Meridiani Is A Seabed (APOD 05 Jun 2006)

[aichip]

Pretty simple, actually. We are seeing four distinct types of rock here. First, the thin, layered stuff is sedimentary rock, nearly identical to those found in Meridiani Planum. They consist of gypsum precipitate with sulfate salts and are about the hardness of drywall.

Second, the large, smooth rock in the right center is apparently a nickle-iron meteorite. Third, the large, smooth light colored rock on the left is apparently some other mineral, but it is present in a number of the other images. Fourth, the "holey" rock with the blue rock varnish that some feel is volcanic, but I am of the opinion that it might represent coral of some type from ages past.

So we have perhaps some volcanic rock (although where the nearest volcano might be is a mystery) but perhaps coral, definitely some sedimentary rocks, a meteorite, and some other rock that is smooth of texture and light colored, which might be almost anything.

Wind, gravity, water, all take their toll, and the landscpe we see is not so different from a badlands or Death Valley here on Earth. I would say that we are seeing wind, water, possible volcanism, and some microorganisms for the interesting color.

[harry]

Hello aichip

I would love to see the evidence of actual life on Mars.

So far all the evidence is not enough.


But! I take my hut of for you aichip,,,,,,,,,,,,,I have learnt much from you.

[aichip]

Glad to be of service, Harry.

[harry]

Hello aichip


Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,is that your real name

[aichip]

aichip is not, but Sir Charles is.

[harry]

Hello aichip

Smile
Thats what I meant.


Sir Charles

Is that a real Sir!!!!!!!!!

[aichip]

Yes, I was knighted by a Scottish baron. He is a philanthropist and funds science and education.

[harry]

Hello Aichip

Sorry for not responding lately.

I have been sick with a bad bad flu. It hit my body like one of those Mars rocks. My head has been in a state of here and there.

In the last few days its been better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm reading back to your posts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,very interesting. Keep at it

[aichip]

Although this is in Gusev, I thought you might be interested in this pair of perfect sea shells, both in stereo views.

http://xenotechresearch.com/spsol913.htm

[Dr. Skeptic]

If those are "sea shells", where is the evidence of their food source? A shell is protection from predictors, where are they? On Earth fossilized complex organisms are in diversifies groups, all I see are some volcanic rock once containing trapped gasses.

Who writes this stuff?

[aichip]

When you consider that any fossil bed will show remains and not always the easily recognizable food chain, and that many fossils even on Earth are at mountain tops that used to be ocean floors, you can see that the present environment is no indicator of what conditions were like in the past. Did you expect that some food was just lying about near these long dead remains?

However, there are plenty of other fossils present all over the planet. You can see anything you would like to find on the site. I can provide some pointers to a few of them here.

Fossilized leaves:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk030.htm
There are serrated edges on some of them. The stereo view shows that they are flat, very thin, and appear coated in mud.

A general gallery of fossils mostly from the Meridiani region:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgal2.htm
This pretty much speaks for itself.

More shells:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/opshell166.htm
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/shells01.htm

A sea urchin that matches the sea gopher:
http://xenotechresearch.com/seagoph1.htm

Sea biscuit with a perfect star pattern on top:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk507a.htm

Spirit crinoid fossil in full color and stereo:
http://xenotechresearch.com/spicrin1.htm

I could go on, but faced with the evidence, you either believe or you don't. It is not reasonable to assume that the hundreds of specimens I have identified are all the results of random geology. If you conclude that this is just erosion, then how can you trust that the Parthenon is actually a man-made structure? Erosion this directed just does not occur. Simple statistics destroys the erosion argument.

[Dr. Skeptic]

It is not reasonable to assume that the hundreds of specimens I have identified are all the results of random geology

If one looked hard enough at the 10^500 + surface rocks on mars they probably could find a rock that resembles the Pope, I would bet he has never been to Mars.

Show me a record of a community of various organisms at a single location. Show me a complex structure of a living organism that isn't found on Earth.
Show me a fossil embedded in a sedimentary rock.
Show me evidence of complex plant life or how the "food chain" worked.

[aichip]

This is simple.

If one looked hard enough at the 10^500 + surface rocks on mars they probably could find a rock that resembles the Pope, I would bet he has never been to Mars.

I agree, but his presence or absence is not germaine to the argument. However, if you found a hundred or a million rocks that looked exactly like the pope, it would be silly in the extreme to consider them the products of erosion. Do we agree on that? If not, why? At some point, you either have statues or fossils when that many identical rocks show up.

Show me a record of a community of various organisms at a single location.

The same might be said for somebody presenting a piece of limestone. There are countless fossils in it, yet I would not call it a community. Still, those are indeed fossils in the limestone, whether we can identify the community they lived in or not. The fossilization process itself preserves things but the death, weathering, and deposition process is often destructive.

Show me a complex structure of a living organism that isn't found on Earth.

Regardless of its presence, we might not recognize it for what it was. After all, if it is something alien, it will be outside of our experience and it might be right in front of us wihout us knowing it. The fossils present in the images are those that we can easily recognize.

Show me a fossil embedded in a sedimentary rock.

Most of the links I presented show exactly that. I can give you more examples however.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/spicrin1.htm
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk105.htm
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk222.htm lower right image
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk158a.htm
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk593a.htm
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk558a.htm

Show me evidence of complex plant life or how the "food chain" worked

The fossilized leaves from Sol 030 are pretty good, but as for the whole food chain, the crinoids are filter feeders and their structure is in itself evidence of what they ate. There had to be microorganisms such as diatoms, phytoplankton, or krill available. Those are to be expected in an ocean as the foundations of the food chain.

Consider the coral specimens, one of which can be seen here:
http://xenotechresearch.com/mk015b.htm

Coral feeds with its polyps, in the same manner as crinoids. Coral is related to jellyfish as well, and finding them is an interesting indicator that jellyfish might have been present, but fossils of them are hard to come by even here on Earth.

It seems clear however that you have already made your mind up, and are not to be swayed by photographs. That is your right of course, but I would be very interested in knowing why you are so certain that these cannot be fossils. After all, it is known that there were oceans for extended periods of time, that the atmosphere was thicker in the past, there is presently water in the environment and liquid water can exist on the surface of Mars. Why is it so hard to accept what the images show?

[Dr. Skeptic]

I would be very interested in knowing why you are so certain that these cannot be fossils. After all, it is known that there were oceans for extended periods of time...

Because of objective scientific analysis.

Here is an excerpt for a Human-Mars habitability report discussing the latest surface chemical composition.


"Mars. The specific mineralogy and hydration states are also significant in Martian H2O and S cycles, and play key roles in the potential for habitability. Among the nine hydrous Mg-sulfates, the two hydrous Ca-sulfates, and many hydrous Fe-sulfates, orbital remote sensing (OMEGA on Mars Express) has identified kieserite(MgSO4·H2O), gypsum(CaSO4·2H2O), and bassanite(CaSO4·0.5H2O), along with NIR spectral features that match with epsomite (MgSO4·7H2O),copiapite (Fe2+Fe3+4(SO4)(6OH)2·20H2O), orhalotrichite (FeAl2(SO4)4·22H2O). The gamma-ray spectrometer on Mars Odyssey has also identified high concentrations of water-equivalent-hydrogen (WEH) in two large equatorial regions, and has provided strong evidence for the residence of water-bearing minerals in near-surface regolith.
Laboratory experiments under well-controlled conditions provide a fundamental understanding for linking the surface and orbital observations, as well as to address possible reasons for observational discrepancies (e.g., water contents). We are investigating the stability fields and reaction pathways for the hydrous Mg-sulfates under controlled humidity and temperature conditions, and we are using Raman and infrared spectroscopy, and X-ray diffraction to identify the various hydrated species generated in the experiments. Results to date indicate that Mg-sulfates with hydration states higher than kieserite (MgSO4·H2O), especially starkeyite (MgSO4·4H2O), could be stable under current Martian surface conditions at mid-low latitudes."

1. Notice the lack Na. NaCl is needed to sustain the organisms you've mentioned.

2. Notice the lack of C. There is no trace of any organic molecules or non-organic carbon compounds.

3. There is no evidence of oceans. Evidence points to shallow evaporation pool, most likely formed by impact and volcanic activities melting surface and sub-triennium ice. Surface erosion shows it has not rained on Mars - or not in the last 3 billion years.

4. It took life minimum for 3 billion years on Earth to reach the level of complexity you describe. Do the math.

5. It is widely believed that Mars had a very limited magnetic field allowing most of the atmosphere to be stripped away in the first billion years.

6. Mars has never been shielded from solar radiation. Radiation levels on the surface on Mars are extremely detrimental to Earth-like life forms.

7. The minerals found are simple sulfates, Fe-sulfate from volcanic rock dissolved in H2O precipitating Mg-sulfate and Ca-sulfate. No calcium carbonate which the make up of most terrestrial fossils.

Do I need to go on?

[Pete]

Owned.

[aichip]

Okay, this is actually very simple.

1. Notice the lack Na. NaCl is needed to sustain the organisms you've mentioned.

The assumption is based on terrestrial chemistry. We know nothing of the sort of chemistry of these orgasnisms. All we have is their remains and no samples in hand for analysis. Even on Earth there are extremophile organisms that live in conditions thare are considered toxic to "normal" life.

2. Notice the lack of C. There is no trace of any organic molecules or non-organic carbon compounds.

Incorrect. What is never brought to the table is the fact that the Pyrolitic Release Experiment performed on Viking showed 7 out of 9 soil samples to contain organic matter. This is dismissed by hand waving.

3. There is no evidence of oceans.

For the water level to have been 1 meter at Meridiani, the water depth would have been 4 kilometers elsewhere. Simple topographic maps will show this. No plate tectonics equals an inevitable result, namely that the elevations are the same now as then. Therefore, the planet must have been roughly half covered in water. MOLA data is very clear about that.

Surface erosion shows it has not rained on Mars - or not in the last 3 billion years.

Rain or no, there are active geysers. The soil erodes in spray patterns in the course of two weeks. Images from around sol 500, Opportunity prove this. Look at the microscopics of the tracks they left before Purgatory dune and after.

4. It took life minimum for 3 billion years on Earth to reach the level of complexity you describe. Do the math.

I have. The planet has had water in liquid form all along. This is the only contention that people really have a problem with. NASA has the worst press release system in the world, and people seem to miss these snippets of information. Look also to the work of Derek Sears and Gil Levin. Both have proven that liquid water can exist on the surface today. But again, this is routinely ignored or dismissed.

5. It is widely believed that Mars had a very limited magnetic field allowing most of the atmosphere to be stripped away in the first billion years.

Agreed. The data does seem to indicate that. Still, I am looking at these images of trilobites and shells, sand dollars and sharks' teeth, and I know that regardless of our opinions of the important of the magnetic field, there was complex life. Clearly we do not understand the requirements as well as we have thought, or what the natural mechanisms for resisting radiation might be.

6. Mars has never been shielded from solar radiation. Radiation levels on the surface on Mars are extremely detrimental to Earth-like life forms.

This is actually an assumption. It is mostly based on good science, but nobody actually knows whether there has been a shield or not. it is purely an opinion at this point. Now, are you aware that many primitive organisms produce their own natural sun blocker? Stromatolites are a perfect example. And, a little depth in water is also very effective. Oceanic organisms can live quite comfortably without an ozone layer, depending on the depth and the salts available in solution.

7. The minerals found are simple sulfates, Fe-sulfate from volcanic rock dissolved in H2O precipitating Mg-sulfate and Ca-sulfate. No calcium carbonate which the make up of most terrestrial fossils.

This is another assumption. It has been demonstrated that some organisms can change the minerals in their shells, based on what is dissolved in the water. The recent news articles about coral being able to adapt to changes in dissolved minerals was in the news just a couple of weeks ago. I would not be surprised in the least to find that Martian organisms grew shells from calcium sulfate instead of carbonate.

But there is also that nagging carbonate dust that has been swept under the rug. Are you aware that from 2% to 5% of the dust blowing in the Martian wind is carbonate?

You see, we continue to make more discoveries about organisms here, and many of them challenge our assumptions. Another planet is sure to be radically different in ways we have not considered. Our world has undergone major changes in ocean chemistry and atmospheric composition over its history. If things had not changed as much, I suspect strongly that the organisms would have adapted as they do, and we would see the other conditions as being normal. Life is persistent.

[harry]

Hello Aichip

I have had a look at all your links.

Very nice,,,,,,,,,wow!!!!! life on Mars,,,,,,,thats fantastic.

Now the only thing left to do is a test on these objects to reslove the issue if they were physical creation or bilogical.

Thanks aichip,,,,,,,,,,,or should I say Sir!

[Andy Wade]

I've been lurking on this thread with interest.
I'm 'loosely' sceptical, but I do have this small, wonderful thought in the back of my mind that it might be true.
Why is it that science can't find Mars guilty of having had life, and seek to prove it's innocence?
The current approach seems to be the wrong way to me.
It would seem to me to be really important to send the Mars Spirit rover back to one of these so called 'shells' ASAP and get it to do a proper photographic survey of the item to prove it one way or another. Isn't this what they sent it there for?
Or are they afraid they might actually find something they can't dismiss?

[harry]

Hello Andy.

There is a saying,,,,,,,,,,,,All in due time.

Man has just started to discover the cosmo. There are many who want as much information as possible, but are limited by what they have and can do.

If you want to read more on Mars, go to: These links were posted by aichip.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 3M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... _p632.html

or just google.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Achip:
You argue like a two dollar lawyer.

The assumption is based on terrestrial chemistry. We know nothing of the sort of chemistry of these orgasnisms. All we have is their remains and no samples in hand for analysis. Even on Earth there are extremophile organisms that live in conditions thare are considered toxic to "normal" life.

You are the one proposing Earth-like life forms.

For the water level to have been 1 meter at Meridiani, the water depth would have been 4 kilometers elsewhere. Simple topographic maps will show this. No plate tectonics equals an inevitable result, namely that the elevations are the same now as then. Therefore, the planet must have been roughly half covered in water. MOLA data is very clear about that.

The surface H2O was in shallow pools capillary fed from sub-surface H2O. The sedimentary layering found to date is uniform in thickness and hasn't exceeded .5 cm suggesting small, shallow pools with short layering cycles.

I have. The planet has had water in liquid form all along. This is the only contention that people really have a problem with. NASA has the worst press release system in the world, and people seem to miss these snippets of information. Look also to the work of Derek Sears and Gil Levin. Both have proven that liquid water can exist on the surface today. But again, this is routinely ignored or dismissed.

Total bunk. H2O will evaporate from solid state directly to a gaseous state in the pressure ranges of the Martian atmosphere, the same way CO2 does at Earth's atmospheric pressure - chem 101.

...nobody actually knows whether there has been a shield or not. it is purely an opinion at this point. ...

Wrong again. Mars contains far less Fe than the Earth (look up planet densities). A magnasphere protects an atmosphere from bombardment from the Sun's heliosphere. Mars has an inadequate Fe core to produce a suitable magnasphere to protect complex organic molecules from destruction.

There is no point in continuing from here.

[aichip]

You argue like a two dollar lawyer.

I never met a two dollar lawyer.

I said:

The assumption is based on terrestrial chemistry. We know nothing of the sort of chemistry of these organisms. All we have is their remains and no samples in hand for analysis. Even on Earth there are extremophile organisms that live in conditions thare are considered toxic to "normal" life.

You replied:

You are the one proposing Earth-like life forms.

No, I am not. I am looking at images of sea shells and rolled trilobites. The images say nothing of their chemistry. You are making assumptions based on what you know about terrestrial organisms. So let's dispense with the salt argument first. Sodium chloride does exist on Mars, and NASA has said so clearly. So have their research scientists at Arizona State:

According ASU's Carleton Moore further analysis of a piece of the Nakla meteorite showed that "the highest concentrations of negative ions were chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and a little dissolved silica, and, in positive ions, sodium, magnesium and calcium. The elements in highest abundance were sodium and chloride -- like the salt water on Earth.

From Dr. J. J. Hurtak, in his words:

The "brewing evidence" shows a strong case for an evaporation sequence of conditions that moved from high levels of sulfur to sodium chloride (NaCl) (water-soluble solid) to bromide, as well as salt-rich brine material, all indicative of strong water activity where byproducts precipitated out of brine.

In a NASA briefing on March 3rd, 2004, Steven Squyres had this to say:

"You have to have a lot of water involved to get these results....Mars was habitable for a long period of time," said Steve Squyres, principal scientist for the rovers at NASA.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

I said:

For the water level to have been 1 meter at Meridiani, the water depth would have been 4 kilometers elsewhere. Simple topographic maps will show this. No plate tectonics equals an inevitable result, namely that the elevations are the same now as then. Therefore, the planet must have been roughly half covered in water. MOLA data is very clear about that.

You said:

The surface H2O was in shallow pools capillary fed from sub-surface H2O. The sedimentary layering found to date is uniform in thickness and hasn't exceeded .5 cm suggesting small, shallow pools with short layering cycles.

Dr. James Head, a planetary scientist at Brown University seems to think otherwise. He says:

Altogether, Head and his colleagues say, the amount of water contained in the ancient Martian ocean would have been enough to cover the entire planet to a depth of more than 300 feet, if it were spread out uniformly over the whole planet. (The surface area of Mars is approximately equal to the dry- land surface of Earth). This ocean, Head estimates, would have been about one-third the size of the Atlantic.

Now, about the flat areas in Meridiani, covered in mud polygons. Another scientist, David Smith of Mars Global Surveyor, has this to say:
" Most startling of all is the new data showing the remarkable smoothness of this region of Mars - perhaps buried under millions of years worth of sediments deposited by this ancient sea."

"We don't know of anywhere smoother," said David Smith, one of Global Surveyor's principal scientists. "There's nothing on Earth, nothing on Venus that smooth, on that kind of scale. It's like the Bonneville Flats," a perfectly flat, dried lake bed in the Nevada desert, but much more extensive. "You can go for probably 1,000 miles with only variations [in height] of 5 to 10 meters," or 15 to 30 feet, he said (not counting the continual downward slope of this whole expanse).

Water was stable on the surface of Mars for ages, as shown in this release:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18417

The University of Arizona research team (same one that works for NASA) seems to think that salty oceans were present:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=169

Now, what about the glaciers in the equatorial areas? There is a whole frozen sea there.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18050
In the more popular parlance, it is here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7039

Mars Express seems to have found water reservoirs underground.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Results_fro ... WFE_0.html
And, the polar caps are mostly water - 98% is the estimate.
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/hend_mola.html
But don't take their word for it, how about another NASA team?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... water.html

I said:

The planet has had water in liquid form all along. This is the only contention that people really have a problem with. NASA has the worst press release system in the world, and people seem to miss these snippets of information. Look also to the work of Derek Sears and Gil Levin. Both have proven that liquid water can exist on the surface today. But again, this is routinely ignored or dismissed.

You said:

Total bunk. H2O will evaporate from solid state directly to a gaseous state in the pressure ranges of the Martian atmosphere, the same way CO2 does at Earth's atmospheric pressure - chem 101.

Here you are proven wrong. You were taught from a chart of numbers that somebody put together without doing the actual experiments. But you are saying I should just take your word for it, when clearly you have not done the experiments, while Sears and Levin and others have? Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1496.pdf
http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18269
http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/5717.htm
You can see that at 7mb atmospheric pressure and the present surface temperatures on Mars, water evaporates at a rate of about 1mm per hour. Put some salt in it and place it in the soil, and it can remain for weeks. it will not evaporate or freeze, it will remain as briny mud. It perfectly explains the airbag prints from the landers and the fact that the rover tracks are crisp, unlike prints in dry sand. The soil is muddy just below a layer of dust on the surface.

I said:

...nobody actually knows whether there has been a shield or not. it is purely an opinion at this point.

You said:

Wrong again.

I have not yet been 'wrong". Show me proof that there was a shield. You are a skeptic, you should welcome the chance to prove your statement. Having proof at hand makes an argument far more effective, and good references are a plus. But let's look at what you had to say in detail.

Mars contains far less Fe than the Earth (look up planet densities).

I agree with that statement.

A magnasphere protects an atmosphere from bombardment from the Sun's heliosphere. Mars has an inadequate Fe core to produce a suitable magnasphere to protect complex organic molecules from destruction.

I will assume you mean a magnetosphere. As it is, we know that some organisms can survive raw vacuum and sunlight for weeks to years. The surface of Mars is far more protected than the environment of raw space. Many organisms produce natural sunblockers and the presence of salts also provides protection from ultraviolet radiation. Some organisms here on Earth can survive, even thrive in, the cores of nuclear reactors. I am absolutely certain that the radiation environment inside a reactor core is thousands of times more dangerous than the surface of Mars. This does not seem to be a problem to radiodurans, the organism I mention here.

And, again, salt water is a great shield to life. Consider why life did not come onto the land in ages past on the Earth. The ozone layer was not yet in place, or effective enough, and life stayed in the oceans until it had worked out the proper survival strategies and the ozone layer became effective. Life existed in the seas for ages before it did on the land. Mars had a very thin atmosphere, and I estimate that the oceans would have served as a surrogate atmosphere, allowing gas exchange and shielding for those organisms.

There is no point in continuing from here.

You may be right. The fact is, Mars had oceans, there is sodium chloride present, water still exists there today in liquid form, and I have found hundreds of marine fossils.

[harry]

Hello All

Aichip,,,,,,,,,,your links are great,,,,,,,,,,makes me read much more,,,,,hate you for that,,,,,,,,,,,smile.

I should call you Sir Martain.


If Mars and earth had the same origin, I would expect the Iron content to be similar.

[aichip]

The big difference in the two is due to the collision of a body named Orpheus with the early Earth - that triggered the formation of the Moon and in the process, the iron core of Orpheus sank into the Earth and was added to our own. This is why our planet has such a large core and strong magnetic field today.

Orpheus, incidentally, is thought to have been the approximate size of Mars. This collision is thought to have happened 4.5 billion years ago.

Thanks, Harry!

[harry]

Hello Aichip

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,if you have links on that please forward them.

But! I do not agree with it. That does not mean that I'm right. I assume to be wrong until I get more info.

The iron settled to the core when the earth was still forming from the resultant supernova dust that formed our sun and the planets.

[aichip]

Some called the body Orpheus, others called it Theia. It appears to have been a trojan planet formed 60 degrees ahead of the Earth in the same orbit, about the size of Mars.

Of course, this is not a stable orbit at all, and the two eventually collided, creating the Moon from the mantle material and the cores of both Earth and Orpheus/Theia merged to result in the much larger core that our planet has, in proportion to the cores of the other planets.

Here is a pretty good Wikipedia article about the process with animations, and there are many similar links to the original papers on the web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

Altogether the scenario makes sense. It can explain the Moon easily, as we know it was much closer in the past, and that its crust composition and lack of a large core are anomalous unless we take it as a part of the Earth.