from the phylogenic tree for an example - not to fit in at all. And strangely... that is the case.

I see no contradiction here, not in the slightest. Quite on the contrary to be honest. Its absolutely the kind of mark you would expect from an invasor in the fossil record (and genetics as well).

It intrigued me and i began to read up a little on recent research. It turns out if you coat solar cells with diatom skeletons you get 30% more output - that is due to the refractive probabilities of the geometry. Also it is considered, because the skeletons employ nanotubes, to use genetical engineering to tailor diatoms for manufacturing nanotechnology parts. That ringed a bell somewhere. Since the skeletons are silica in the first place the thought arose that there is possibly more to that. I started to look for papers conducting experiments releated to elictricity. I was baffled. Not only do diatoms route electic currents through their skeletons, the experminet included also the routing of induced electric signals into the diatom. It responds... with a signal of its own...

This is demonstrated capability for singal analysis. There is not even a nervous system. This is a single celled organism. Diatoms are also kown using chemical signaling to coordinate entire populations.

The paper is called "Electrophysiology of the marine diatom Coscinodiscus wailesii I. Endogenous changes of membrane voltage and resistance" http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/333/445.full.pdf

I think diatoms certainly pass as most unusual specimen by any standart.

Additionally Professor Godfrey Louis commented on the latest findings and the relation to the Red Rain of Kerala (should be added there, too, i guess) http://www.onlanka.com/news/indian-scientist-hails-the-polonnaruwa-meteorite-as-a-major-development-in-the-search-for-extraterrestrial-life.html

However, the central, unresolved, most important question is still: is this a meteorite? And even if that may proove true: it could stil have orginated from Earth itself. Those are the major problems and nobody looked into it to this day. Its not difficult to sort that out.84.56.235.231 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just like when creationists can't explain a natural process they invoke "goddidit", the clan running the Journal of Cosmology (JoC) invoke "itsfromspace". They present us with a terrestrial contaminated rock and, instead of performing unbiased & neutral science, they make up a STORY that can't even qualify as hypothesis. Those researchers themselves run their JoC without much external scientific scrutiny. In general, the editors at JoC are giving a venue for people on the fringe who can't otherwise get their idea published through mainstream peer review. That is fine, but please don't pretend that your peer-review process has the same standards as real scientific journals such as Nature, PNAS, etc.
Finally, Wickramasinghe‎'s team (aka: JoC) can't even figure that they have to "rebute" the assessments by peer scientists such as Patrick Kociolek, PZ Myers, Jayaratne, Rohana Chandrajith, and not their conclusion as reported by Wikipedia. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
They have

Quote The presence of anorthite appears to support earlier contentions on the origins of the Polonnaruwa stones (Wickramasinghe et al, 2013). Whilst this mineral is abundant in the Earth’s crust its presence in surface rocks is far rarer due in part to its susceptibility to weathering (Goldich, 1938). Moreover, anorthite has been detected in Comet Wild/2 fragments obtained in the Stardust Mission (Simon et al, 2010) and its mineralogy, along with the observed low bulk density (< 1 g cm-3) points to a cometary origin. Quote End AND Quote The presence of quartz at 3% was considered against all the possible explanations on the origins of the stones. Whilst quartz is associated with terrestrial rocks it should be noted that it has been found in some meteorites (Leroux and Cordier, 2006) and is also thought to exist in asteroids (Treiman et al, 2006). The 3% composition is larger than the trace amounts that we would expect following a shock event and previously reported in fulgurites (Saikia et al, 2008). However, we have not discounted the possibility that surface sand particles are responsible for the observed peaks and correlations between the percentage quartz compositions and distance from the stone’s surface is being investigated. Quote End source: http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/Polonnaruwa5R.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.89.117.154 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides: "Coincidal animation of matter" is a better an explaination than "from space"? Since when? To be honest... i think both is true. But i wonder where the evidence for the process orginating on Earth is? Can you supply the slightest hint of evidence to support this claim? 217.89.117.154 (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

dudes! someone call Wickramasinghe! a meteorite just struck a lake in russia. i am sure he will be able to find extraterrestrial fish guts "fossilised" in it! hahahahahahahahahah
new paper on POLONNARUWA METEORITE and colored rain phenomena

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/Polonnaruwa8.pdf Prof. Wickramasinghe, instead diving into an argument about the autenticy of the meteorite has instead added four more meteorites to examination. One crashed into the garden of a local university near the parliament building in Sri Lanka. Lots of eyewittnesses.

Additionally to that, he showed that each type of organism coloring the rain is in accordance with the organisms in the meteorites from the respective area.

Guys... despite there being still no isotope data to nail this 100% down... i think this is it. It will be very hard to argue against his theory from this point on.

Still it should be noted that the material still could have orginated from Earth initially, maybe blasted off-planet by a big impact event, like the on killing the dinosaurs millions of years ago.

However you put it, its proof at least for a transport mechanism and that certain organisms can survive the process in a viable state.

When the isotope data tickles in and its not the same as on Earth... 217.89.117.154 (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The notion that quartz is evidence for non-meteor origin is highly questionable, because spectroscopy of dust clouds shows quartz being present (from wich bodies are formed). http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605415 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.89.117.154 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You may want to contact both the Peradeniya University Geology Division and the Arthur C. Clarke Institute for Modern Technologies in Sri Lanka to discuss their conclusion. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A fragment gathered in Sri Lanka after the fall of the Polonnaruwa meteorite has unearthly isotope ratios, according to an analysis performed in Heidelberg last week. 217.89.117.154 (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
paper including isotope analysis:

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Paper22%282%29.pdf I see no need to discuss their conclusion. 217.89.117.154 (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I will mention the isotope analysis in this article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)