|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
February 14th 04, 08:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
url link updated sorry for that !
There is (the same ?) blue Spherules at spirit site too !
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0P2399R1M1.JPG 
|
|
#3
February 14th 04, 08:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
url link updated sorry for that !
There is (the same ?) blue Spherules at spirit site too !
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0P2399R1M1.JPG
|
|
#4
February 14th 04, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
let's be humble !
Hi Eric,
Eric Pouhier wrote: You are right, I should be more humble myself, but we should all be much much humble in front the universe and in front of life. We should all remember that humans had long beleived that the earth was the center of the universe, today we assume that life needs water and THIS might be a serious lake of humility. I'm sorry if my reply seemed harsh, but your setting things up such that anyone who disagreed with you would logically be "not humble" was a bit unfair. I see this kind of argument all the time and it is, well, a bit dangerous. Your argument boils down to this: we don't know everything so everything we do know may be wrong. The reason that's a dangerous point of view is that it invalidates both science and rational thinking, putting both on the same level as irrational views of the universe such as astrology. I think it clear that science has much more to offer than that, and I am always saddened when someone turns their back on it. To put my objection in yet another way: we know so much! Talk about humbling! I am humbled by geology and what we have learned about the history of the earth simply by looking at rocks and using our brains. I am similarly humbled by physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. We are each humbled in the face of what we have accomplished *collectively* in the physical sciences. Do we have all the answers? Of course not. Can we be wrong about some things? Certainly. But collectively we know enough to tell the difference between what we know well and what may simply be speculation. That's the big problem for the layman in any field -- knowing the difference between what is well understood and what is mere speculation. That difference holds they key, for it defines a boundary that really does exist. It keeps us from throwing our hands up and saying that we may in the end know nothing. Looking at the accomplishments of science this much is clear: we really *do* know quite a bit. It is a huge mistake to turn you back on what generations of smart, (yes, even imaginitive) people have learned. On mars life may have perfectly adapted across millions of years ! Why should life disappear ! Life may be much stronger that our mortal human nature could let us imagine. Didn't you already imagine it? I'm not arguing with your assertion that there may be life on mars. We have not ruled that out yet. It hasn't even been ruled out that those spherules are some sort of life form. But get real: they are very likely rocks. That's where you start if you wish a rational view of the universe that you can place some trust in at the end of the day. Start with the most likely explanation, test it, and if the test fails look beyond. If, after exhausting the possibility these things are rocks explore ways to test if they are life. How esxciting the process! How exciting science is! Better than anything the imagination can conjure up alone. I guess what I'm saying is that, basically, you are are insulting all scientists and rational thinkers with the old, tired, idea that we are all closed minded -- somehow incarcerated by our own knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth! Science is not truth, it is not even knowledge, but rather a *process* to obtain objective truth, having a similar function to that of a trial to a legal system. Science, by definition, is not closed minded. But it doesn't jump to irrational conclusions either. The evidence is weighed carefully before a conclusion is reached. Experiments are performed to falsify our best ideas. Science always asks the question, is this false? Over and over, ad naseum. Whatever is left standing after all these questions -- that is our best shot at the truth. Nobody is saying there is no life on mars. But prudence and experience tell us that it is unlikely. Prudence and experience -- knowledge -- tell us these are likely rocks. In the end, when science has tested every hypothesis and made every possible measurement, then we will know the truth. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen
|
|
#5
February 14th 04, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
let's be humble !
Thanks Greg for this long reply, I'm glad to read that you are not totally excluding life on mars, I would like just to point out 2 or 3 little details.
To put my objection in yet another way: we know so much! Talk about humbling! I am humbled by geology and what we have learned about the history of the earth simply by looking at rocks and using our brains. I am similarly humbled by physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. We are each humbled in the face of what we have accomplished *collectively* in the physical sciences. Do we have all the answers? Of course not. Can we be wrong about some things? Certainly. But collectively we know enough to tell the difference between what we know well and what may simply be speculation. That's the big problem for the layman in any field -- knowing the difference between what is well understood and what is mere speculation. That difference holds they key, for it defines a boundary that really does exist. It keeps us from throwing our hands up and saying that we may in the end know nothing. Looking at the accomplishments of science this much is clear: we really *do* know quite a bit. It is a huge mistake to turn you back on what generations of smart, (yes, even imaginitive) people have learned. Oh yes, I know that we do know quite a lot in most areas, my point is that we are very far from understanding life on earth and we know just nothing about extraterrestrial life [we don't even know if it exists!]. In these conditions, I call for humility, we may be extremely surprised by the strength and nature of life ... But get real: they are very likely rocks. I'm sorry to insist but I'm studying all what we (amateur) get from MER and Mars Express. Few examples: The twin spherule on the upper right corner of this image is not a rock. (is that rock ???) http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2953M2M1.HTML Another twin spherule on the left border of that one http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2932M1M1.HTML The texture and the shape of the spherules and spherules debris on this Anaglyph doesn't show stones to me ! http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA05275.jpg The texture of the soil (suprisingly soft) http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...h_movie_br.gif Could the green seen on the ESA Mars Express images be due to orange/yellow general soil color spread with blue dots (our spherules) resulting in green seen from space ? etc . I do not exclude that it could be petrifications of life or direct effects of life, but just rocks is doubtful . my humble opinion  ).I guess what I'm saying is that, basically, you are are insulting all scientists and rational thinkers with the old, tired, idea that we are all closed minded - somehow incarcerated by our own knowledge. No, no, no, I'm not, and I'm sorry if some scientists or rational thinkers took it like that. Nobody is saying there is no life on mars. But prudence and experience tell us that it is unlikely. Prudence and experience -- knowledge -- tell us these are likely rocks. In the end, when science has tested every hypothesis and made every possible measurement, then we will know the truth. Too much prudence Greg, the hypothesis of direct life discovery was eliminated (based on scientists current knowledge and budget) and the rovers were engineered mainly for geologists (e.g. nasa is not able to certify true colours pictures !). As a result of the "geological design" of the rovers, the nature of the spherules may not be scientifically determined during this missions, due to the lack of imagination among humans. But this is not the fault of anyone and I'm not blaming anyone, it is just due to the weak human thinking structures and ability, the global lack of imagination . Humility, humility, humility. )Eric Pouhier -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen
|
|
#6
February 14th 04, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
let's be humble !
Eric Pouhier wrote:
I do not exclude that it could be petrifications of life or direct effects of life, but just rocks is doubtful … my humble opinion ).Why? What do you base your opinion on? At the moment there are many geological interpretations for these. You have jumped to a conclusion based on your own imperfect analysis. I offered an alternate explanation for your light and dark spherules. But you ignored that, didn't you? Instead, you cling to your conclusion. Who has the open mind here? I'm sorry, but that sort of thing is the sign of a closed, irrational mind. Sorry, there just isn't any nice way to say that! You are proceeding very unscientifically, nd let me warn you right now, without the scientific method we are adrift, able to believe anything we wish to believe, regardless of the truth. Too much prudence Greg, the hypothesis of direct life discovery was eliminated (based on scientists current knowledge and budget) and the rovers were engineered mainly for geologists (e.g. nasa is not able to certify true colours pictures !). I disagree. As a result of the "geological design" of the rovers, the nature of the spherules may not be scientifically determined during this missions, due to the lack of imagination among humans. But this is not the fault of anyone and I'm not blaming anyone, it is just due to the weak human thinking structures and ability, the global lack of imagination . Humility, humility, humility… )Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time, we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again, you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow view of the scientists involved. Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit more evidence before I start considering the implications of something, with well, rather interesting implications. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen
|
|
#7
February 15th 04, 07:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
let's be humble !
Greg,
My opinion is based on *observations* and deep reflexions, did you pay attentions to the links I posted ??? What evidence do you have for their color? The blue color !!! Please see for yourself. http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html Did you made your own opinion based direct observation, or are you just arguing ? Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time, we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again, you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow view of the scientists involved. I agree about this and I apologise for my wrong statement on this point, my mistake ! )Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit more evidence before I start considering the implications of something, with well, rather interesting implications. They may not be the very same spherules but please again see for yourself : Color picture : http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html Microscopic here http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2943M2M1.HTML they are all dead and faded here ))))) (seriously I don't know yet ... to be followed)My time is precious, too precious to spend too much time arguing here, I'll post back here with more clues only ! Best regards and have a nice Sunday, ERic Pouhier "Greg Crinklaw" a écrit dans le message news: ... Eric Pouhier wrote: I do not exclude that it could be petrifications of life or direct effects of life, but just rocks is doubtful … my humble opinion ).Why? What do you base your opinion on? At the moment there are many geological interpretations for these. You have jumped to a conclusion based on your own imperfect analysis. I offered an alternate explanation for your light and dark spherules. But you ignored that, didn't you? Instead, you cling to your conclusion. Who has the open mind here? I'm sorry, but that sort of thing is the sign of a closed, irrational mind. Sorry, there just isn't any nice way to say that! You are proceeding very unscientifically, nd let me warn you right now, without the scientific method we are adrift, able to believe anything we wish to believe, regardless of the truth. Too much prudence Greg, the hypothesis of direct life discovery was eliminated (based on scientists current knowledge and budget) and the rovers were engineered mainly for geologists (e.g. nasa is not able to certify true colours pictures !). I disagree. As a result of the "geological design" of the rovers, the nature of the spherules may not be scientifically determined during this missions, due to the lack of imagination among humans. But this is not the fault of anyone and I'm not blaming anyone, it is just due to the weak human thinking structures and ability, the global lack of imagination . Humility, humility, humility… )Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time, we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again, you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow view of the scientists involved. Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit more evidence before I start considering the implications of something, with well, rather interesting implications. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen
|
|
#8
February 15th 04, 07:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
let's be humble !
Greg,
My opinion is based on *observations* and deep reflexions, did you pay attentions to the links I posted ??? What evidence do you have for their color? The blue color !!! Please see for yourself. http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html Did you made your own opinion based direct observation, or are you just arguing ? Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time, we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again, you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow view of the scientists involved. I agree about this and I apologise for my wrong statement on this point, my mistake ! )Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit more evidence before I start considering the implications of something, with well, rather interesting implications. They may not be the very same spherules but please again see for yourself : Color picture : http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html Microscopic here http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2943M2M1.HTML they are all dead and faded here ))))) (seriously I don't know yet ... to be followed)My time is precious, too precious to spend too much time arguing here, I'll post back here with more clues only ! Best regards and have a nice Sunday, ERic Pouhier "Greg Crinklaw" a écrit dans le message news: ... Eric Pouhier wrote: I do not exclude that it could be petrifications of life or direct effects of life, but just rocks is doubtful … my humble opinion ).Why? What do you base your opinion on? At the moment there are many geological interpretations for these. You have jumped to a conclusion based on your own imperfect analysis. I offered an alternate explanation for your light and dark spherules. But you ignored that, didn't you? Instead, you cling to your conclusion. Who has the open mind here? I'm sorry, but that sort of thing is the sign of a closed, irrational mind. Sorry, there just isn't any nice way to say that! You are proceeding very unscientifically, nd let me warn you right now, without the scientific method we are adrift, able to believe anything we wish to believe, regardless of the truth. Too much prudence Greg, the hypothesis of direct life discovery was eliminated (based on scientists current knowledge and budget) and the rovers were engineered mainly for geologists (e.g. nasa is not able to certify true colours pictures !). I disagree. As a result of the "geological design" of the rovers, the nature of the spherules may not be scientifically determined during this missions, due to the lack of imagination among humans. But this is not the fault of anyone and I'm not blaming anyone, it is just due to the weak human thinking structures and ability, the global lack of imagination . Humility, humility, humility… )Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time, we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again, you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow view of the scientists involved. Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit more evidence before I start considering the implications of something, with well, rather interesting implications. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen
|
|
#9
February 14th 04, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
let's be humble !
Eric Pouhier wrote:
I do not exclude that it could be petrifications of life or direct effects of life, but just rocks is doubtful … my humble opinion ).Why? What do you base your opinion on? At the moment there are many geological interpretations for these. You have jumped to a conclusion based on your own imperfect analysis. I offered an alternate explanation for your light and dark spherules. But you ignored that, didn't you? Instead, you cling to your conclusion. Who has the open mind here? I'm sorry, but that sort of thing is the sign of a closed, irrational mind. Sorry, there just isn't any nice way to say that! You are proceeding very unscientifically, nd let me warn you right now, without the scientific method we are adrift, able to believe anything we wish to believe, regardless of the truth. Too much prudence Greg, the hypothesis of direct life discovery was eliminated (based on scientists current knowledge and budget) and the rovers were engineered mainly for geologists (e.g. nasa is not able to certify true colours pictures !). I disagree. As a result of the "geological design" of the rovers, the nature of the spherules may not be scientifically determined during this missions, due to the lack of imagination among humans. But this is not the fault of anyone and I'm not blaming anyone, it is just due to the weak human thinking structures and ability, the global lack of imagination . Humility, humility, humility… )Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time, we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again, you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow view of the scientists involved. Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit more evidence before I start considering the implications of something, with well, rather interesting implications. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen
|
|
#10
February 14th 04, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
let's be humble !
In article ,
Eric Pouhier wrote: Greg Crinklaw wrote: Nobody is saying there is no life on mars. But prudence and experience tell us that it is unlikely. Prudence and experience -- knowledge -- tell us these are likely rocks. In the end, when science has tested every hypothesis and made every possible measurement, then we will know the truth. Too much prudence Greg, the hypothesis of direct life discovery was eliminated (based on scientists current knowledge and budget) and the rovers were engineered mainly for geologists (e.g. nasa is not able to certify true colours pictures !). As a result of the "geological design" of the rovers, the nature of the spherules may not be scientifically determined during this missions, due to the lack of imagination among humans. But this is not the fault of anyone and I'm not blaming anyone, it is just due to the weak human thinking structures and ability, the global lack of imagination . Humility, humility, humility. )No. It's simply due to finite resources. Scientists have to make subjective judgements on what is likely to yield useful information. Sometimes they judge well, sometimes poorly. But they stake their careers and reputations on making good decisions. What are you staking? It's easy to tell people to make high-risk gambles when you have nothing to lose. If you can figure out how to increase NASA's budget to $200 billion a year, I'm sure that they would be more than happy to design a probe to your exact requirements. Scientists don't lack imagination. They lack funding.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
