Mars - Gemmule on a Stick

" George" wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
om...
Because that's more specific. Planetary science implies
a different scope and a different set of objects under
study than geology. Consider, for example, the similar
differences between "life sciences" and biology.

Well, one guy claims it is more broad, while you claim it is more specific.
Planetary science is not just about biology and life science. Geology is an
integral focus of its research.

Geology properly includes just about any process of
solid phase matter interactions on a bulk scale.
Planetary Science is a subset of geology in principle,
though in practice geology is usually taken to refer
to the study of certain geological activities and
products which are most commonly of interest.
Perhaps I should have said "differently specific" to
be be more clear.

Henry Spencer wrote:

*Meanings change.* This one changed decades ago.

Psst, George: Mr. Spencer, the guy with the wide, deep, liberal education who
actually helps build scientific spacecraft, is trying to do you a favor here.
Insist on calling it "Areology", or whatever, and everyone will start lookin' at
ya funny.

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...


Henry Spencer wrote:

*Meanings change.* This one changed decades ago.

Psst, George: Mr. Spencer, the guy with the wide, deep, liberal education who
actually helps build scientific spacecraft, is trying to do you a favor here.
Insist on calling it "Areology", or whatever, and everyone will start lookin'
at
ya funny.


How does the ability to build a spacecraft qualify one to determine the most
appropriate usage of the term "geology".

" George" wrote in message
. ..

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...


Henry Spencer wrote:

*Meanings change.* This one changed decades ago.

Psst, George: Mr. Spencer, the guy with the wide, deep, liberal
education who
actually helps build scientific spacecraft, is trying to do you a favor
here.
Insist on calling it "Areology", or whatever, and everyone will start
lookin'
at
ya funny.


How does the ability to build a spacecraft qualify one to determine the
most
appropriate usage of the term "geology".

Who said it did? Did you read Henry's reasoned arguments?
That's what determines the usage he was advocating.
What are you saying, that we should call it areology?
Then when we get to Mercury, Hermesology, for Venus,
what would that be, Aphroditeology? Puuulllleeeeze!

rj

randyj wrote:

" George" wrote in message
. ..

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...


Henry Spencer wrote:


*Meanings change.* This one changed decades ago.

Psst, George: Mr. Spencer, the guy with the wide, deep, liberal

education who

actually helps build scientific spacecraft, is trying to do you a favor

here.

Insist on calling it "Areology", or whatever, and everyone will start

lookin'

at

ya funny.


How does the ability to build a spacecraft qualify one to determine the

most

appropriate usage of the term "geology".


Who said it did? Did you read Henry's reasoned arguments?
That's what determines the usage he was advocating.

Yes. However we are free to disagree, as no one person's preferences
determine usage. Not mine, George's, Henry's or yours.

What are you saying, that we should call it areology?
Then when we get to Mercury, Hermesology, for Venus,
what would that be, Aphroditeology? Puuulllleeeeze!

Someone mentioned exobiology. Why not a lump term "exogeology"?
Or just exology for all non-terrestrial specific sciences?

Ultimately, it is our grandkids (or some sf writer) who will decide what
the study of space will be called. They'll probably call it "Fred" or
something.

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
randyj wrote:

" George" wrote in message
. ..

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...


Henry Spencer wrote:


*Meanings change.* This one changed decades ago.

Psst, George: Mr. Spencer, the guy with the wide, deep, liberal

education who

actually helps build scientific spacecraft, is trying to do you a favor

here.

Insist on calling it "Areology", or whatever, and everyone will start

lookin'

at

ya funny.


How does the ability to build a spacecraft qualify one to determine the

most

appropriate usage of the term "geology".


Who said it did? Did you read Henry's reasoned arguments?
That's what determines the usage he was advocating.

Yes. However we are free to disagree, as no one person's preferences
determine usage. Not mine, George's, Henry's or yours.

What are you saying, that we should call it areology?
Then when we get to Mercury, Hermesology, for Venus,
what would that be, Aphroditeology? Puuulllleeeeze!

Someone mentioned exobiology. Why not a lump term "exogeology"?
Or just exology for all non-terrestrial specific sciences?

Ultimately, it is our grandkids (or some sf writer) who will decide what
the study of space will be called. They'll probably call it "Fred" or
something.



I've got a close friend named Fred. Hmmm. Fredology! I like that. I think he
will as well. lol

Leonard unto Jo: greetings.

Re the issue of Geology v. Selenology -- why not Dr. Jo Schaper, PhD,
Professor of Selenology, University of Luna? We may yet live to see that
designation.

--
Leonard C Robinson
"The Historian Remembers, and speculates on what might have been.
"The Visionary Remembers, and speculates on what may yet be."

"Chosp" wrote in message news:COW1c.16667$h23.16513@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:l0B1c.15236$h23.7117@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

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?

Gemmules from sponges are found in the environment of
adult sponges. Dead sponges leave behind only their
skeletons. The skeletons of sponges are composed of
a combination of carbonates and silicates (depending
on the species), the signatures of which are noticably
absent from the existing orbital TES data and from the
Rover's Mini-TES data which has been released so far.
If the outcrop were found to be largely carbonaceous or
silaceous, it would have been a brought up by the Rover
team immediately after it was confirmed. Most sponges
grow on reefs. Reefs are built out of calcium carbonate
secreted by the polyps living in it. Where is the calcium
carbonate? Why sulfates instead?


Perhaps the very first organisms on earth were various
sulfate reducing bacteria. Just such bacteria, it's
thought, formed a symbiotic relationship with perhaps
the very first multi-cellular animal life, a sponge.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps....
You have repeatedly attempted to identify the spherules
with a particular phylum - Porifera - which leave behind
skeletons of carbonate and silicate. Where are the
carbonates and silicates? Quit weaseling. Answer the
question.


This is called not seeing the forest for the trees.

Most sponges have a mineral content primarily of
silica, carbonates are rare.
http://www.aquarium.net/0697/0697_1.shtml

So one would expect to see quite a bit of silica lying
around and in the rocks if I'm correct that these are
sponge gemmules. Do you agree?

These mysterious spheres form a blanket over
every square inch seen at the Opportunity
site...and for as far as the eye can see.
They are on the rocks, in the rocks and
all around the rocks even sticking to the
rocks.

Guess what, the primary mineral in gemmules is....silica.

You want to know where all the silica is?
I'll show you a picture or ...two hundred.. if
you like, just click below, open your
eyes and .....see... the FOREST.


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2263R1M1.HTML


So I will predict the blueberry observations will find plenty of silica.
Wanna bet? I predicted lots of sulfates would be found before
the last news conference based on a sponges symbiotic bacteria.

Something else I didn't know until now is that freshwater sponges
like spongilla are about the most tolerant, adaptive and successful
species of animals ever to grace the earth. Remember, freshwater
systems regularly undergo large changes in ph, temperature, salinity
oxygen levels and acidity. While sea water is comparatively
constant. Gemmules have survived to 70 below centigrade for
example.

I don't have all the answers to the chemistry and specific water
conditions at Meridiani. But I do know there ....are... answers
for all these questions yet resolved. I know this because
the mathematics of life are clear and unambiguous.

Life finds a way.

The life form that I logically deduced must have existed there turns
out to be the most determined and adaptable of all living creatures.
This gives me complete confidence that when all the questions are
answered it will turn out that the life and environment just happen to be
perfect fits for each other. Just right in 'fact'!

As that is the final and inevitable state of evolving systems.

Jonathan

s






The two life forms provided food for each other, the
bacteria reducing sulfates in the sponge while the sponge
absorbing food from the bacteria. When the sponge
dies I believe the bacteria would consume any
organic matter leaving behind lots of sulfates, and
a wide variety of sulfates reflecting the variety
of the bacteria and their food source.

The remains of sponges, after the organic material has been
removed, would be carbonates and silicates. Period.
Where is it?
Quit weaseling. Quit speculating. Give us the
benefit of your "mathematical certainty".

The exceptionally high sulfate readings, and a wide
variety of sulfates found are entirely consistent with
this idea.

Not unless you can account for the missing carbonates
and silicates. Those pesky details - which continue to
rain on your parade.

Most, if not all, species of sponge do not do well in acidic
water - which is what would be required for the
formation of the quantities of hydrated iron sulfates which
were discovered in the outcrop at the Meridiani site.


One, we have no way of knowing the salinity of the water
without knowing the size and depth of the sea.

First of all, I said acidity - not salinity. Do you even know
the difference?
If you do know the difference, why did you try to divert
the point away from acidity? If you didn't know the difference,
why are you pretending to be competent?
Why did you not address the point that hydrated iron sulfates
form in acidic water? Please give a detailed description of
where you have found Jarosite associated with Porifera?
Why did you not address the point that Porifera doesn't do
well in acidic water?

Also
the symbiotic relationship with sulfate reducing bacteria
means the bacteria are removing sulfates from the
sponge in return for a home.

You are absolutely bull****ting.
Do you even know what Jarosite is?
Sponges leave behind skeletons made of carbonates and
silicates. If they are removing sulfates from the sponge -
where is the sponge? Where are the carbonates and
silicates?