Oct 24,
2006
Tektites
For many years
scientists have wondered what caused the fall of tektites
around the world. But decades of debate have left crucial
questions unanswered. Now it is time to consider the
electrical possibilities.
They are found
on every continent and come in a variety of forms, but their
distribution by type is not random. The regional association
of different tektite types is evident in many of the names
given to them. “Bediasites” from Texas received their name
from the Bedias Indians. The location of Australites is self
evident, as also javanites and philippinites. Moldavite,
called the most beautiful tektite (often a translucent light
green), comes from the Moldau River Valley in Bohemia and
Monrovia.
Some tektites
appear as small glassy clumps. Others are more defined as
buttons, teardrops, or quasi-spherical shapes, and
dumbbells, rods, and disks are also known. In certain ways,
tektites are like “concretions”
we’ve discussed in
recent Pictures of the Day. But often they are
not constituted from the soil in which they are found.
The evidence suggests they were dropped in place.
No one can say
with certainty how tektites are formed, and for this reason
classification itself is often ambiguous. For example, most
specialists do not agree whether “Libyan Desert glass”,
though enigmatic, should be classified as a “tektite”.
Charles Darwin
popularized the idea that tektites are volcanic, but this
idea was later discredited. Some scientists have also
suggested that large comets may have sprayed the earth with
these odd stones.
As the space age
arrived, attention shifted to the moon. In the 1960s, Dean
Chapman and Howard Larson prepared a number of scientific
papers on tektites, suggesting a lunar source. In 1963 the
Journal of Geophysical Research published their paper "On
the Lunar Origin of Tektites”.
Chapman believed
that, as large meteors struck the lunar surface, some of the
material excavated by the impact escaped to space. He
observed that some tektites, most notably those from
Australia, show signs of “aerodynamic ablation”, a sculpting
by passage through the Earth’s atmosphere at extremely high
speeds, he believed.
The picture
above (top) shows three views of a specimen created
experimentally by Chapman in Ames Research Center’s arc-jet
facility, which is used to test various aerodynamic designs
in intense winds generated by plasma discharge. The bottom
set shows a well-preserved natural specimen exhibiting a
surprising similarity to the experimental result. Indeed, as
the U.S. space program began to confront issues of heating
during reentry, this peculiar characteristic of some
tektites inspired engineers to rethink the design of heat
shields for spacecraft.
Nevertheless,
the notion that tektites traveled across space to arrive at
Earth faces one seemingly insurmountable problem—the
selective location of particular tektite types. Strewn
fields of tektites, occurring within defined areas, are
suggestive of regional, not global, events.
The majority of
specialists today believe that tektites, though originating
on Earth, were blasted out of terrestrial soil by meteoric
impact. They identify the chemical composition of various
tektites with that of Earth’s crustal rocks. Reinforcing
this interpretation was the discovery that some tektites
harbored spherules of nickel-iron, the constituent material
of many meteorites.
Additionally,
the many samples of lunar soil returned by the Apollo
missions did not reveal the building blocks for tektites,
whereas a primary base in terrestrial chemistry is
increasingly evident. For example, the isotopic composition
of argon inclusions in sealed bubbles suggests a terrestrial
origin, according to many specialists.
Prof. S.R.
Taylor, in his book "Solar System Evolution", writes: "The
source of tektites has been demonstrated beyond reasonable
doubt as being due to melted terrestrial (usually
sedimentary) rock splashed during meteorite impact. The
whole argument over a lunar vs. terrestrial origin of
tektites was an interesting example of the inability of the
protagonists for a lunar origin to recognize the decisive
geochemical evidence in favor of a terrestrial origin."
Yet here too the
filters of prior beliefs give rise to another “inability …
to recognize … evidence.” Inherent in Taylor’s reasoning is
the assumption that a “terrestrial origin” can only mean
“caused by meteoric impact”. But field and laboratory
evidence, as well as theoretical considerations, contradict
this assumption. As noted years ago by astrophysicist Thomas
Gold, impacts cause little melting. Much of the impact
energy is dissipated in “shock displacement”, and what heat
is generated is largely radiated away before conduction can
transmit it into the debris.
In the Electric
Universe model, this observation is crucial. An electric arc
will not only rip up the rock it strikes but also envelop
the debris in a “plasma oven” effect that evenly melts the
exposed surfaces. Small pieces of debris may be completely
melted. At the same time the arc will accelerate the debris,
scattering it over a wide area. An interplanetary arc with
the power of a “thunderbolt of the gods” could even hurl
some of the debris into space. Furthermore, electric
discharge is the one process known to produce small
spherules. Thus the NASA experiment in an arc-jet facility
shows how an arc discharge can replicate tektite formation
perfectly.
To these
considerations Wallace Thornhill adds another. He contends
that a large incoming body will be disrupted electrically
before striking the ground (as in the notorious Tunguska
explosion). The sudden internal electrical stresses
following a catastrophic lightning bolt between the Earth
and the bolide will shatter it. So when geologists identify
a particular crater as the apparent source of a tektite
field, the electrical interpretation does not look to an
“impact” to excavate soil and rock but to the effects of an
explosive electrical discharge.
In this view,
the well-documented surface etching and pitting of tektites
is a predictable consequence of their electrical creation,
whereas geologists posit unknown chemical processes after
burial in the soil.
Debris
electrically accelerated into the sky and falling back over
a broad region might account for native traditions from
Europe to China and Australia. These traditions say that
tektites fell from the sky or were cast down by native gods
of the thunderbolt. Such traditions remind us of the mythic
“thunderstones” hurled by lightning-bearing gods in tribal
accounts the world over. (See
Thunderbolts of the God, page 86).
It is not
unreasonable to wonder if such traditions influenced the
first scientific theories of tektite origins, which linked
tektites to lightning strikes.
The relationship
of tektite formation to the Tunguska event is also worth
exploring. Though no crater was produced by the event,
Russian scientist Andrei Yu. Ol'khovatov notes that “some
tektite-like objects were found at the epicenter of the 1908
Tunguska explosion. A Russian researcher G. Sal'nikova
writes that below fallen trees and in rock cracks black
glassy layered particles were discovered among others. Their
dimensions were about 1 cm.” The primary constituent was
silica.
Ol'khovatov also
reports that local Evenks spoke of “burned (molten) soil and
sand' in the epicenter. Such reports as these cause
Ol'khovatov to question standard assumptions. “Who knows,
maybe the initial idea of 'lightning strikes' was closer to
the truth than the modern one?”
___________________________________________________________________________
Please visit our
Forum
The Electric Sky
and The Electric Universe
available now!