Starship Asterisk*

by **aichip** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:23 am

I hate to say "I told you so"... oh, wait a minute- no, I don't.

Here is a wonderful quote from the Phoenix mission:

"This soil appears to be a close analog to surface soils found in the upper dry valleys in Antarctica," Kounaves said. "The alkalinity of the soil at this location is definitely striking. At this specific location, one inch into the surface layer, the soil is very basic, with a pH of between eight and nine. We also found a variety of components of salts that we haven't had time to analyze and identify yet, but that include magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride." "This is more evidence for water because salts are there. We also found a reasonable number of nutrients, or chemicals needed by life as we know it," Kounaves said. "Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the amazing thing about Mars is not that it's an alien world, but that in many aspects, like mineralogy, it's very much like Earth."

Again, there is the sodium and the chlorine, along with potassium. Also confirmed, nutrients. So let's see, this nails the fact that Mars is very much like a part of Earth and contains all we need for life including water ice, damp, sticky soil, nutrients and salts.

Now, the pH of seawater is 7.5 to 8.4, while the soil at the Martian tundra is between 8 and 9. Guess what? 8.4 comes right smack between 8 and 9. Many crustaceans live quite well in lakes with pH levels of 9. This means that the soil of Mars, if wetted, would not be inhospitable based on pH levels. There are many, many species of plant and animal that will thrive in those conditions.

So here we blow the stupid "battery acid" theory out of the water (pun intended) and we also show the presence of sodium once again, and we show the presence of nutrients for life. Viking was right about the presence of organics, NASA covered it by claiming that the GCMS saw nothing, but now we see that this is absolutely false. Gil Levin is finally going to get his due after all these decades. Now, about those fossils...

by **orin stepanek** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:28 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:GOOD NEWS for water on Mars
http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... rface.html
direct from endurance crater to you (only 2 years late)
Of course, they won't take the rover back to verify this.

Probably be too cold to skinny dip on Mars.

Orin

by **Andy Wade** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:00 pm

aichip wrote:I also thought this might be a water droplet some time back. I found many images of the droplets over the whole mission and they were unchanged.

They all look like clear epoxy adhesive, and it is easy to see that water or ice would not last for years under the heat that is present during some of the Martian days.

A Martian with a cold passed by?
What?
OK, I'll get my coat...

by **aichip** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:54 am

I also thought this might be a water droplet some time back. I found many images of the droplets over the whole mission and they were unchanged.

They all look like clear epoxy adhesive, and it is easy to see that water or ice would not last for years under the heat that is present during some of the Martian days.

by **BMAONE23** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:08 pm

What is that magnifying spot on this image of the rover solar array?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 6M2M1.HTML

Looks like Clear Ice from frozen condensate that fell to the deck from the mast.

by **BMAONE23** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:46 pm

GOOD NEWS for water on Mars
http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... rface.html
direct from endurance crater to you (only 2 years late)
Of course, they won't take the rover back to verify this.

by **aichip** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:30 pm

Air temperatures can be pretty extreme, with the most quoted range being from -20C to -60C. But the air is so thin that is acts like an insulator, not conducting the heat the way it does on Earth. Ground temperatures are measured from -20C to +35C, and considering the huge load of salts present, the water remains liquid because it is brine.

Warm soil can reach +27C easily (81F) as measured by the orbiter portions of the Vikings. Strangely, the ground temperatures in most reports are "model ground temperatures" and not actual data.

So don't be fooled by the quoted temperatures, which are almost always air temperatures, which in fact have little influence on the ground. It is a bare desert in raw sunlight during the day, something that few seem to take into account.

by **BMAONE23** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:47 am

here is an interesting photo of Hematite nodules
http://web.utah.edu/unews/news_images_2004/jun/SF1.jpg

and it's from Utah

by **NoelC** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:28 am

I didn't realize they're that big. I had thought they were about the size of BBs. Thanks for clarifying that.

-Noel

by **BMAONE23** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:19 am

Given the realtive size of the blueberries (appx 4-8mm) I would guestimate the size to be approx 2.5" wide x 3" long. I was looking at other fossils today and noticed that it also resembles the fossil of a shark tooth. Looking at the shadowing at the left side, this gives the appearance that this Rock is standing at about a 45deg angle relative to the surface.
Of course, one would need to take precise measurements and turn it over to examine the other side to determine weather it is nothing more or something more than a curiously shaped rock.

by **NoelC** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:03 am

Itty bitty ones. Aren't those "blueberries" pretty small?

It seems to me in that image, in that the spherules are clean and some are embedded in the surface, that the surface seems muddy or recently wet.

Yet, isn't the temperature there supposed to be something like 50 degrees below zero? How can water-based mud exist in that condition?

Surely the rover can measure the temperature of the ground. Is it warm there from geothermal activity?

-Noel

by **BMAONE23** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:17 pm

This is one of the latest images from Victoria Crater area.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 6L6M1.HTML
Interestingly the rock shown strongly resembles a Neanderthal Spear Point.

Maybe Neanderthals visited sometime in the past?

by **aichip** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:20 pm

Present day hydrology on Mars is mostly from geysers and sand boils, given this evidence. But take note of the fact that the water is not boiling away. This is mud. The soil is wet at this moment. The environment for microbial life is still intact and many other organisms might survive just below the surface.

This actually supports a much wetter Mars in years past, complete with oceans (as NASA has stated did exist). Rain is only a small step away. But for your statements, you have been saying that the surface is desiccated. You are wrong. You claimed that there is no erosion on Mars similar to what occurs on Earth, but I have shown here that there is mud. Water in the soil can freeze inside rocks, splitting them. That is a major force of erosion on Earth and on Mars.

So now, you are again shifting your position. We can track it in this thread quite easily. But what seems to elude you is that the glaciers and ice under the surface are from the oceans that froze when the climate became much colder. There were indeed oceans, a hydrological cycle, the soil is muddy today, the water is not boiling away, and there are active geysers and sand boils in Meridiani, which was once a sea bed.

by **Dr. Skeptic** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:42 pm

Your evidence is remarkable at supporting my theory that the transportation of surface materials by H2O is not by precipitation but by seepage of trapped subterranean ice melt making its way to the surface to be quickly boiled away.

Viscous debris flows caused by wind erosion and/or gravity can emulate fluid erosion so be careful how you pose your evidence.

by **aichip** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:43 am

Here is a picture of a geyser on Mars. This is a cross-eyed stereo view. Look at the slots and the flow patterns in the soil. This is not created by wind. This is also not billions of years old. It cannot be more than a decade old in any event, because it would have been covered by dust and sand.

The whole article is at this link:http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgey6.htm

There you will find full color stereo views of this feature, some magnified so you can see the details clearly. If your view of Mars being dry for all these millions of years is correct, then how do you explain this image? Let's look at another one, a little more interesting in my opinion.

Well, this is clearly where water has flowed over this area and left trails behind the spherules. There is no other credible explanation for this. Water did this, and it did it recently. Otherwise, it would be covered or erased by sand storms, dust, meteorite impacts, dust devils... or do you really believe that this has lain untouched and unchanged for billions of years, as you claim? Let's make a comparison here. This is an image of dry sand on Mars.

It's pretty clear that this soil is like any you might find on Earth. Now, compare it to this:

This is clearly a picture of mud. Not only that, but you can see a dark area in the ring- that ring is from the Mossbauer head being pressed to the soil. The dark area is where the mud stuck to the Mossbauer head and was peeled out of the imprint. See proof of that here:

The mud stuck to the aluminum ring around the Mossbauer head and peeled up out of the imprint in the soil. You cannot use a weasel explanation for this; the soil is sticky and muddy. It bulged when compressed by the ring, it retained the imprint of the tool, and it stuck to the head. No dry soil will do this, only a muddy soil can do it. The rest of this information is on this page:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/wetnow01.htm

Here is a series of color images of the large geyser field above Endurance Crater. This is mud, not dry sand. Sand will not stick together as this soil does unless a liquid is present in it. That is why sand is used in hourglasses. If this is dry, then why does it not flow into the holes instead of sticking together like mud?

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/imo114.htm

And finally, do you think there is plumbing on Mars? I ask because it looks like a pipe broke here.

This is an active geyser on Mars today. Just look at it. You can see the false color stereo view here:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgey2.htm

Finally, read the chapters I have posted. All the information is there, complete with references. Stereo, color, anaglyphs, even spectral data are present. It answers all those questions and proves that there is presently liquid water on Mars. Just read it. No amount of theory can overrule an empirical observation. There are the empirical observations.

by **Dr. Skeptic** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:48 am

Sorry again, I'm looking at the evidence. Taking into account the cratering historical evidence, the location and the type of H2O erosion, the fine striations in the sedimentary rocks ...

At the end of the intense meteor bombardment 3.7 billion years ago Mars was at it's most geologically active stage. With the (more dense) atmosphere filled with ash and dust from volcanism and the not so uncommon meteor impact, resulting in keeping the temperature down to the point if there ever was precipitation it most likely fell as snow. If you study the areas of H2O activity you'll notice most of the larger areas will have involved catastrophic movement, as H2O trapped under surface ice, rock, silt ... released by geothermic activity creating raging torrents then a slow progression of layering the result of slow cooling, seasonal melting and wind erosion depositions. Mars has changed very little the 3 to 2.5 billion years ago time line, long before the Cambrian explosion on Earth .5 billion years ago when the first records of complex life forms are found.

by **aichip** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:03 pm

Again, you make the most basic assumption- because you were told it did not rain on Mars, you have stuck to this opinion as if it were a fact. Prove it. Just because some other scientists said it did not rain, does not mean that is so. It is their pure, unadulterated opinion that you are fostering.

by **Dr. Skeptic** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:57 pm

aichip wrote:Dr. Skeptic wrote:
Sorry, your theory is based on your assumption that precipitation aided in the sedimentary striations - there is no evidence of rain, only evidence that it has never rained on Mars which I have covered before.
No, you have not. You are doing nothing more than "this is so because I say so". Show me the evidence that "it has never rained on Mars". Of course, as usual, you will not. You have no such evidence. But more to the point, the spherules themselves are not concretions.

If the spherules were concretions, then spherules formed in lower layers of the rock would have been around longer, and they would have been wetted by subsurface water longer, and they would have grown larger. You can't get around that. Since the spherules are uniform all the way down as far as we can see, then the theory is wrong.

In other words, the evidence is against your claims, and we can see it clearly just by looking at the crater walls. Concretions that are wetter for longer periods of time will become larger. They did not, as we can see. So you would have to explain how the "concretions" in the lower layers of rock just stopped growing while the ones in the newer layers grew to match their size. Sounds like magic to me, not science.

Shall we focus on this one point until we reach a resolution on it? It would force us to look at the empirical evidence, and not bounce all over the place.

Let me remind you of what I have posted.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsro ... g_id=17551

Ancient terrain subjected to precipitation.

Ancient terrain not subjected to precipitation
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020808.html

Even an untrained eye can note the difference.

by **Dr. Skeptic** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:36 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:The only way that I see as feasible for the blueberries to be concretions is if they were to form in volcanic pumice that had nearly uniform sized air bubbles and further which sat under or within a watery enviornment or at the water table for millions of years. This pumice layer would then, over time due to erosion, become uncovered allowing for what would need to be a softer pumice stone to erode revealing a harder concretion to be left behind.
I'll admit that I don't know much about geology, but pumice is the only stone that I know of which is pourus enough to allow for the concretion process to occur within its natural air pockets.

Concretions:
http://www.priweb.org/ed/concretions.htm

by **BMAONE23** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:18 pm

The only way that I see as feasible for the blueberries to be concretions is if they were to form in volcanic pumice that had nearly uniform sized air bubbles and further which sat under or within a watery enviornment or at the water table for millions of years. This pumice layer would then, over time due to erosion, become uncovered allowing for what would need to be a softer pumice stone to erode revealing a harder concretion to be left behind.
I'll admit that I don't know much about geology, but pumice is the only stone that I know of which is pourus enough to allow for the concretion process to occur within its natural air pockets.

by **aichip** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:23 pm

This is absolutely correct- we can only see the shape of the remaining cast, not determine what formed it at all from a chemical standpoint.

The latest microscopic images from Spirit show spherules that are most definitely not concretions, and now the rover team members are backing away from that explanation (thank goodness somebody has seen a little sense here!) Look at the fact that these are small, absolutely uniform in size and more to the point- hollow!

In my opinion, they are millions of urchin shells swept into a mass of mud, where they fossilized. This is consistent with my other findings.

The point I am making is that Dr. Skeptic claims that there was no surface water ever, and no rain. He feels that groundwater welling up from beneath can account for the layering, and that the spherules are concretions, nothing more. My contention is that this is not credible due to the fact that if the spherules were concretions, then deeper ones would have been exposed to the subsurface water for longer and would have become larger. Since they did not, the theory is wrong.

His theory cannot account for the differing composition of the layers of sediment. For instance, the sedimentary layers are composed of mostly gypsum with large amounts of sulfate salts and iron compounds, but they alternate with layers rich in very fine grained silicates.

Desert winds and subsurface water intrusion could not form so many perfectly flat layers, and could definitely not cause silcates to be alternating in the layers. How would the wind know what to deposit at what time when the layering was forming?

And, when you take his concept of only subsurface water into account and his belief that the spherules are concretions, then you can see that this is ruled out by their uniform size throughout the layers.

So subsurface water cannot form this constant, alternating set of layers of silicate and gypsum- what would be the mechanism? If the answer is "water rose and fell over time" then you have to postulate some sort of seasonal means for this to happen. Still, what would sort out the fine grained silicates?

Now, terrestrial rocks formed on ocean beds have structures that are identical to the sedimentary rocks found on Mars- and this is because diatom populations grew and fell as the seasons changed, leaving layers rich and poor in silicates in alternating layers. We see exactly the same layering and structure on Mars, we know that there were oceans (contrary to what Dr. Skeptic claims) and then it is a small step to "hey, maybe diatoms were in the Martian seas also". His problem is simple- he has an almost religious conviction that life cannot have ever existed there unless it was some sort of "safe" form, like primitive bacteria billions of years ago, and after that they all died.

I have shown plenty of evidence that this is wrong, and he does not like it. Sorry, the facts speak for themselves. Life is probably one of the most common phenomena in the universe, limited only by its environment. Mars is an excellent example of a planet that "wore out" its atmosphere and became very inhospitable. Still, the loudest objections to finding fossils or seas are from the religious people who feel that the existence of God is somehow threatened by facts.

by **BMAONE23** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:34 pm

If the fossilization process is the gradual replacement of tissues (bone or shell or leaf) with minerals, then fossils are nothing more than a mold of a bone, shell, or other object that has been cast in minerals. (Cast in stone so to speak.) Given this fact,we can only determine the mineral composition of anything found on Mars and not the source of the mold in which it formed. As to weather it is a fossil or not, this can only be determined by the shape of the mineral (shell like, or bone like) and possibly the composition of the matrix in which it resides. But the fact that it is comprised of minerals that formed in water would not indicate that it is or is not a fossil.

by **aichip** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:14 pm

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

Sorry, your theory is based on your assumption that precipitation aided in the sedimentary striations - there is no evidence of rain, only evidence that it has never rained on Mars which I have covered before.

No, you have not. You are doing nothing more than "this is so because I say so". Show me the evidence that "it has never rained on Mars". Of course, as usual, you will not. You have no such evidence. But more to the point, the spherules themselves are not concretions.

If the spherules were concretions, then spherules formed in lower layers of the rock would have been around longer, and they would have been wetted by subsurface water longer, and they would have grown larger. You can't get around that. Since the spherules are uniform all the way down as far as we can see, then the theory is wrong.

In other words, the evidence is against your claims, and we can see it clearly just by looking at the crater walls. Concretions that are wetter for longer periods of time will become larger. They did not, as we can see. So you would have to explain how the "concretions" in the lower layers of rock just stopped growing while the ones in the newer layers grew to match their size. Sounds like magic to me, not science.

Shall we focus on this one point until we reach a resolution on it? It would force us to look at the empirical evidence, and not bounce all over the place.

by **Dr. Skeptic** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:05 pm

The "thicker layers" idea only holds if there was no rainfall or incoming water to dilute the salts. You have made one more assumption, and one with absolutely no data one way or the other.

Sorry, your theory is based on your assumption that precipitation aided in the sedimentary striations - there is no evidence of rain, only evidence that it has never rained on Mars which I have covered before.

by **aichip** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:45 pm

The "thicker layers" idea only holds if there was no rainfall or incoming water to dilute the salts. You have made one more assumption, and one with absolutely no data one way or the other.

How about the fact that the spherules are not and never were concretions- if they were concretions formed by groundwater welling up from beneath (as so many seem to assume, including yourself) then why aren't the lower "concretion" larger? In your scenario, water would be present longer at deeper layers and the "concretions" would continue to grow over time. But what we see is that the spherules follow a uniform population curve at all depths which is completely absurd if you assume that they are concretions.

If your salt layers should have been thicker, then so should the spherules be larger as we look deeper into the strata. After all, if concretions grow more when more water seeps into the strata, then deeper concretions, having been wet for a longer period of time, should have grown larger. What would make them all suddenly decide to stop growing at a certain range of sizes? I have never heard of an intelligent concretion.

But a rapid change in climate (perhaps related to the Milankovitch cycles?) would have removed the oceans in just a century or so, and we would not observe this change in layer thickness.

Starship Asterisk*

Meridiani Is A Seabed (APOD 05 Jun 2006)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Meridiani Is A Seabed (APOD 05 Jun 2006)

Phoenix confirms a lot of things

Re: epoxy adhesive

epoxy adhesive

Surface versus air temperatures on Mars

Not boiling away

Here are the facts straight from the rovers

More assumptions

Re: Again, an incorrect assumption

looking at the arguments

Again, an incorrect assumption

You still have not addressed the basic issues