|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
March 2, 2003
These features have been noticed by many people. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4P2536L7M1.JPG Airfall theories are out, by the way, and wind doesn't seem to be a major player, as we have good evidence of static decomposition and erosion in situ. You can google jarosite, etc. Remember, these are presumably very desperate microbes attempting to intelligently decode their geochemical and physical environment, in their pathetic quest to understand the answers to the fundamental questions of life, the universe and everything. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message ... March 2, 2003 These features have been noticed by many people. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4P2536L7M1.JPG Airfall theories are out, by the way, and wind doesn't seem to be a major player, as we have good evidence of static decomposition and erosion in situ. You can google jarosite, etc. Remember, these are presumably very desperate microbes attempting to intelligently decode their geochemical and physical environment, in their pathetic quest to understand the answers to the fundamental questions of life, the universe and everything. It's interesting to me that the geologists find life to be the very last possible explanation for the spheres. It should be obvious that an object with both symmetrical (spherical) and asymmetrical (aperture, off-center slash) structures cannot be formed by a single process. It would require the combination of at least two distinct processes to explain them. The problem with that is easy to see. Asymmetrical features are the product of dynamic or random processes, yet each sphere shows the ...same... asymmetry. This logical contradiction means a non-living solution is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life is the /only/ possibility. Jonathan s Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
It's interesting to me that the geologists find life to be the very
last possible explanation for the spheres. It should be obvious that an object with both symmetrical (spherical) and asymmetrical (aperture, off-center slash) structures cannot be formed by a single process. It would require the combination of at least two distinct processes to explain them. The problem with that is easy to see. Asymmetrical features are the product of dynamic or random processes, yet each sphere shows the ...same... asymmetry. This logical contradiction means a non-living solution is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life is the /only/ possibility. I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100% excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related. The other reasons were the tendency to split so neatly in half, which implies another unusual complexity to their formation, and their tendency to protrude from the bedrock, apparently held by a peculiarly strong bond. That is, after all, this original subject of this post, and has been seen less dramatically in earlier pictures. The bond clearly only occurs at one (or possibly a few specific) points on the spheres, otherwise they would never have been eroded around in the first place. They weren't necessarily eroded around at all, of course, but if not then the explanations only get more outlandish. I strongly suspect that NASA's own statements about the spheres being formed in a wet environment are a conscious way of still being just about able to say "we were right" when they finally feel able to say more about HOW they were formed! Rollo |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
Rollo wrote:
I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100% excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related. There are many examples of these mineral accretions on earth. What we know about these these spherules is far more in accordance with those than some fanciful life form. You guys are just seeing what you wish to see, and when others don't see it you cry foul. If you want to see who isn't seeing clearly on this issue you need only look in the mirror... -- 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
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
March 3, 2004
Greg Crinklaw wrote: Rollo wrote: I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100% excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related. There are many examples of these mineral accretions on earth. What we know about these these spherules is far more in accordance with those than some fanciful life form. You guys are just seeing what you wish to see, and when others don't see it you cry foul. If you want to see who isn't seeing clearly on this issue you need only look in the mirror... Wow, and to think just yesterday the outcrops where ashfall and the spherules were volcanic or crater tektites. To show just how far out of touch Crinklaw's reasoning is, there are very few geologist that would claim that these concretions would *not* involve at the very least the simple microbiology of extremophiles. It's quite clear from his rhetoric that Crinklaw has not even made the most superficial search of the relevant geological terms presented by the investigators. His credibility is nil. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" skrev i en meddelelse ... March 3, 2004 To show just how far out of touch Crinklaw's reasoning is, there are very few geologist that would claim that these concretions would *not* involve at the very least the simple microbiology of extremophiles. Stick to dirty yourself all over |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:32:32 -0500) it happened "jonathan"
wrote in : This logical contradiction means a non-living solution is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life is the /only/ possibility. Jonathan 100% agreed. But was not an important announcement due on thursday? Maybe too much to hope for perhaps. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message ... Rollo wrote: I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100% excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related. There are many examples of these mineral accretions on earth. What we know about these these spherules is far more in accordance with those than some fanciful life form. You guys are just seeing what you wish to see, and when others don't see it you cry foul. If you want to see who isn't seeing clearly on this issue you need only look in the mirror... Let me ask you a question I don't know the answer to. Do mineral concretions tend to ...float? I've maintained, and Nasa stated yesterday, that the random distribution of the spheres showed they were distributed by water. The overhead views show the dark material drifted from the larger outcrops. The logical conclusion is that the spheres float. http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/ If the answer is no, then this is a glaring contradiction from Nasa that the distribution is from water, yet the spheres are likely concretions. Jonathan s -- 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
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
"Rollo" wrote in message om... It's interesting to me that the geologists find life to be the very last possible explanation for the spheres. It should be obvious that an object with both symmetrical (spherical) and asymmetrical (aperture, off-center slash) structures cannot be formed by a single process. It would require the combination of at least two distinct processes to explain them. The problem with that is easy to see. Asymmetrical features are the product of dynamic or random processes, yet each sphere shows the ...same... asymmetry. This logical contradiction means a non-living solution is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life is the /only/ possibility. I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100% excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related. The other reasons were the tendency to split so neatly in half, which implies another unusual complexity to their formation, and their tendency to protrude from the bedrock, apparently held by a peculiarly strong bond. That is, after all, this original subject of this post, and has been seen less dramatically in earlier pictures. A gemmule would be consistent with all those features. See page 90 below, a few paragraphs down. http://64.78.63.75/samples/04BIORupp...oology7ch5.pdf That one page above explains the bubble seen in one, the aperture seen in the other and why they stick. Also why the surface is grainy. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML This photo below of a gemmule explains the off center slash many have. Also a gemmule would show such features, or not show them, depending on its state, whether dormant or hatching etc. http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules A gemmule is consistent with the announcement yesterday by Nasa that the random and even distribution of the spheres are due to water. They would have to float ...after all. I don't know if concretions float, but it seems unlikely, especially concretions with a ...hole in them~ Overhead views of Meridiani http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/ A gemmule from a sponge explains their delicate location on the surface. As if they were the last things deposited there. Sponges give off gemmules when they're dying. Also their resistance to salt, cold etc are consistent with their condition in that environment. This begs the question, how many different ways do two objects need to have in common to become convinced the two are the same? I would guess three or four combined with a couple confirming measurements. I've yet to see a concretion idea put forth that is consistent with more than two of the properties seen in the photos. I predict the tes data of the spheres will be inconclusive or confusing. If they are the product of life, wouldn't the signature be rather complex? Jonathan s The bond clearly only occurs at one (or possibly a few specific) points on the spheres, otherwise they would never have been eroded around in the first place. They weren't necessarily eroded around at all, of course, but if not then the explanations only get more outlandish. I strongly suspect that NASA's own statements about the spheres being formed in a wet environment are a conscious way of still being just about able to say "we were right" when they finally feel able to say more about HOW they were formed! Rollo |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
In article ,
jonathan wrote: I've maintained, and Nasa stated yesterday, that the random distribution of the spheres showed they were distributed by water. The overhead views show the dark material drifted from the larger outcrops. The logical conclusion is that the spheres float... Uh, no. Lots of things which don't float are distributed by water. Most of the rocks dotting the Pathfinder landing site are thought to have been washed down from higher up. And those aren't all small rocks, either. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 2 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Mars in opposition: One for the record books (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 3rd 03 04:56 PM |