Log InRegister
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat Articles
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsThe ElementsUsersBooks & MagazinesMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery


For general comments about the site 

Are you sure you want to report this post?

You may optionally give an explanation for why this post was reported, which will be sent to the moderators along with the report. This can help the moderator to understand why you reported the post.


Re: a simple explaination of agate formation

Posted by: Alfred L. Ostrander

Thank you Jolyon for reconsidering your statement about agate as a rock. This is a situation where petrology and mineralogy should act hand in glove for the betterment of our understanding of quartz and its polytypes.

To the point of this posting. Mr Kasper, you have written a number of books about agates, geodes, etc. Many of your positions are well known and not agreed with. You do seem to have a habit of dropping some interesting lines.

Here is what Mr Kasper thinks on a few things.

Hardness and specific gravity have not been used in science since 1910 to identify minerals or rocks reported in the scientific literature.
There is a reason, and the reason is that those methods are grossly inaccurate.
Feb 21, 2013, Yahoo Group
Here is what Mr Kasper thinks of Mindat and Dana.

Oh well. I guess Mindat and the IMA is stuck in 1830, the age of Dana. It was such a simple world then. I see increasingly that our geology
books are more like history books of old science than real science. Many authors are lazy pigs, and quote that ancient data because it
keeps things simple, but the goal of science is to describe what we see and understand and understand with our best available data and
instrumentation, not the data of 1830. Dana is dead and the science has moved on.
Feb 20, 2013, Yahoo Group

Mr Kasper finished his post of Feb 21, 2013:

Lastly, I have never been ashamed of being smart.

I will also point out that on another posting, and I paraphrase, Mr Kasper made it clear to a researcher that when he had finished publishing as many books as he had, then they could compare notes.

Jolyon, if you wish, you can remove this. I am wondering if this thread should be closed.

Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2019, except where stated. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: January 18, 2019 05:21:47
Go to top of page