|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
"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!!! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
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. :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
" 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
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.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
"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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-bedding on Mars?
"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. |
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 |