Cross-bedding on Mars?

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Richard I. Gibson wrote:
Jo Schaper wrote:



*speculation*
Could there be a scenario in which a previous, wind eroded/tumbled
surface rubble is taken up and incorporated into volcanic rock as a
these spheroids, perhaps undergoing additional rounding due to remelt?
I've seen such basal conglomerates, both in tuffs (both grain and
matrix are volcanic) and as a rhyolite grain/dolomite matrix
conglomerate.
(off speculation)



I like that idea -- although seems to me that they could also all be
part of the same volcaniclastic "fall" - ash + spherules, mixed
together, welded together, with the spherules enough harder that they
weather out, while the ash decrepitates into the fine sand that is all
around.



I have no objection to that idea either. See my post under "spheres
coming from bedrock". I think I might have an earth analog of this in my
basement--crumbly rhyolite with iron amygdules from Iron Co., Mo.

Now, I'm gonna have to dig around and find that rock...


I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.
The regional views show the area to be among the smoothest
areas on the planet and the most hematite rich. The hematite
appears associated with a ...lack of nearby large impact
craters and calderas. Not by the proximity to them.
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/


The exceptionally smooth distribution of the spheres combined
with their pristine appearance seem to argue they are a relatively
recent event. Yet there's no recent or nearly impacts or volcanoes
as far as I can tell.

For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.
Yet the airbag impressions show the freshly exposed soil
is the least hematite rich and rover tracks do not appear
to expose more spheres.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-5.html

I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.


As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html
INTRODUCTION
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different phase transitions:

A) The dynamical "edge of chaos" within and among members of the community,
thereby simultaneously achieving a coarse graining of each agent's world and
maximizing the capacity to discriminate and act without trembling hands.

B) A "self organized critical" state as a community of coevolving agents, by
tuning landscape structure and coupling, yielding a power law distribution
of speciation and extinction avalanches.

C) A poised position on a generalized "subcritical-supracritical boundary," exhibiting
a generalized self-organized critical sustained expansion into the "Adjacent Possible"
of the effective phase space of the community.


All three versions of self-organizing systems given above share
a common more generic property. Which is they are in a
state midway between their static and chaotic possibility
space. This property seems evident since the distribution of
these spheres are ...perfectly random. It is neither so
dense as to be a solid sheet, nor dispersed enough to
be discontinuous. Every niche is perfectly filled, which
is a primary property of self-organizing systems.

Another primary property of self-organizing, or
more simply evolving, systems is self-similarity across scale.
If the structure is similar from the smallest scale to the
largest for that system, then it has a primary aspect
of complex adaptive systems. This property seems to
be satisfied also, since this field of spheres would look
similar if viewed from close up or afar. The structure
and distribution is similar whether viewed at one inch, one
meter or a hundred. Random, niche-filled and spherical.

One aspect that must also be present is self replication.
In the following picture there are smudges of material
that appear to be spheres either forming or decomposing.

The picture shows three states, a loose patch, a perfectly
symmetrical sphere, and broken pieces. All three evenly
distributed so that the dominate system wide structure is the ideal
form midway between its possibility space.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2953M2M1.HTML

Everything I see in just screams that the order we observe comes
from within the system. Order not imposed from outside is
self-organized and ....alive.

Life in the most abstract sense that is.



Jonathan

s






best
Jo

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Richard I. Gibson wrote:
Jo Schaper wrote:



*speculation*
Could there be a scenario in which a previous, wind eroded/tumbled
surface rubble is taken up and incorporated into volcanic rock as a
these spheroids, perhaps undergoing additional rounding due to
remelt?
I've seen such basal conglomerates, both in tuffs (both grain and
matrix are volcanic) and as a rhyolite grain/dolomite matrix
conglomerate.
(off speculation)



I like that idea -- although seems to me that they could also all be
part of the same volcaniclastic "fall" - ash + spherules, mixed
together, welded together, with the spherules enough harder that they
weather out, while the ash decrepitates into the fine sand that is all
around.



I have no objection to that idea either. See my post under "spheres
coming from bedrock". I think I might have an earth analog of this in my
basement--crumbly rhyolite with iron amygdules from Iron Co., Mo.

Now, I'm gonna have to dig around and find that rock...


I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.
The regional views show the area to be among the smoothest
areas on the planet and the most hematite rich. The hematite
appears associated with a ...lack of nearby large impact
craters and calderas. Not by the proximity to them.
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/


The Opportunity landing site is within or very near a large subdued (filled)
crater:

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz.../HematiteWest/

In fact, there are smaller craters all over the place, according to the maps
and images from this site.

And even if the site wasn't in proximity to the features you mention, that
does not , in any way, rule out a volcanic or impact origin for these
objects. The fact of the matter is that since Mars has a much weaker
gravitational field, and a much less dense atmosphere than that of the
earth, a large impact or volcanic eruption could leave debris in the
atmosphere for a considerable length of time, debris which could also travel
very long distances.

The exceptionally smooth distribution of the spheres combined
with their pristine appearance seem to argue they are a relatively
recent event. Yet there's no recent or nearly impacts or volcanoes
as far as I can tell.

I could argue that their smooth distribution could just as easily indicate
that they have been weathering out of the bedrock for quite some time. The
fact that they are smoothly distributed and quite intact is likely at
testament to their hardness as much asanything else.


For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.
Yet the airbag impressions show the freshly exposed soil
is the least hematite rich and rover tracks do not appear
to expose more spheres.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-5.html

The airbag impressions in fact show lots of spheres in the soil, as many as
outside of the disturbed area:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4P2540L2M1.JPG

If you look closely at the image you provide in the link, the hematite-rich
region appears to be mostly concentrated at or in the soil above the exposed
bedrock, which to me indicates that that soil above the bedrock is mostly a
residuum of the bedrock (residuum often concentrates minerals that are
resistent to weather), and explains why the plain above the bedrock is
loaded with spheres (since the bedrock is the obvious origin of the
spheres).

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...2P2378R4M1.JPG

In fact, I have heard it said that the spheres are the origin of the
hematite, since the matrix of the bedrock appears to be deficient in
hematite. Whether this is true or not has yet to be proven definitively as
JPL is still analyzing all of the recent data.


I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

How do you explain the fact that the spheres are in the rock itself? I
think it is obvious that the spheres are eroding out of the rock.


As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html
INTRODUCTION
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different phase
transitions:

"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

In article ,
George wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Richard I. Gibson wrote:
Jo Schaper wrote:



*speculation*
Could there be a scenario in which a previous, wind eroded/tumbled
surface rubble is taken up and incorporated into volcanic rock as a
these spheroids, perhaps undergoing additional rounding due to
remelt?
I've seen such basal conglomerates, both in tuffs (both grain and
matrix are volcanic) and as a rhyolite grain/dolomite matrix
conglomerate.
(off speculation)



I like that idea -- although seems to me that they could also all be
part of the same volcaniclastic "fall" - ash + spherules, mixed
together, welded together, with the spherules enough harder that they
weather out, while the ash decrepitates into the fine sand that is all
around.



I have no objection to that idea either. See my post under "spheres
coming from bedrock". I think I might have an earth analog of this in my
basement--crumbly rhyolite with iron amygdules from Iron Co., Mo.

Now, I'm gonna have to dig around and find that rock...


I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.
The regional views show the area to be among the smoothest
areas on the planet and the most hematite rich. The hematite
appears associated with a ...lack of nearby large impact
craters and calderas. Not by the proximity to them.
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/


The Opportunity landing site is within or very near a large subdued (filled)
crater:

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz.../HematiteWest/

In fact, there are smaller craters all over the place, according to the maps
and images from this site.

And even if the site wasn't in proximity to the features you mention, that
does not , in any way, rule out a volcanic or impact origin for these
objects. The fact of the matter is that since Mars has a much weaker
gravitational field, and a much less dense atmosphere than that of the
earth, a large impact or volcanic eruption could leave debris in the
atmosphere for a considerable length of time, debris which could also travel
very long distances.

The exceptionally smooth distribution of the spheres combined
with their pristine appearance seem to argue they are a relatively
recent event. Yet there's no recent or nearly impacts or volcanoes
as far as I can tell.

I could argue that their smooth distribution could just as easily indicate
that they have been weathering out of the bedrock for quite some time. The
fact that they are smoothly distributed and quite intact is likely at
testament to their hardness as much asanything else.


For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.
Yet the airbag impressions show the freshly exposed soil
is the least hematite rich and rover tracks do not appear
to expose more spheres.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-5.html

The airbag impressions in fact show lots of spheres in the soil, as many as
outside of the disturbed area:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4P2540L2M1.JPG

If you look closely at the image you provide in the link, the hematite-rich
region appears to be mostly concentrated at or in the soil above the exposed
bedrock, which to me indicates that that soil above the bedrock is mostly a
residuum of the bedrock (residuum often concentrates minerals that are
resistent to weather), and explains why the plain above the bedrock is
loaded with spheres (since the bedrock is the obvious origin of the
spheres).

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...2P2378R4M1.JPG

In fact, I have heard it said that the spheres are the origin of the
hematite, since the matrix of the bedrock appears to be deficient in
hematite. Whether this is true or not has yet to be proven definitively as
JPL is still analyzing all of the recent data.


I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

How do you explain the fact that the spheres are in the rock itself? I
think it is obvious that the spheres are eroding out of the rock.


As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html
INTRODUCTION
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different phase
transitions:

"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

Kauffman has degrees from Darthmouth and Oxford, and the
science board of Santa Fe has members from top universities
all over the world. So if he's a kook, I guess he's at
least at least a well-educated one. :-)

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Richard I. Gibson wrote:
Jo Schaper wrote:



*speculation*
Could there be a scenario in which a previous, wind eroded/tumbled
surface rubble is taken up and incorporated into volcanic rock as
a
these spheroids, perhaps undergoing additional rounding due to
remelt?
I've seen such basal conglomerates, both in tuffs (both grain and
matrix are volcanic) and as a rhyolite grain/dolomite matrix
conglomerate.
(off speculation)



I like that idea -- although seems to me that they could also all
be
part of the same volcaniclastic "fall" - ash + spherules, mixed
together, welded together, with the spherules enough harder that
they
weather out, while the ash decrepitates into the fine sand that is
all
around.



I have no objection to that idea either. See my post under "spheres
coming from bedrock". I think I might have an earth analog of this in
my
basement--crumbly rhyolite with iron amygdules from Iron Co., Mo.

Now, I'm gonna have to dig around and find that rock...


I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.
The regional views show the area to be among the smoothest
areas on the planet and the most hematite rich. The hematite
appears associated with a ...lack of nearby large impact
craters and calderas. Not by the proximity to them.
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/


The Opportunity landing site is within or very near a large subdued
(filled)
crater:

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz.../HematiteWest/

In fact, there are smaller craters all over the place, according to the
maps
and images from this site.

And even if the site wasn't in proximity to the features you mention,
that
does not , in any way, rule out a volcanic or impact origin for these
objects. The fact of the matter is that since Mars has a much weaker
gravitational field, and a much less dense atmosphere than that of the
earth, a large impact or volcanic eruption could leave debris in the
atmosphere for a considerable length of time, debris which could also
travel
very long distances.

The exceptionally smooth distribution of the spheres combined
with their pristine appearance seem to argue they are a relatively
recent event. Yet there's no recent or nearly impacts or volcanoes
as far as I can tell.

I could argue that their smooth distribution could just as easily
indicate
that they have been weathering out of the bedrock for quite some time.
The
fact that they are smoothly distributed and quite intact is likely at
testament to their hardness as much asanything else.


For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.
Yet the airbag impressions show the freshly exposed soil
is the least hematite rich and rover tracks do not appear
to expose more spheres.


http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...ions/image-5.h
tml

The airbag impressions in fact show lots of spheres in the soil, as many
as
outside of the disturbed area:


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0ESF0224P2540L
2M1.JPG

If you look closely at the image you provide in the link, the
hematite-rich
region appears to be mostly concentrated at or in the soil above the
exposed
bedrock, which to me indicates that that soil above the bedrock is mostly
a
residuum of the bedrock (residuum often concentrates minerals that are
resistent to weather), and explains why the plain above the bedrock is
loaded with spheres (since the bedrock is the obvious origin of the
spheres).


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4EFF0312P2378R
4M1.JPG

In fact, I have heard it said that the spheres are the origin of the
hematite, since the matrix of the bedrock appears to be deficient in
hematite. Whether this is true or not has yet to be proven definitively
as
JPL is still analyzing all of the recent data.


I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

How do you explain the fact that the spheres are in the rock itself? I
think it is obvious that the spheres are eroding out of the rock.


As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html
INTRODUCTION
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different phase
transitions:

"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

Kauffman has degrees from Darthmouth and Oxford, and the
science board of Santa Fe has members from top universities
all over the world. So if he's a kook, I guess he's at
least at least a well-educated one. :-)

Well Ken, he can wave his degrees around all he cares to. Bill Clinton
Graduated from Oxford, so there you go! Lots of us have degrees, myself
included. The fact that he ignored (or just plain missed) so much of what I
pointed out that was so obvious and has been discussed for days in this
newsgrop makes one pause and wonder... The fact that he is trying to make a
case for these mineral spheres being a form of life based on a
philosophical/mathematical construct (even he calls it "protoscience",
whatever that is) instead of the evidence presented right in front of him
speaks volumes all by itself. For a guy with degrees from Darmouth and
Oxford to come out and make such a bold statement so pre-maturely when only
a very small amount of data has even been analyzed and released is
irresponsible, to say the least. At least he didn't embarrass himself by
making the statement on nation television.

Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his field (theoretical
biochemistry?). But geology is obviously his cup of tea. I will not
pretend to be a theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I raised in
refutation of his post that you disagree with, and if so, why? Be specific.
I can take criticism as well as any.

" George" wrote in message
. ..

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:


"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

Kauffman has degrees from Darthmouth and Oxford, and the
science board of Santa Fe has members from top universities
all over the world. So if he's a kook, I guess he's at
least at least a well-educated one. :-)

Well Ken, he can wave his degrees around all he cares to. Bill Clinton
Graduated from Oxford, so there you go! Lots of us have degrees, myself
included. The fact that he ignored (or just plain missed) so much of what I
pointed out that was so obvious and has been discussed for days in this
newsgrop makes one pause and wonder... The fact that he is trying to make a
case for these mineral spheres being a form of life based on a
philosophical/mathematical construct (even he calls it "protoscience",
whatever that is) instead of the evidence presented right in front of him
speaks volumes all by itself. For a guy with degrees from Darmouth and
Oxford to come out and make such a bold statement so pre-maturely when only
a very small amount of data has even been analyzed and released is
irresponsible, to say the least. At least he didn't embarrass himself by
making the statement on nation television.


I was quoting Kauffman only concerning his writings on self-organization.
I haven't a clue what he thinks about the spheres. Kauffman used to run
the theoretical physics dept at Los Alamos, and is no kook.



Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his field (theoretical
biochemistry?). But geology is obviously his cup of tea. I will not
pretend to be a theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I raised in
refutation of his post that you disagree with, and if so, why? Be specific.
I can take criticism as well as any.

"jonathan" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Hi Jonathan
I would like to express an appreciation for your point of view.
This doesn't imply that I understand you. Before reading your post I had
something like this rumbling in the back of my head: Knowing what
biochemistry does to Earth - it would certainly always be a possibility (on
Mars)

I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.

snip

For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.

Agree, the outcrop may be an odd appearance of a widespread process.

snip

I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

It struck me as a possibility

As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

big snip
It's comforting that someone gave it a thought.

Everything I see in just screams that the order we observe comes
from within the system. Order not imposed from outside is
self-organized and ....alive.

Well, the diversity of biochemistry on Earth makes it worth not to exclude
the possibility.

My personal opinion still leans toward volcanism and fluids though.

Carsten

In article ,
George wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Richard I. Gibson wrote:
Jo Schaper wrote:



*speculation*
Could there be a scenario in which a previous, wind eroded/tumbled
surface rubble is taken up and incorporated into volcanic rock as
a
these spheroids, perhaps undergoing additional rounding due to
remelt?
I've seen such basal conglomerates, both in tuffs (both grain and
matrix are volcanic) and as a rhyolite grain/dolomite matrix
conglomerate.
(off speculation)



I like that idea -- although seems to me that they could also all
be
part of the same volcaniclastic "fall" - ash + spherules, mixed
together, welded together, with the spherules enough harder that
they
weather out, while the ash decrepitates into the fine sand that is
all
around.



I have no objection to that idea either. See my post under "spheres
coming from bedrock". I think I might have an earth analog of this in
my
basement--crumbly rhyolite with iron amygdules from Iron Co., Mo.

Now, I'm gonna have to dig around and find that rock...


I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.
The regional views show the area to be among the smoothest
areas on the planet and the most hematite rich. The hematite
appears associated with a ...lack of nearby large impact
craters and calderas. Not by the proximity to them.
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/


The Opportunity landing site is within or very near a large subdued
(filled)
crater:

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz.../HematiteWest/

In fact, there are smaller craters all over the place, according to the
maps
and images from this site.

And even if the site wasn't in proximity to the features you mention,
that
does not , in any way, rule out a volcanic or impact origin for these
objects. The fact of the matter is that since Mars has a much weaker
gravitational field, and a much less dense atmosphere than that of the
earth, a large impact or volcanic eruption could leave debris in the
atmosphere for a considerable length of time, debris which could also
travel
very long distances.

The exceptionally smooth distribution of the spheres combined
with their pristine appearance seem to argue they are a relatively
recent event. Yet there's no recent or nearly impacts or volcanoes
as far as I can tell.

I could argue that their smooth distribution could just as easily
indicate
that they have been weathering out of the bedrock for quite some time.
The
fact that they are smoothly distributed and quite intact is likely at
testament to their hardness as much asanything else.


For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.
Yet the airbag impressions show the freshly exposed soil
is the least hematite rich and rover tracks do not appear
to expose more spheres.


http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...ions/image-5.h
tml

The airbag impressions in fact show lots of spheres in the soil, as many
as
outside of the disturbed area:


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0ESF0224P2540L
2M1.JPG

If you look closely at the image you provide in the link, the
hematite-rich
region appears to be mostly concentrated at or in the soil above the
exposed
bedrock, which to me indicates that that soil above the bedrock is mostly
a
residuum of the bedrock (residuum often concentrates minerals that are
resistent to weather), and explains why the plain above the bedrock is
loaded with spheres (since the bedrock is the obvious origin of the
spheres).


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4EFF0312P2378R
4M1.JPG

In fact, I have heard it said that the spheres are the origin of the
hematite, since the matrix of the bedrock appears to be deficient in
hematite. Whether this is true or not has yet to be proven definitively
as
JPL is still analyzing all of the recent data.


I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

How do you explain the fact that the spheres are in the rock itself? I
think it is obvious that the spheres are eroding out of the rock.


As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html
INTRODUCTION
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different phase
transitions:

"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

Kauffman has degrees from Darthmouth and Oxford, and the
science board of Santa Fe has members from top universities
all over the world. So if he's a kook, I guess he's at
least at least a well-educated one. :-)

Well Ken, he can wave his degrees around all he cares to. Bill Clinton
Graduated from Oxford, so there you go! Lots of us have degrees, myself
included. The fact that he ignored (or just plain missed) so much of what I
pointed out that was so obvious and has been discussed for days in this
newsgrop makes one pause and wonder... The fact that he is trying to make a
case for these mineral spheres being a form of life based on a
philosophical/mathematical construct (even he calls it "protoscience",
whatever that is) instead of the evidence presented right in front of him
speaks volumes all by itself. For a guy with degrees from Darmouth and
Oxford to come out and make such a bold statement so pre-maturely when only
a very small amount of data has even been analyzed and released is
irresponsible, to say the least. At least he didn't embarrass himself by
making the statement on nation television.

Uh, Kauffman is not the OP. The OP was quoting some stuff
from Kauffman.


Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his field (theoretical
biochemistry?). But geology is obviously his cup of tea. I will not
pretend to be a theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I raised in
refutation of his post that you disagree with, and if so, why? Be specific.
I can take criticism as well as any.

Nope, I'm ignorant on this. Just wanted to point out that the
Santa Fe Institute seems reputable, at least superficially.
(I had heard of it before.)

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

" George" wrote in message
. ..

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:


"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

Kauffman has degrees from Darthmouth and Oxford, and the
science board of Santa Fe has members from top universities
all over the world. So if he's a kook, I guess he's at
least at least a well-educated one. :-)

Well Ken, he can wave his degrees around all he cares to. Bill Clinton
Graduated from Oxford, so there you go! Lots of us have degrees, myself
included. The fact that he ignored (or just plain missed) so much of
what I
pointed out that was so obvious and has been discussed for days in this
newsgrop makes one pause and wonder... The fact that he is trying to
make a
case for these mineral spheres being a form of life based on a
philosophical/mathematical construct (even he calls it "protoscience",
whatever that is) instead of the evidence presented right in front of
him
speaks volumes all by itself. For a guy with degrees from Darmouth and
Oxford to come out and make such a bold statement so pre-maturely when
only
a very small amount of data has even been analyzed and released is
irresponsible, to say the least. At least he didn't embarrass himself
by
making the statement on nation television.


I was quoting Kauffman only concerning his writings on self-organization.
I haven't a clue what he thinks about the spheres. Kauffman used to run
the theoretical physics dept at Los Alamos, and is no kook.


Why do you feel that his theoretical writings on self-organization are
pertinent to the discussing of cross-beeding and spherules on Mars.


Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his field
(theoretical
biochemistry?). But geology is obviously his cup of tea. I will not
pretend to be a theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I raised in
refutation of his post that you disagree with, and if so, why? Be
specific.
I can take criticism as well as any.

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Richard I. Gibson wrote:
Jo Schaper wrote:



*speculation*
Could there be a scenario in which a previous, wind
eroded/tumbled
surface rubble is taken up and incorporated into volcanic rock
as
a
these spheroids, perhaps undergoing additional rounding due to
remelt?
I've seen such basal conglomerates, both in tuffs (both grain
and
matrix are volcanic) and as a rhyolite grain/dolomite matrix
conglomerate.
(off speculation)



I like that idea -- although seems to me that they could also
all
be
part of the same volcaniclastic "fall" - ash + spherules, mixed
together, welded together, with the spherules enough harder that
they
weather out, while the ash decrepitates into the fine sand that
is
all
around.



I have no objection to that idea either. See my post under
"spheres
coming from bedrock". I think I might have an earth analog of this
in
my
basement--crumbly rhyolite with iron amygdules from Iron Co., Mo.

Now, I'm gonna have to dig around and find that rock...


I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.
The regional views show the area to be among the smoothest
areas on the planet and the most hematite rich. The hematite
appears associated with a ...lack of nearby large impact
craters and calderas. Not by the proximity to them.
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/


The Opportunity landing site is within or very near a large subdued
(filled)
crater:

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz.../HematiteWest/

In fact, there are smaller craters all over the place, according to
the
maps
and images from this site.

And even if the site wasn't in proximity to the features you mention,
that
does not , in any way, rule out a volcanic or impact origin for these
objects. The fact of the matter is that since Mars has a much weaker
gravitational field, and a much less dense atmosphere than that of the
earth, a large impact or volcanic eruption could leave debris in the
atmosphere for a considerable length of time, debris which could also
travel
very long distances.

The exceptionally smooth distribution of the spheres combined
with their pristine appearance seem to argue they are a relatively
recent event. Yet there's no recent or nearly impacts or volcanoes
as far as I can tell.

I could argue that their smooth distribution could just as easily
indicate
that they have been weathering out of the bedrock for quite some time.
The
fact that they are smoothly distributed and quite intact is likely at
testament to their hardness as much asanything else.


For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.
Yet the airbag impressions show the freshly exposed soil
is the least hematite rich and rover tracks do not appear
to expose more spheres.



http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...ptions/image-5.
h
tml

The airbag impressions in fact show lots of spheres in the soil, as
many
as
outside of the disturbed area:



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...40ESF0224P2540
L
2M1.JPG

If you look closely at the image you provide in the link, the
hematite-rich
region appears to be mostly concentrated at or in the soil above the
exposed
bedrock, which to me indicates that that soil above the bedrock is
mostly
a
residuum of the bedrock (residuum often concentrates minerals that are
resistent to weather), and explains why the plain above the bedrock is
loaded with spheres (since the bedrock is the obvious origin of the
spheres).



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...74EFF0312P2378
R
4M1.JPG

In fact, I have heard it said that the spheres are the origin of the
hematite, since the matrix of the bedrock appears to be deficient in
hematite. Whether this is true or not has yet to be proven
definitively
as
JPL is still analyzing all of the recent data.


I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

How do you explain the fact that the spheres are in the rock itself?
I
think it is obvious that the spheres are eroding out of the rock.


As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html
INTRODUCTION
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell
Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different phase
transitions:

"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

Kauffman has degrees from Darthmouth and Oxford, and the
science board of Santa Fe has members from top universities
all over the world. So if he's a kook, I guess he's at
least at least a well-educated one. :-)

Well Ken, he can wave his degrees around all he cares to. Bill Clinton
Graduated from Oxford, so there you go! Lots of us have degrees, myself
included. The fact that he ignored (or just plain missed) so much of
what I
pointed out that was so obvious and has been discussed for days in this
newsgrop makes one pause and wonder... The fact that he is trying to
make a
case for these mineral spheres being a form of life based on a
philosophical/mathematical construct (even he calls it "protoscience",
whatever that is) instead of the evidence presented right in front of him
speaks volumes all by itself. For a guy with degrees from Darmouth and
Oxford to come out and make such a bold statement so pre-maturely when
only
a very small amount of data has even been analyzed and released is
irresponsible, to say the least. At least he didn't embarrass himself by
making the statement on nation television.

Uh, Kauffman is not the OP. The OP was quoting some stuff
from Kauffman.

Yes, I realize that now. My apologies to Mr. Kauffman. Having said that,
can anyone explain to me the rationale for assuming that Lauffman's theories
on self-organization have anything to do with cross-bedding and sherules on
Mars?


Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his field
(theoretical
biochemistry?). But geology is obviously his cup of tea. I will not
pretend to be a theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I raised in
refutation of his post that you disagree with, and if so, why? Be
specific.
I can take criticism as well as any.

Nope, I'm ignorant on this. Just wanted to point out that the
Santa Fe Institute seems reputable, at least superficially.
(I had heard of it before.)

Yet it basically doesn't do research in mineralogy, sedimentology, or
paleontology. Am I wrong?

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
...

"jonathan" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Hi Jonathan
I would like to express an appreciation for your point of view.
This doesn't imply that I understand you. Before reading your post I had
something like this rumbling in the back of my head: Knowing what
biochemistry does to Earth - it would certainly always be a possibility
(on
Mars)

I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.

snip

For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.

Agree, the outcrop may be an odd appearance of a widespread process.

snip

I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

It struck me as a possibility

As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

big snip
It's comforting that someone gave it a thought.

Everything I see in just screams that the order we observe comes
from within the system. Order not imposed from outside is
self-organized and ....alive.

Well, the diversity of biochemistry on Earth makes it worth not to exclude
the possibility.

My personal opinion still leans toward volcanism and fluids though.

Carsten


Great. I'll take that to mean that you haven't gone totally over the edge.