http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060605.html
What is very clear, but never really spoken of, is that Meridiani Planum is a dried seabed. Here is the evidence to support my contention.
First, Meridiani Planum is the largest, flattest area known. It extends for many hundreds of kilometers and is extremely flat. This would be expected if it were covered in water at some point, that eventually dried up.
Second, the surface is covered in mud polygons. This is obvious to anyone who has seen Death Valley or even mud in a puddle drying out. The Meridiani mud polygons are absolutely identical to those found on Earth. See this image to confirm this: http://xenotechresearch.com/deathval.htm
Third, the fractal nature of the cracks is preserved from the smallest to the largest features. They are seen in the panoramic imagers as well as the orbital cameras operated by Malin Space Science Systems. Any google image search for MSSS polygons Meridiani will yield many images.
Fourth, many of the polygons show raised edges. This is created only through one known process. When salty groundwater persists beneath the drying mud polygons, raised lips are formed from the extrusion of this brine. Again, no other process is known to create this effect. Images of this can be seen here: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/12/04/ as well as here: http://xenotechresearch.com/mudpoly1.htm
Fifth, NASA and JPL have already stated that the bedrock in Meridiani (and Gusev) is up to 40% salts. In Gusev, the salts are cementing the smaller gravel and fragments together. In Meridiani, the bedrock is mostly gypsum (calcium sulfate) mixed with iron sulfate (melanterite) and Epsom salts (magnesium sulfate). These are apparently the results of a dried out sea that was rich in sulfates. Other salts containing chlorides and bromides are also present, distinct signatures of ocean water.
Those are just five of many other reasons, but what is rather irksome is that they will not actually say "this is a dried ocean". I think it is clear that when you look at the water levels that had to be present in Meridiani and the elevation map of the planet, that about half of Mars was covered with water at one point.
Any thoughts on this?
Meridiani Is A Seabed (APOD 05 Jun 2006)
Meridiani Is A Seabed (APOD 05 Jun 2006)
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
-
Pete
- Science Officer
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:46 pm
- AKA: Long John LeBone
- Location: Toronto, ON
Re: Meridiani Is A Seabed - see June 5 APOD image
While I couldn't find that exact phrasing, it would appear that Nasa has in fact been quite open about the implications of data from Mars:aichip wrote:what is rather irksome is that they will not actually say "this is a dried ocean". I think it is clear that when you look at the water levels that had to be present in Meridiani and the elevation map of the planet, that about half of Mars was covered with water at one point.
Two years ago, Nasa's Steve Squires wrote:We think Opportunity is now parked on what was once the shoreline of a salty sea on Mars.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... clues.html
Two years ago, Nasa wrote:Liquid water once flowed through these rocks [in Meridiani Planum]. It changed their texture, and it changed their chemistry...We've been able to read the tell-tale clues the water left behind, giving us confidence in that conclusion.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... water.html
Appearances can be deceptive
Funny you should mention that... When I first saw this picture I thought it was taken from a vessel on one of Earth's near-polar seas, with a broken-up ice pack and big waves.
seabeds on Mars
Next time NASA sends a robot to mars, how about leaving a glass of water on the surface and observe
Wolf Kotenberg
About NASA and shorelines
For Pete:
Yes, NASA has said it but only in places where nobody really pays attention unless they are already interested. Nowhere have I seen a headline that says to the common man, "Mars Had Oceans". And, talk to anyone on the street and you get that snort of disdain and "Mars is dead and always dry! NASA said so!" NASA, as I have sometimes mentioned, has the worst PR of any organization there is.
When they say "liquid water once flowed on these rocks" they leave the question of "how much" in the open. When they say "was once a shoreline of a salty sea on Mars" it got very little press play. You would think that with such a finding, there would be widespread knowledge that Mars once had oceans, not just the picture of a little salty water flowing over some rocks.
For Axel:
It is amazing how many physical systems show very similar aspects. You are correct, there is a strong resemblance to ocean waves over ice floes. We see similarities as well in long, parallel clouds at high altitudes and ripples in sand because similar processes cause them. Fluid drag and dissimilar media cause this. A similarity also exists in cream stirred in coffee and a galaxy. The visual similarities in nature can indeed be striking.
For ta152h0:
Look into the work done by Gil Levin and also Derek Sears. They have already proven that liquid water can exist quite well on the surface of Mars. This is another thing that NASA should be announcing but it receives no airtime. What a shame that the general understanding of our next door neighbor world is so poor.
Yes, NASA has said it but only in places where nobody really pays attention unless they are already interested. Nowhere have I seen a headline that says to the common man, "Mars Had Oceans". And, talk to anyone on the street and you get that snort of disdain and "Mars is dead and always dry! NASA said so!" NASA, as I have sometimes mentioned, has the worst PR of any organization there is.
When they say "liquid water once flowed on these rocks" they leave the question of "how much" in the open. When they say "was once a shoreline of a salty sea on Mars" it got very little press play. You would think that with such a finding, there would be widespread knowledge that Mars once had oceans, not just the picture of a little salty water flowing over some rocks.
For Axel:
It is amazing how many physical systems show very similar aspects. You are correct, there is a strong resemblance to ocean waves over ice floes. We see similarities as well in long, parallel clouds at high altitudes and ripples in sand because similar processes cause them. Fluid drag and dissimilar media cause this. A similarity also exists in cream stirred in coffee and a galaxy. The visual similarities in nature can indeed be striking.
For ta152h0:
Look into the work done by Gil Levin and also Derek Sears. They have already proven that liquid water can exist quite well on the surface of Mars. This is another thing that NASA should be announcing but it receives no airtime. What a shame that the general understanding of our next door neighbor world is so poor.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
Good on you aichip and all.
re link
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... _p632.html
This formation does not need a sea of water to form.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/12/04/
The mars polygons are not as muddy as they look. The dead valley polygons are the result of sedimentation and drying of the waters to leave a crusty surface.
This does not rule out water involement as for the lake or seas more info is required and in due time we hope to have it.
Thank you for the links,
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 3L5M1.HTML
http://xenotechresearch.com/mudpoly1.htm
More water clues
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... clues.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... water.html
Good on you aichip and all.
re link
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... _p632.html
This formation does not need a sea of water to form.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/12/04/
This Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) image shows patterned ground, arranged in the form of polygons, on the undulating plains associated with ejecta from the Lyot impact crater on the martian northern plains. This picture was acquired in October 2003 and shows that the polygon margins are ridges with large boulders---shown here as dark dots---on them. On Earth, polygon patterns like this are created in arctic and antarctic regions where there is ice in the ground. The seasonal and longer-term cycles of freezing and thawing of the ice-rich ground cause these features to form over time. Whether the same is true for Mars is unknown.
The mars polygons are not as muddy as they look. The dead valley polygons are the result of sedimentation and drying of the waters to leave a crusty surface.
This does not rule out water involement as for the lake or seas more info is required and in due time we hope to have it.
Thank you for the links,
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 3L5M1.HTML
http://xenotechresearch.com/mudpoly1.htm
More water clues
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... clues.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... water.html
Earth might not be the only planet in our solar system to have hosted salty seas. NASA's Opportunity has uncovered evidence that the rocks near its landing site on Mars not only were once wet, but likely formed at the bottom of a body of gently flowing saltwater.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegal ... e_149.html"We think Opportunity is now parked on what was once the shoreline of a salty sea on Mars," said Dr. Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., principal investigator for the science payload on Opportunity and its twin Mars Exploration Rover, Spirit.
Image above: This magnified view from Opportunity shows a portion of a martian rock with fine layers at angles to each other. Interpretive black lines trace layers that indicate the sediments that formed the rock were laid down in flowing water. The interpretive blue lines point to boundaries between the layers. + View Image Feature. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell/USGS.
Opportunity rover offers evidence that the rover sits on the shoreline of what was once a salty sea on Mars. Rippled patterns in the rocks at Meridiani Planum suggest that the land there was once a salt flat or playa, sometimes covered by shallow water and sometimes dry. Telltale patterns called crossbedding and festooning, in which some layers within a rock lie at angles to the main layers, led scientists to the conclusion that the rippled shapes formed under a current of water -- and not wind.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Antarctic polygons
Hello harry, and thanks for the reply.
I think that the problem arises because people are not distinguishing between the two types of polygons. They are only visually similar, not actually related.
The Antarctic polygons are usually formed from frost heave processes and often show that gravel and rocks are the margin materials. They also are not self-similar. What that means is that the polygons are on a single scale- they do not have larger or smaller copies of themselves in evidence.
The Death Valley/Meridiani polygons show clean margins and little or no gravel. They are also self-similar. This means that as you magnify or reduce them in scale you still see the same forms again and again. This is known as a fractal nature.
The upshot of this is that the two are not related. DVM (Death Valley/Meridiani) polygons are made from sedimentary material that starts out as mud and then dries. The layering (also known as laminations) remains present after the material dries and fractures. Any good panoramic image or navigation image shows the laminations clearly. This is absent in the Antarctic polygons.
There are a number of good images on Google (try tundra polygon or permafrost polygon) where this can be seen. The left image at this link http://ecomdb.niaes.affrc.go.jp/e_level ... eriod=9999 shows the single scale nature of this type of polygon. This image shows the gravel-based nature of the Antarctic polygons http://berglund.univ-tln.fr/polygon.html and how it is entirely different from the DVM polygons. It is clear that the two are unrelated phenomena, like the swirl of cream in a coffee cup is not related to a galaxy.
So in looking at the images, we can see that these polygons in Meridiani are more closely related to the Death Valley dried lake polygons and not the Antarctic polygons.
Once again, thanks for the reply Harry.
I think that the problem arises because people are not distinguishing between the two types of polygons. They are only visually similar, not actually related.
The Antarctic polygons are usually formed from frost heave processes and often show that gravel and rocks are the margin materials. They also are not self-similar. What that means is that the polygons are on a single scale- they do not have larger or smaller copies of themselves in evidence.
The Death Valley/Meridiani polygons show clean margins and little or no gravel. They are also self-similar. This means that as you magnify or reduce them in scale you still see the same forms again and again. This is known as a fractal nature.
The upshot of this is that the two are not related. DVM (Death Valley/Meridiani) polygons are made from sedimentary material that starts out as mud and then dries. The layering (also known as laminations) remains present after the material dries and fractures. Any good panoramic image or navigation image shows the laminations clearly. This is absent in the Antarctic polygons.
There are a number of good images on Google (try tundra polygon or permafrost polygon) where this can be seen. The left image at this link http://ecomdb.niaes.affrc.go.jp/e_level ... eriod=9999 shows the single scale nature of this type of polygon. This image shows the gravel-based nature of the Antarctic polygons http://berglund.univ-tln.fr/polygon.html and how it is entirely different from the DVM polygons. It is clear that the two are unrelated phenomena, like the swirl of cream in a coffee cup is not related to a galaxy.
So in looking at the images, we can see that these polygons in Meridiani are more closely related to the Death Valley dried lake polygons and not the Antarctic polygons.
Once again, thanks for the reply Harry.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
is it possible.......................
that the solid materials present on Mars act like a liquid over the millions of years Mars has been in existance ???? 
Wolf Kotenberg
A simple answer
For ta152H0:
In both Gusev and Meridiani, the bedrock contains significant salt percentages. Gusev shows gravel and rock fragments solidified with salts (like a conglomerate) and Meridiani shows gypsum with iron sulfate and magnesium sulfate. Neither material flows well.
Salts as it is known can flow but only under specific conditions of pressure that we are not seeing on Mars. Underground where there are many tons of pressure, salt flows over scales ranging from thousands of years to millions of years. Earth, however, has about 2.6 times the gravity of Mars, and so a much thinner layer of overburden can perform this trick.
Mars, however, does not present either the temperatures or pressures needed to make either material flow. If there are those who conceive that these materials might flow in a near vacuum, a simple experiment could confirm or deny that.
I have a strong suspicion, though, this will not be the case because if the material could flow like that, we would see the polygons being far more smooth and without the sharp fractures we see.
There is a class of materials that can flow and fracture, known as non-Newtonian fluids. They are sometimes called "shear thickening fluids" as well. Cornstarch in water can do this trick, but it is not a known property of gypsum (and we have many, many examples of it to derive this fact from) and it is not a property of gravel in salt that is on the surface.
This was an interesting thought though. Out of the box, and very good material to consider.
In both Gusev and Meridiani, the bedrock contains significant salt percentages. Gusev shows gravel and rock fragments solidified with salts (like a conglomerate) and Meridiani shows gypsum with iron sulfate and magnesium sulfate. Neither material flows well.
Salts as it is known can flow but only under specific conditions of pressure that we are not seeing on Mars. Underground where there are many tons of pressure, salt flows over scales ranging from thousands of years to millions of years. Earth, however, has about 2.6 times the gravity of Mars, and so a much thinner layer of overburden can perform this trick.
Mars, however, does not present either the temperatures or pressures needed to make either material flow. If there are those who conceive that these materials might flow in a near vacuum, a simple experiment could confirm or deny that.
I have a strong suspicion, though, this will not be the case because if the material could flow like that, we would see the polygons being far more smooth and without the sharp fractures we see.
There is a class of materials that can flow and fracture, known as non-Newtonian fluids. They are sometimes called "shear thickening fluids" as well. Cornstarch in water can do this trick, but it is not a known property of gypsum (and we have many, many examples of it to derive this fact from) and it is not a property of gravel in salt that is on the surface.
This was an interesting thought though. Out of the box, and very good material to consider.
Last edited by aichip on Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Forum probably is working properly
I received it this morning, but I might have simply overlooked that tiny icon with the "you have new messages" note. Thanks for your work.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Why Mars?
Well, there are a number of reasons. First, consider that it is the most reasonable place in our solar system to search for life, and that it is the most Earthlike world we know of.
Second, consider that Mars is roughly an order of magnitude less massive than Earth, and that there should be between 3 and 7 times as many Mars-like worlds in the universe as Earthlike worlds, just based on mass. Mars is likely far more representative of the types of terrestrial planets we will find around other stars, just based on the numbers.
Third, it is quite possible that life could have originated on Mars and been carried to the Earth billions of years ago as bacteria or spores, and this is far more likely than life being carried from Earth to Mars in the same manner. We are "downhill" from Mars in the gravity well of the Sun, and Mars has far less gravity at its surface, so the odds are much better that, if life was carried from one world to the other, it would have been from Mars to Earth.
Fourth, we have so much more information about Mars than Jupiter, for instance. The body and substance of that information is amazing. More is known about Mars than perhaps the Moon, and the sheer volume of images and instrument readings have been provided so that even the amateur has a chance of making interesting discoveries. Remember that throughout history, astronomy itself had most of its discoveries made and checked by amateurs. Only of late do we see large bodies of professionals doing the research and making the contributions.
Fifth, Mars is like a snapshot of the early Earth, without the thick atmosphere. There is a great deal to learn about how the two worlds differed. We see that oceans were on the planet, and that those oceans have vanished. Is there something we can learn about the climate and the evolution of that planet that might have some bearing on maintaining our own world properly? It would be silly to dismiss that idea when we know so little about the complexities of our own climate. Any new bits of information could prove crucial to our understanding.
Sixth, if we ever undertake terraforming (intentionally), Mars would be the logical candidate world for the process. It stands to reason that the most Earthlike world in our solar system (other than our own) might become another home for humanity at some point in our collective future.
I could go on, but I believe that some of my interest can be seen just in those reasons. Don't misunderstand, Jupiter is fascinating also, but it seems to have real limits because it is a simple planet in comparison to Mars. It looks like a failed star with its own dwarf planetary system, and its moons are worlds in their own rights. I admit to having a great interest in some of the Jovian satellites as well, because they too might harbor organisms in the ice or in their internal waters. Life itself is a fascinating subject and I firmly believe that we will discover it to be common throughout our galaxy, once we have the capability to gather information from other solar systems. Jupiter's system is almost like a small solar system that we can explore without leaving our own. Saturn, too, shares this property.
Life is based on complex chemistry, and chemistry is something we understand well enough to model very accurately now. Physics and chemistry are the foundations of everything we will find, and so we can expect that what we learn on Mars and on the moons of the gas giant planets will carry well when we study worlds in other solar systems.
I don't mean to be overly verbose, but this is a subject that is of great interest to me for many reasons, and one that I have devoted many years of study to. The search for knowledge is one of the most engaging and productive pursuits that anyone can undertake.
I hope that some of my enthusiasm makes it through this poor medium undiminished, and what a privilege it would be to be able to contribute some small grain of understanding to the world at large.
Second, consider that Mars is roughly an order of magnitude less massive than Earth, and that there should be between 3 and 7 times as many Mars-like worlds in the universe as Earthlike worlds, just based on mass. Mars is likely far more representative of the types of terrestrial planets we will find around other stars, just based on the numbers.
Third, it is quite possible that life could have originated on Mars and been carried to the Earth billions of years ago as bacteria or spores, and this is far more likely than life being carried from Earth to Mars in the same manner. We are "downhill" from Mars in the gravity well of the Sun, and Mars has far less gravity at its surface, so the odds are much better that, if life was carried from one world to the other, it would have been from Mars to Earth.
Fourth, we have so much more information about Mars than Jupiter, for instance. The body and substance of that information is amazing. More is known about Mars than perhaps the Moon, and the sheer volume of images and instrument readings have been provided so that even the amateur has a chance of making interesting discoveries. Remember that throughout history, astronomy itself had most of its discoveries made and checked by amateurs. Only of late do we see large bodies of professionals doing the research and making the contributions.
Fifth, Mars is like a snapshot of the early Earth, without the thick atmosphere. There is a great deal to learn about how the two worlds differed. We see that oceans were on the planet, and that those oceans have vanished. Is there something we can learn about the climate and the evolution of that planet that might have some bearing on maintaining our own world properly? It would be silly to dismiss that idea when we know so little about the complexities of our own climate. Any new bits of information could prove crucial to our understanding.
Sixth, if we ever undertake terraforming (intentionally), Mars would be the logical candidate world for the process. It stands to reason that the most Earthlike world in our solar system (other than our own) might become another home for humanity at some point in our collective future.
I could go on, but I believe that some of my interest can be seen just in those reasons. Don't misunderstand, Jupiter is fascinating also, but it seems to have real limits because it is a simple planet in comparison to Mars. It looks like a failed star with its own dwarf planetary system, and its moons are worlds in their own rights. I admit to having a great interest in some of the Jovian satellites as well, because they too might harbor organisms in the ice or in their internal waters. Life itself is a fascinating subject and I firmly believe that we will discover it to be common throughout our galaxy, once we have the capability to gather information from other solar systems. Jupiter's system is almost like a small solar system that we can explore without leaving our own. Saturn, too, shares this property.
Life is based on complex chemistry, and chemistry is something we understand well enough to model very accurately now. Physics and chemistry are the foundations of everything we will find, and so we can expect that what we learn on Mars and on the moons of the gas giant planets will carry well when we study worlds in other solar systems.
I don't mean to be overly verbose, but this is a subject that is of great interest to me for many reasons, and one that I have devoted many years of study to. The search for knowledge is one of the most engaging and productive pursuits that anyone can undertake.
I hope that some of my enthusiasm makes it through this poor medium undiminished, and what a privilege it would be to be able to contribute some small grain of understanding to the world at large.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello aichip
Aichip said
Mars does not give us that time.
Origin of life has many theories, one is the chemosynthesis near volacanic warm waters where Hydrogen Sulphide exchanges. Smiliar to photosynthesis. This logic puts Io the moon of Jupiter into the running and some other moons.
Yep I agree with you
Early earth is more like Venus today. Most of the oceans where in the atmosphere for millions of years until it cooled, creating running water and erosion and sedimentary rocks. But! your right we can study and learn. Remember that Mars and earth are the same age.
A great chance at that.
Good on you Aichip, your interest keeps people discussing Mars.
Aichip said
Life on mars would be the last place to look. Look at earth 5 billion years old the oceans started to form about 4.3 Billion years and first bugs came about 3 billion years ago. It took about a billion years of time in the oceans for life to evolve.Well, there are a number of reasons. First, consider that it is the most reasonable place in our solar system to search for life, and that it is the most Earthlike world we know of.
Mars does not give us that time.
Origin of life has many theories, one is the chemosynthesis near volacanic warm waters where Hydrogen Sulphide exchanges. Smiliar to photosynthesis. This logic puts Io the moon of Jupiter into the running and some other moons.
This reasoning is not logical.Second, consider that Mars is roughly an order of magnitude less massive than Earth, and that there should be between 3 and 7 times as many Mars-like worlds in the universe as Earthlike worlds, just based on mass. Mars is likely far more representative of the types of terrestrial planets we will find around other stars, just based on the numbers.
No way can microbes jump ship and travel in space and live. But! than again some microbes do form a shell to protect them against the extreme temperatures. There has been found organic material on metorites. I just cannot see life coming from Mars, when we have the perfect egosystem.Third, it is quite possible that life could have originated on Mars and been carried to the Earth billions of years ago as bacteria or spores, and this is far more likely than life being carried from Earth to Mars in the same manner. We are "downhill" from Mars in the gravity well of the Sun, and Mars has far less gravity at its surface, so the odds are much better that, if life was carried from one world to the other, it would have been from Mars to Earth.
.Fourth, we have so much more information about Mars than Jupiter, for instance. The body and substance of that information is amazing. More is known about Mars than perhaps the Moon, and the sheer volume of images and instrument readings have been provided so that even the amateur has a chance of making interesting discoveries
Yep I agree with you
Fifth, Mars is like a snapshot of the early Earth, without the thick atmosphere. There is a great deal to learn about how the two worlds differed.
Early earth is more like Venus today. Most of the oceans where in the atmosphere for millions of years until it cooled, creating running water and erosion and sedimentary rocks. But! your right we can study and learn. Remember that Mars and earth are the same age.
.Sixth, if we ever undertake terraforming (intentionally), Mars would be the logical candidate world for the process. It stands to reason that the most Earthlike world in our solar system (other than our own) might become another home for humanity at some point in our collective future
A great chance at that.
Good on you Aichip, your interest keeps people discussing Mars.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Early Earth and Mars in perspective
Hi, Harry.
You said
But to put things into perspective, they have just confirmed that multi-celled organisms existed 3.45 billion years ago on Earth as stromatolites. This means that the steps to make cells cooperate had already been taken at least that far back. I just over a billion years from its beginning, our planet already had stromatolites! This is an amazing and revealing finding.
It is often thought that Mars cooled before the Earth, due to its lesser mass and greater distance from the Sun. If so, it had plenty of opportunity early on to start the process of evolving multi-celled organisms. Remember that even today, as harsh as its conditions are, liquid water can still exist on its surface. The farther back in time you go, the more clement Mars becomes. This is a positive thing when we start looking for traces of ancient life.
I said:
If we apply this to the accretion of planets throughout billions of sample solar systems, we would expect a similar distribution based strictly on probability. This was just a rough estimate I made using this line of thought. That is how I arrived at the figures I posted.
Are my numbers correct? That is anyone's guess, but it seems reasonable enough to me, and the same numbers appear to hold for the Oort cloud, so far. So there is some precedent for my figures.
Add to that the recent ESA experiment with lichens. They were exposed to raw space for two weeks and survived with absolutely no damage. Sunlight, freezing, cooking, and hard vacuum had no effect on the lichens, which continue to thrive today.
Finally, there are documented cases of microorganisms surviving for millions of years in salt crystals, only to be revived today in the laboratory. When we take these three cases together, they indicate that some simple organisms might well indeed survive a journey through space on a fragment of a meteorite.
If you are interested in seeing some material I have that supports my position, I would be happy to share it with you outside of the forum so you can decide for yourself.
I appreciate the debate. Best regards.
You said
Actually, fossils of primitive organisms are known back to 3.8 billion years on Earth, and it appears that the limit is set by the oldest rocks, not by the appearence of life. LIfe could have been around earlier, but no rocks yet found predate this time (with the exception of some tiny crystals of zircon, if I recall correctly).Life on mars would be the last place to look. Look at earth 5 billion years old the oceans started to form about 4.3 Billion years and first bugs came about 3 billion years ago. It took about a billion years of time in the oceans for life to evolve.
Mars does not give us that time.
But to put things into perspective, they have just confirmed that multi-celled organisms existed 3.45 billion years ago on Earth as stromatolites. This means that the steps to make cells cooperate had already been taken at least that far back. I just over a billion years from its beginning, our planet already had stromatolites! This is an amazing and revealing finding.
It is often thought that Mars cooled before the Earth, due to its lesser mass and greater distance from the Sun. If so, it had plenty of opportunity early on to start the process of evolving multi-celled organisms. Remember that even today, as harsh as its conditions are, liquid water can still exist on its surface. The farther back in time you go, the more clement Mars becomes. This is a positive thing when we start looking for traces of ancient life.
I agree. Some scientists already think that Europa's ice might be reddish-brown due to microbes. Seeing the likelihood of interior oceans inside some of the moons also shows that liquid water could have existed in them for billions of years, and so we might find organisms inside that live on the tidal heat of the parent gas giant world, flexing the crust and core of whichever tiny moon the water is in.Origin of life has many theories, one is the chemosynthesis near volacanic warm waters where Hydrogen Sulphide exchanges. Smiliar to photosynthesis. This logic puts Io the moon of Jupiter into the running and some other moons.
I said:
To this you responded:Second, consider that Mars is roughly an order of magnitude less massive than Earth, and that there should be between 3 and 7 times as many Mars-like worlds in the universe as Earthlike worlds, just based on mass. Mars is likely far more representative of the types of terrestrial planets we will find around other stars, just based on the numbers.
Consider the asteroid belt as an example. For any given size of object you find there, if you go down one order of magnitude in size, you go up one order of magnitude in quantity. In other words, for each 10 kilometer asteroid, there are ten 1 kilometer asteroids. Likewise, for each 1 kilometer asteroid, there are ten 0.1 kilometer asteroids.This reasoning is not logical.
If we apply this to the accretion of planets throughout billions of sample solar systems, we would expect a similar distribution based strictly on probability. This was just a rough estimate I made using this line of thought. That is how I arrived at the figures I posted.
Are my numbers correct? That is anyone's guess, but it seems reasonable enough to me, and the same numbers appear to hold for the Oort cloud, so far. So there is some precedent for my figures.
Actually, we have proven cases of organisms surviving in space for years unharmed. Some organisms on Surveyor 3 were retrieved inadvertantly when the parts were returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. They cultured successfully, regardless of their years in vacuum, freezing, broiling, and ultraviolet radiation.No way can microbes jump ship and travel in space and live. But! than again some microbes do form a shell to protect them against the extreme temperatures. There has been found organic material on metorites. I just cannot see life coming from Mars, when we have the perfect egosystem.
Add to that the recent ESA experiment with lichens. They were exposed to raw space for two weeks and survived with absolutely no damage. Sunlight, freezing, cooking, and hard vacuum had no effect on the lichens, which continue to thrive today.
Finally, there are documented cases of microorganisms surviving for millions of years in salt crystals, only to be revived today in the laboratory. When we take these three cases together, they indicate that some simple organisms might well indeed survive a journey through space on a fragment of a meteorite.
If you are interested in seeing some material I have that supports my position, I would be happy to share it with you outside of the forum so you can decide for yourself.
I appreciate the debate. Best regards.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Why don't you just hyperlink some things you have mentionedaichip wrote:If you are interested in seeing some material I have that supports my position, I would be happy to share it with you outside of the forum so you can decide for yourself.
You should have no problems finding this stuff at arxiv.org OOPS new page 
now who is going to read your post EVERYBODY READ HIS POST!!!
Links for my assertions, apologies for brevity earlier
makc:
Okay, you are correct. I wrote off the top of my head and had only a few moments to respond, and for that brevity I apologize. I realise that this is a lot of material to drop in one lump so I will provide some links that will allow a simple review, including my other evidence that I rather coyly left dangling at the end.
About the age of the Earth and solar system - moon rocks date back to 4.5 billion years, so the solar system has to be at least that old, and the Earth was here before the moon - the collision that took place and formed it had to happen after the formation of the Earth. Meteorites help us date the Earth to 4.54 billion years, and other methods place it between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years.
USGS age of the Earth - http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
The oldest known rock is a zircon crystal and it dates to 4.4 billion years. It was on display as shown in this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7432966/
My feeling, based on all this data taken as a whole (and realize that this is only my opinion, but I think an informed one) is that the Earth had a solid crust by 4.4 billion years. The Mars meteorite ALH-84001 dates to 4.4 billion years also, so it means that Mars had solid crust by then as well, and water! The carbonate globules make that pretty clear. It would appear that geological heat of formation dissipates much more rapidly than first estimated.
The oldest stromatolites are now dated at 3.45 billion years ago.
http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeonto ... eite1.html
Research in Australia indicates that microorganisms with nuclei existed earlier than 3.8 billion years ago! An excellent article here points out some interesting findings about very early life:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Lif ... olites.htm
What this all implies is simple:
1 - Earth and the other planets cooled more rapidly than first thought
2 - liquid water existed on Mars 4.4 billion years ago
3 - Earth appeared to have solid crust 4.4 billion years ago
4 - life extends back further in history than suspected
5 - life may form in just a few million years, but impact events might reset the biological clock many times before the environment stabilizes on a planet (I have a technical article about this, but I am still searching for a web link)
About planetary size distribution:
Asteroid size distribution - Sloan digital sky survey
http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20010 ... .img9.html
Asteroid sizes, distributions, and "space weathering"
http://www.astro.washington.edu/ivezic/ ... cture4.pdf
Google asteroids size distribution and you will find lots of information on this subject.
Do we have direct evidence for other solar systems? Only indirect, from IRAS data showing the size and distribution of Oort cloud material around some stars that we have take infrared measurements of.
The implications are that asteroids follow a pretty simple rule of size distribution, and if you take billions of solar systems as the samples of planetary size, you might expect to see similar numbers due to the fact that planets are made of asteroids and materials orbiting the stars. I have just drawn on this material in that manner.
About life being carried from planet to planet:
Organisms are far tougher than we thought. Surveyor 3 brought this to our attention, and Pete Conrad (Apollo 12 astronaut) thought that this single finding was the most significant thing to come of the whole flight, and bemoaned the fact that nobody would say anything about it. Here is an article detailing the situation in a manner that is, mercifully, concise compared to my recent posts:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... ep98_1.htm
This is a great article about organisms trapped in salt crystals for a quarter of a billion years, but successfully revived today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/978774.stm
Keep in mind that Mars is extremely salty, and so this creates a situation where microorganisms from Mars could easily get trapped in a crevice in a rock, needing only water to emerge millions of years later. It is a sobering thought that we might have living Martian organisms on our planet today.
Here is the information about the ESA'a recent lichen experiment and how they fared in space for two weeks in hard vacuum.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMUJM638FE_index_0.html
http://www.universetoday.com/am/exec/view.cgi/1/2932
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-05zzzzzzzr.html
It is extremely believable to me, given this data, that something might survive a meteoric trip to Earth from Mars- or vice versa. Now consider the following information:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Lichens.htm
Here you find the summary of this information along with the links to Derek Sears' research on liquid water and how it can exist today on Mars.
Now, can organisms from Mars have made it here? I believe so, and Barry DiGregorio, who has worked in cooperation with Dr. Gilbert Levin, sent me an email with information that has been included on this page:
http://xenotechresearch.com/mvarnish1.htm
As some may know, Mr. DiGregorio is the head of the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (at http://www.ICAMSR.org). In another email I received from Dr. Gilbert Levin, he pointed out some interesting facts about what we are seeing today on Mars, and how this research supports much of his work that has been snubbed for 30 years now. It is clear that there is strong evidence that Martian life did exist, and probably does today.
Now, all this having been presented, have a look at this page, and then see for yourself what you think about the implications:
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsgal2.htm
Also, look at these and see what conclusions you can draw.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsrind.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/marscurl.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/shells01.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/Pentobj2.htm
Later analysis shows the last object to be hollow rather than solid. Note the pentagonal symmetry.
Pay close attention to the fact that the images are directly linked back to the original NASA/JPL site, and that there is no way possible for them to be fakes or manipulated. Unless some superhacker cut directly into the feed from Mars, or the deep space network, and replaced the images with fakes, you must concede that these are the genuine article. Unless NASA landed the rovers in a desert somewhere on Earth and accidentally found trillions of fossils of unknown species (a ridiculous assertion), then these images must come from Mars.
And now you know why I am a firm believer in life on Mars.
Okay, you are correct. I wrote off the top of my head and had only a few moments to respond, and for that brevity I apologize. I realise that this is a lot of material to drop in one lump so I will provide some links that will allow a simple review, including my other evidence that I rather coyly left dangling at the end.
About the age of the Earth and solar system - moon rocks date back to 4.5 billion years, so the solar system has to be at least that old, and the Earth was here before the moon - the collision that took place and formed it had to happen after the formation of the Earth. Meteorites help us date the Earth to 4.54 billion years, and other methods place it between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years.
USGS age of the Earth - http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
The oldest known rock is a zircon crystal and it dates to 4.4 billion years. It was on display as shown in this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7432966/
My feeling, based on all this data taken as a whole (and realize that this is only my opinion, but I think an informed one) is that the Earth had a solid crust by 4.4 billion years. The Mars meteorite ALH-84001 dates to 4.4 billion years also, so it means that Mars had solid crust by then as well, and water! The carbonate globules make that pretty clear. It would appear that geological heat of formation dissipates much more rapidly than first estimated.
The oldest stromatolites are now dated at 3.45 billion years ago.
http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeonto ... eite1.html
Research in Australia indicates that microorganisms with nuclei existed earlier than 3.8 billion years ago! An excellent article here points out some interesting findings about very early life:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Lif ... olites.htm
What this all implies is simple:
1 - Earth and the other planets cooled more rapidly than first thought
2 - liquid water existed on Mars 4.4 billion years ago
3 - Earth appeared to have solid crust 4.4 billion years ago
4 - life extends back further in history than suspected
5 - life may form in just a few million years, but impact events might reset the biological clock many times before the environment stabilizes on a planet (I have a technical article about this, but I am still searching for a web link)
About planetary size distribution:
Asteroid size distribution - Sloan digital sky survey
http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20010 ... .img9.html
Asteroid sizes, distributions, and "space weathering"
http://www.astro.washington.edu/ivezic/ ... cture4.pdf
Google asteroids size distribution and you will find lots of information on this subject.
Do we have direct evidence for other solar systems? Only indirect, from IRAS data showing the size and distribution of Oort cloud material around some stars that we have take infrared measurements of.
The implications are that asteroids follow a pretty simple rule of size distribution, and if you take billions of solar systems as the samples of planetary size, you might expect to see similar numbers due to the fact that planets are made of asteroids and materials orbiting the stars. I have just drawn on this material in that manner.
About life being carried from planet to planet:
Organisms are far tougher than we thought. Surveyor 3 brought this to our attention, and Pete Conrad (Apollo 12 astronaut) thought that this single finding was the most significant thing to come of the whole flight, and bemoaned the fact that nobody would say anything about it. Here is an article detailing the situation in a manner that is, mercifully, concise compared to my recent posts:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... ep98_1.htm
This is a great article about organisms trapped in salt crystals for a quarter of a billion years, but successfully revived today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/978774.stm
Keep in mind that Mars is extremely salty, and so this creates a situation where microorganisms from Mars could easily get trapped in a crevice in a rock, needing only water to emerge millions of years later. It is a sobering thought that we might have living Martian organisms on our planet today.
Here is the information about the ESA'a recent lichen experiment and how they fared in space for two weeks in hard vacuum.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMUJM638FE_index_0.html
http://www.universetoday.com/am/exec/view.cgi/1/2932
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-05zzzzzzzr.html
It is extremely believable to me, given this data, that something might survive a meteoric trip to Earth from Mars- or vice versa. Now consider the following information:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Lichens.htm
Here you find the summary of this information along with the links to Derek Sears' research on liquid water and how it can exist today on Mars.
Now, can organisms from Mars have made it here? I believe so, and Barry DiGregorio, who has worked in cooperation with Dr. Gilbert Levin, sent me an email with information that has been included on this page:
http://xenotechresearch.com/mvarnish1.htm
As some may know, Mr. DiGregorio is the head of the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (at http://www.ICAMSR.org). In another email I received from Dr. Gilbert Levin, he pointed out some interesting facts about what we are seeing today on Mars, and how this research supports much of his work that has been snubbed for 30 years now. It is clear that there is strong evidence that Martian life did exist, and probably does today.
Now, all this having been presented, have a look at this page, and then see for yourself what you think about the implications:
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsgal2.htm
Also, look at these and see what conclusions you can draw.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsrind.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/marscurl.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/shells01.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/Pentobj2.htm
Later analysis shows the last object to be hollow rather than solid. Note the pentagonal symmetry.
Pay close attention to the fact that the images are directly linked back to the original NASA/JPL site, and that there is no way possible for them to be fakes or manipulated. Unless some superhacker cut directly into the feed from Mars, or the deep space network, and replaced the images with fakes, you must concede that these are the genuine article. Unless NASA landed the rovers in a desert somewhere on Earth and accidentally found trillions of fossils of unknown species (a ridiculous assertion), then these images must come from Mars.
And now you know why I am a firm believer in life on Mars.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
-
orin stepanek
- Plutopian
- Posts: 8200
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
- Location: Nebraska
We may already be getting alien bacteria here on Earth.
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue299/labnotes.html
I believe man eventually becomes immune to most bacteria; though some are more harmful than others.
Orin
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue299/labnotes.html
I believe man eventually becomes immune to most bacteria; though some are more harmful than others.
Orin
-
Pete
- Science Officer
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:46 pm
- AKA: Long John LeBone
- Location: Toronto, ON
Re: Links for my assertions, apologies for brevity earlier
Thanks for the post, aichip - lots of info!
I have never heard of observed geyser activity on Mars, nor could I find mention of it online. What is this statement based on?
Regarding the possibility of water on Mars, somebody asked about that here:
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/wate ... liquid.txt
I don't see how this is implied by the information in your links...aichip wrote:What this all implies is simple:
...
5 - life may form in just a few million years, but impact events might reset the biological clock many times before the environment stabilizes on a planet (I have a technical article about this, but I am still searching for a web link)
aichip wrote: It is extremely believable to me, given this data, that something might survive a meteoric trip to Earth from Mars- or vice versa. Now consider the following information:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Lichens.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/Lichens.htm wrote:But even today, geothermal energy inside the planet allows liquid water to erupt in geysers and to produce liquid on the surface for significant periods of time.
I have never heard of observed geyser activity on Mars, nor could I find mention of it online. What is this statement based on?Regarding the possibility of water on Mars, somebody asked about that here:
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/wate ... liquid.txt
Bob from Nasa wrote:[...] there are as many as 90 days in a Martian year where liquid water could be stable. However, it is not continuous in time. Temperature get above freezing only during the day when the sun is high in the sky. Thus, liquid water is potentially stable only for a few hours in the middle of the day.
[...]
water would frequently boil on Mars since the surface pressure never exceeds 12 or 13 mb. To get the saturation vapor pressure of liquid water to equal these pressures only requires a ground temperature of about 283 K, i.e., only about 10 degrees Celsius higher than the melting point. Ground temperatures in excess of 283 K frequently occur on Mars (only during the day) so this greatly limits the amount of time liquid water could be stable.
aichip wrote:Now, can organisms from Mars have made it here? I believe so, and Barry DiGregorio, who has worked in cooperation with Dr. Gilbert Levin, sent me an email with information that has been included on this page:
http://xenotechresearch.com/mvarnish1.htm
This smacks of sensationalism. Desert varnish has been found - no organisms yet! "No non-biological method of creating them is known" does not automatically mean that microbial organisms are at work.http://xenotechresearch.com/mvarnish1.htm wrote:Living Martian Organisms Found
I see grainy images cropped from images of rocky Martian landscapes. To jump to the conclusion that these things are fossils seems like "face-on-Mars" reasoning to me. If only we could send humans over there! They would be able to conduct this kind of analysis so much more efficiently than probes.aichip wrote:Now, all this having been presented, have a look at this page, and then see for yourself what you think about the implications:
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsgal2.htm
Also, look at these and see what conclusions you can draw.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsrind.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/marscurl.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/shells01.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/Pentobj2.htm
What kind of analysis? The POV-Ray render, while nicely done, looks like a bit of a stretch to me, I have to admit:http://xenotechresearch.com/Pentobj2.htm wrote:Later analysis shows the last object to be hollow rather than solid. Note the pentagonal symmetry.
Feelings of "belief" are valuable in science, but only for developing theories that are then tested by looking for evidence. Isn't formal scientific research supposed to be free of "belief", especially in the predominantly observational field of astronomy? An observer's belief and prejudice can deeply influence what he or she sees in data, which can lead to premature or optimistic conclusions.aichip wrote:And now you know why I am a firm believer in life on Mars.
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
Origins of life. I have thought of some means, If you have any other theories please add to it.
1) Life, the basis of life originated from outer space. The ability to DNA duplication was the key. This theory is still in the pipeline.
2) Life began at the base of oceans near warm waters using Hydrogen sulphide in chemosynthesis.
3) Life began near the surface of the oceans away from the damaging ultraviolite light billions of years ago.
4) Life began in shallow pools with interactions of weather.
5) Life began by carbon compunds that where able to duplicate themselves with non organic compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that complex carbon compunds exist in space.
Origins of life. I have thought of some means, If you have any other theories please add to it.
1) Life, the basis of life originated from outer space. The ability to DNA duplication was the key. This theory is still in the pipeline.
2) Life began at the base of oceans near warm waters using Hydrogen sulphide in chemosynthesis.
3) Life began near the surface of the oceans away from the damaging ultraviolite light billions of years ago.
4) Life began in shallow pools with interactions of weather.
5) Life began by carbon compunds that where able to duplicate themselves with non organic compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that complex carbon compunds exist in space.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Trying to stay on topic, but failing miserably
I want to try to stay on topic (Meridiani etc.) but the thread is a complex and interesting one. Let's see if I can do it some justice, and the moderator can decide whether this needs to spawn some new, mutant thread based on my research and speculation. Without the feedback from those tolerant individuals (and their prodding as well) I might not put this together in the same fashion, so let us see if I can rise to the occasion.
FOR PETE:
I wrote:
Pete wrote:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200011/0229.html
There is a wealth of information in those links about the aspects of prebiotic chemistry and how life had to form very rapidly, only to be destroyed perhaps a dozen times from large impact events.
Mars might have had an easier time of it, having less mass and therefore attracting fewer impactors. If the Martian meteorite ALH-84001 is any indicator, life would have been in business in less than 160 million years from the formation of the planet.
Pete wrote:
You see, they get the bulk of their funding through government agencies, or through universities that receive government funding. To attached their names to the work, regardless of how sound, would have been professional suicide. They stood to lose their credibility as well as their funding.
I, on the other hand, am privately funded and I have nothing on the line. I don't have to worry about who it upsets or how the community as a whole takes it. I present my case from an interest in the data, with no worries about financial or educational repercussion. I agree with your skeptical feelings about this because no "authoritative" source has supported it, but I believe that you will be convinced by the following images.
First, I will present a geyser from Opportunity, Sol 122. This looks like a pipe broke underground or somebody left a water hose running in the yard. It is very clear, and a feature that wind cannot create.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsgey2.htm
Next, there is a large field on the edge of Endurance Crater that seems littered with geysers. This particular image is the one that caused such excitement with my geologist contacts, and I was emailed by somebody who had a very similar experience when two geoligists he knows saw it. There is no doubt in their minds that this is a geyser field. Note the locations of the slots beneath the rocks, and how wind cannot "stick a finger" into the soil to do this.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/imo114.htm
Look at this image, at the upper left edge. Follow the track through the soil, which appears to be a mud flow. See how some liquid had to flow to create this feature? The spherules are sorted and clear sand appears in some areas, which in my estimation were cleaned by that flowing liquid.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clr5.jpg
Now, look at this one, and you can see clearly what appears to be mud. Follow the flow lines, note that some spherules are covered with dust and others are very clean. Wind did not selectively clean off some spherules- what would be the mechanism?
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clrc.jpg
The lower flow lines at the point of the V are very dramatic and clear indicators of fluid flow.
In the center of this image, you can see how the remaining liquid flowed back into the slot under this rock slab, and that insight suddenly explains the bizarre appearence of very clean areas and sorted materials. A liquid in motion performed this modification.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clr9.jpg
Now ask yourself, "what created the hollow under this slab?" Certainly not wind! The stone slab is sunken into the soil, and the slot leads deep beneath it. What can move below the stones and soil and create a transport mechanism that removes soil? Water.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o128r67a.jpg
Here is an excellent view in stereo (cross eyed version) showing the details of such a geyser, and it is clearly not a wind formed feature.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgey5.htm
But I have more- and a much better one showing not only the geyser slot under the stone, but also the flow lines of mud from the action of a liquid. Look at this link:
http://xenotechresearch.com/mwater1.htm
Finally, this close up shows what was clearly mud. It is probably long dried by now, but I will tackle that issue directly after this:
http://xenotechresearch.com/o118clr1.jpg
I have hundred of these images, some in full color and stereo (which is particularly striking) showing slots, what appears to be mud, flow lines, and even in some, wet soil. Without truly belaboring the point, I will move on to other, perhaps more convincing evidence.
Here is an image showing what is clearly a wash gully beside this rock. It is in stereo, and you must slightly cross your eyes to resolve it.
http://xenotechresearch.com/O207STP1.JPG
This gully clearly is made in soil washed from the side of this rock. The stereo images proves that this is not just an illusion; it is consistent in three dimensions. You can even see the layering on the side of the rock where the soil washed off.
The color view (not stereo) is here:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O207CLR5.JPG
Now, such a feature is very delicate, and would weather away in short order. Erosion would remove it and that would be the end of it. But how fast is erosion on Mars?
NASA tells us constantly that erosion on Mars is at a standstill; that the landscape is as it was for billions of years. I can absolutely prove otherwise. First, let's look at reason, then the photographic proof.
We know that there are dust storms on Mars, and while we have not seen one with the rovers in over two years, we are constantly told of the dangers and how they scour everything with fine dust and abrasive. We even see dust devils and know that they are moving dust and soil. What about other forces?
If what we are told is true, that erosion really does not take place on Mars today (and has not for geological ages) then we should expect that the rover tracks will remain clean and sharp for ages, as tracks on the Moon would, right? Well, when Opportunity was stuck in Purgatory Dune (the first time), it took a few sols to break free, and when it did, the path they followed was to back out over the existing tracks.
Not exactly, as it happens, but close- and they imaged those tracks with the microscopic imager when they did back out. What did we see?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 56M2M1.JPG
This is the microscopic image of the track! It shows a pattern of erosion that is absolutely identical to that created by raindrops on soil with rocks! Here is an image for comparison:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Soilpeds.jpg
Here is a page showing everything in context:
http://xenotechresearch.com/newice1.htm
In other words, in a matter of a few sols, the tracks were so eroded they were almost unrecognizable, and they show patterns that appear like rain erosion. The spherules are on sand pedestals. Wind cannot create these vertical sand pedestals. This is the first piece of evidence that perhaps geyser spray might have created this erosion.
Here is another piece of evidence that the soil periodically wetted.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsmud.htm
There can be no question that a liquid flowed to create those lines in the sand behind those spherules. The fluid meniscus is the only thing that creates those hollows and curves that flow around the spherules. And note that the soil stuck together and squashed exactly like mud when the rover instruments were pressed to it.
Can I present evidence that the soil is damp now? Absolutely. I have assembled it on this page:
http://xenotechresearch.com/wetnow02.htm
So, damp, coherent soil is present and that is the only way that the wheels can make tracks that are sharp and clear. You can verify this yourself with no more than builders' sand and your hands. You absolutely cannot create a sharp print in bone dry soil. It is physically impossible, and anyone who has ever made a sand castle can verify this.
Given this fact, let's see if I can present images of what appears to be liquid on Mars today. Try this:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O146stc2.jpg
In this full color stereo image, you can clearly see the tracks of a dark material in the soil, identical to the marks made by water spilled on soil. It even runs and breaks into droplet trails!
But images of Bounce Rock show what appears to be damp soil (where it is darker) and three sols later, it is light again! It apparently dried out. Here are the images.
wet margin around Bounce Rock:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O063thma.jpg
Dry margin around Bounce Rock:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Bdrythm1.jpg
I am putting these together now in more resolution side by side for comparison and will post a link when the page goes up.
So there are two (of many) images that I have that show what appears to be water on the soil. I have hundred of images of color and monochrome, stereo and flat, shnowing erosion, geysers, water traces, flow pattern, etc. All of those images are directly linked back to the NASA/JPL site so you can verify any of them.
Here is a page in progress that shows some of those water-related features.
http://xenotechresearch.com/mhydro1.htm
With regards to water on the surface, none address the issue of briny soil. With salts (which are proven to be present) the evaporation and freezing changes radically. And, a thin layer of dust (as well as inter-grain stiction forces) greatly reduces evaporation to the point that mud can persist for days. The work of Derek Sears and others proves this.
As Dr. Levin related to me in a recent email:
In other words, they keep looking for the "salt layer" but it is not there! They will never locate it because the salt is being crystallized on the spot as the soil is churned up! This is a direct consequence of the thin air and warm sunlight.
Pete wrote:
Is it so hard to believe that rock varnish, a very hardy organism, is living on Mars today? Enough seriously scientific people believe that it is credible that there is an international movement to prevent bringing potentially dangerous organisms back to Earth from Mars.
But if organisms are not creating the rock varnish that we have observed on Mars, then we are stuck with the problem of finding another mechanism that produces it and no credible mechanism has yet even been proposed. We have an explanation that makes a lot of sense and is very believeable unless we decide to balk at alien life- for some reason.
Pete wrote:
The problem here is that our vision has to learn how to extract information from the visual field, and that many people are not experienced enough to do it well. It depends strongly on the materials you have been exposed to and are familiar with, and with time your ability to filter out grain and noise improves markedly. Otherwise, trying to see the images can be as frustrating as explained E sharp to a tone deaf person, or the difference between red and green to a colorblind one.
Many times, the "paredolia" phantom is raised, but that is easy to dispense with. I will post a page with greatly enhanced contrast of some of the fossils so that these features can be seen more clearly. I have tended over the last year and a half not to process the images too much, as some people made accusations of fakery. Instead, I have tried to stick to those which can be recognized by the man in the street.
One very clear indicator- pentagonal forms. Regular pentagons occur all the time in biology and never in geology. That is something to keep in mind.
I wrote:
It might be helpful for me to add more information to the site, and this sort of forum often leads me to improve my presentation. This is the most valuable thing that I gain from these postings and the debate. It helps me to test and refine my conclusions, and make a stronger case.
Pete wrote:
Thanks, Pete, for the feedback and questions. That is what debate is all about, and I value those things.
For Harry:
Hello again. You have touched on some very interesting ideas, and probably correct ones.
That life began in space is a common theme for astrobiologists. I see that early solar systems appear to be bioreactors in the sense that the organics form and develop all over the place, but once they settle on planetary surfaces they have the chance to evolve in a more stable environment where resources are common.
Space is loaded with organic molecular clouds, and some coalesce to form stars and planets. This is a clear indication that life's basic building blocks are present throughout the universe. We cannot discount the thought that life is common in space, because if we do, then we have to explain how it came to be here and not there.
After all, the same materials and conditions are present, and to think it only happened here is monumental pride and folly. How do we explain that life could only come to be here, but nowhere else? There is no reasonable answer for this. It smacks of religion rather than science.
Well, I have ranted enough. Let us see where this all goes now.
FOR PETE:
You are very welcome. I enjoy the pursuit and I also enjoy sharing what I have found, as well as a little speculation based on those findings.Thanks for the post, aichip - lots of info!
I wrote:
aichip wrote:
What this all implies is simple:
...
5 - life may form in just a few million years, but impact events might reset the biological clock many times before the environment stabilizes on a planet (I have a technical article about this, but I am still searching for a web link)
Pete wrote:
Agreed, that is why I included the qualifier about locating a web link. I have some papers here that espouse the view clearly enough, but I had no web link. I will post the following which is full of excellent references about the subject:I don't see how this is implied by the information in your links...
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200011/0229.html
There is a wealth of information in those links about the aspects of prebiotic chemistry and how life had to form very rapidly, only to be destroyed perhaps a dozen times from large impact events.
Mars might have had an easier time of it, having less mass and therefore attracting fewer impactors. If the Martian meteorite ALH-84001 is any indicator, life would have been in business in less than 160 million years from the formation of the planet.
Pete wrote:
My work, primarily. I will present some of it here. I had some geologists that I presented some work to identify some of the images as being geyser fields, and they wondered where those geysers were located. I had independently found them looking at various Mars surface images. When I informed them that the images were of Mars, they refused to have their names associated with them.I have never heard of observed geyser activity on Mars, nor could I find mention of it online. What is this statement based on?
You see, they get the bulk of their funding through government agencies, or through universities that receive government funding. To attached their names to the work, regardless of how sound, would have been professional suicide. They stood to lose their credibility as well as their funding.
I, on the other hand, am privately funded and I have nothing on the line. I don't have to worry about who it upsets or how the community as a whole takes it. I present my case from an interest in the data, with no worries about financial or educational repercussion. I agree with your skeptical feelings about this because no "authoritative" source has supported it, but I believe that you will be convinced by the following images.
First, I will present a geyser from Opportunity, Sol 122. This looks like a pipe broke underground or somebody left a water hose running in the yard. It is very clear, and a feature that wind cannot create.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsgey2.htm
Next, there is a large field on the edge of Endurance Crater that seems littered with geysers. This particular image is the one that caused such excitement with my geologist contacts, and I was emailed by somebody who had a very similar experience when two geoligists he knows saw it. There is no doubt in their minds that this is a geyser field. Note the locations of the slots beneath the rocks, and how wind cannot "stick a finger" into the soil to do this.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/imo114.htm
Look at this image, at the upper left edge. Follow the track through the soil, which appears to be a mud flow. See how some liquid had to flow to create this feature? The spherules are sorted and clear sand appears in some areas, which in my estimation were cleaned by that flowing liquid.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clr5.jpg
Now, look at this one, and you can see clearly what appears to be mud. Follow the flow lines, note that some spherules are covered with dust and others are very clean. Wind did not selectively clean off some spherules- what would be the mechanism?
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clrc.jpg
The lower flow lines at the point of the V are very dramatic and clear indicators of fluid flow.
In the center of this image, you can see how the remaining liquid flowed back into the slot under this rock slab, and that insight suddenly explains the bizarre appearence of very clean areas and sorted materials. A liquid in motion performed this modification.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clr9.jpg
Now ask yourself, "what created the hollow under this slab?" Certainly not wind! The stone slab is sunken into the soil, and the slot leads deep beneath it. What can move below the stones and soil and create a transport mechanism that removes soil? Water.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o128r67a.jpg
Here is an excellent view in stereo (cross eyed version) showing the details of such a geyser, and it is clearly not a wind formed feature.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgey5.htm
But I have more- and a much better one showing not only the geyser slot under the stone, but also the flow lines of mud from the action of a liquid. Look at this link:
http://xenotechresearch.com/mwater1.htm
Finally, this close up shows what was clearly mud. It is probably long dried by now, but I will tackle that issue directly after this:
http://xenotechresearch.com/o118clr1.jpg
I have hundred of these images, some in full color and stereo (which is particularly striking) showing slots, what appears to be mud, flow lines, and even in some, wet soil. Without truly belaboring the point, I will move on to other, perhaps more convincing evidence.
Here is an image showing what is clearly a wash gully beside this rock. It is in stereo, and you must slightly cross your eyes to resolve it.
http://xenotechresearch.com/O207STP1.JPG
This gully clearly is made in soil washed from the side of this rock. The stereo images proves that this is not just an illusion; it is consistent in three dimensions. You can even see the layering on the side of the rock where the soil washed off.
The color view (not stereo) is here:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O207CLR5.JPG
Now, such a feature is very delicate, and would weather away in short order. Erosion would remove it and that would be the end of it. But how fast is erosion on Mars?
NASA tells us constantly that erosion on Mars is at a standstill; that the landscape is as it was for billions of years. I can absolutely prove otherwise. First, let's look at reason, then the photographic proof.
We know that there are dust storms on Mars, and while we have not seen one with the rovers in over two years, we are constantly told of the dangers and how they scour everything with fine dust and abrasive. We even see dust devils and know that they are moving dust and soil. What about other forces?
If what we are told is true, that erosion really does not take place on Mars today (and has not for geological ages) then we should expect that the rover tracks will remain clean and sharp for ages, as tracks on the Moon would, right? Well, when Opportunity was stuck in Purgatory Dune (the first time), it took a few sols to break free, and when it did, the path they followed was to back out over the existing tracks.
Not exactly, as it happens, but close- and they imaged those tracks with the microscopic imager when they did back out. What did we see?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 56M2M1.JPG
This is the microscopic image of the track! It shows a pattern of erosion that is absolutely identical to that created by raindrops on soil with rocks! Here is an image for comparison:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Soilpeds.jpg
Here is a page showing everything in context:
http://xenotechresearch.com/newice1.htm
In other words, in a matter of a few sols, the tracks were so eroded they were almost unrecognizable, and they show patterns that appear like rain erosion. The spherules are on sand pedestals. Wind cannot create these vertical sand pedestals. This is the first piece of evidence that perhaps geyser spray might have created this erosion.
Here is another piece of evidence that the soil periodically wetted.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsmud.htm
There can be no question that a liquid flowed to create those lines in the sand behind those spherules. The fluid meniscus is the only thing that creates those hollows and curves that flow around the spherules. And note that the soil stuck together and squashed exactly like mud when the rover instruments were pressed to it.
Can I present evidence that the soil is damp now? Absolutely. I have assembled it on this page:
http://xenotechresearch.com/wetnow02.htm
So, damp, coherent soil is present and that is the only way that the wheels can make tracks that are sharp and clear. You can verify this yourself with no more than builders' sand and your hands. You absolutely cannot create a sharp print in bone dry soil. It is physically impossible, and anyone who has ever made a sand castle can verify this.
Given this fact, let's see if I can present images of what appears to be liquid on Mars today. Try this:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O146stc2.jpg
In this full color stereo image, you can clearly see the tracks of a dark material in the soil, identical to the marks made by water spilled on soil. It even runs and breaks into droplet trails!
But images of Bounce Rock show what appears to be damp soil (where it is darker) and three sols later, it is light again! It apparently dried out. Here are the images.
wet margin around Bounce Rock:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O063thma.jpg
Dry margin around Bounce Rock:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Bdrythm1.jpg
I am putting these together now in more resolution side by side for comparison and will post a link when the page goes up.
So there are two (of many) images that I have that show what appears to be water on the soil. I have hundred of images of color and monochrome, stereo and flat, shnowing erosion, geysers, water traces, flow pattern, etc. All of those images are directly linked back to the NASA/JPL site so you can verify any of them.
Here is a page in progress that shows some of those water-related features.
http://xenotechresearch.com/mhydro1.htm
With regards to water on the surface, none address the issue of briny soil. With salts (which are proven to be present) the evaporation and freezing changes radically. And, a thin layer of dust (as well as inter-grain stiction forces) greatly reduces evaporation to the point that mud can persist for days. The work of Derek Sears and others proves this.
As Dr. Levin related to me in a recent email:
This typifies the blinders that many NASA people seem to be wearing. There is indeed water present on the surface, and the soil appears to beloaded with brine. When the rover wheels kick up the soil, it is suddenly exposed to the thin air and the warmth of the sunlight, and the water quickly evaporates and leaves the sparkling white material (salt crystals) that we see.You may recall that Steve Squyres at one point said he was puzzled by the sparkling objects in the soil that looked like "tiny droplets of water," but qualified that by saying, if so, it would only be brine (as if that were not liquid water!).
In other words, they keep looking for the "salt layer" but it is not there! They will never locate it because the salt is being crystallized on the spot as the soil is churned up! This is a direct consequence of the thin air and warm sunlight.
aichip wrote: http://xenotechresearch.com/mvarnish1.htm
Living Martian Organisms Found
Pete wrote:
Admitted, it is rather sensational, and you are correct. But consider that ALL rock varnish shows the metallogenium and/or pedomicrobium organisms, and that they are producing backwards amino acids. Sounds rather alien to me, as terrestrial life consists of only left handed amino acids, and the right handed versions are often claimed to be signs of alien life if produced by an organism.This smacks of sensationalism. Desert varnish has been found - no organisms yet! "No non-biological method of creating them is known" does not automatically mean that microbial organisms are at work.
Is it so hard to believe that rock varnish, a very hardy organism, is living on Mars today? Enough seriously scientific people believe that it is credible that there is an international movement to prevent bringing potentially dangerous organisms back to Earth from Mars.
But if organisms are not creating the rock varnish that we have observed on Mars, then we are stuck with the problem of finding another mechanism that produces it and no credible mechanism has yet even been proposed. We have an explanation that makes a lot of sense and is very believeable unless we decide to balk at alien life- for some reason.
Pete wrote:
I have run into "I can't see it" enough to know that in many cases, it is poor monitor adjustment that obscures the images. On a properly gamma-adjusted monitor, the results is nothing short of amazing. But some people simply cannot see them. Part of it is purely experience. Our visual systems have to be trained, and this is well known. The military takes all its snipers and special operations candidates through a rigorous course that specifically targets "learning how to see".I see grainy images cropped from images of rocky Martian landscapes. To jump to the conclusion that these things are fossils seems like "face-on-Mars" reasoning to me. If only we could send humans over there! They would be able to conduct this kind of analysis so much more efficiently than probes.
The problem here is that our vision has to learn how to extract information from the visual field, and that many people are not experienced enough to do it well. It depends strongly on the materials you have been exposed to and are familiar with, and with time your ability to filter out grain and noise improves markedly. Otherwise, trying to see the images can be as frustrating as explained E sharp to a tone deaf person, or the difference between red and green to a colorblind one.
Many times, the "paredolia" phantom is raised, but that is easy to dispense with. I will post a page with greatly enhanced contrast of some of the fossils so that these features can be seen more clearly. I have tended over the last year and a half not to process the images too much, as some people made accusations of fakery. Instead, I have tried to stick to those which can be recognized by the man in the street.
One very clear indicator- pentagonal forms. Regular pentagons occur all the time in biology and never in geology. That is something to keep in mind.
I wrote:
Pete wrote:Later analysis shows the last object to be hollow rather than solid. Note the pentagonal symmetry.
I found more images and was able to construct a three dimensional image. It is hollow and five sided. And, look at the hollow pentagon rock directly below it. No question there, that rock is absolutely a hollow pentagon with wafer thin sides. What sort of geology would produce that? And what sort of geology would produce two pentagonal things in that close proximity? Biology, on the other hand, does it regularly.What kind of analysis? The POV-Ray render, while nicely done, looks like a bit of a stretch to me, I have to admit:
It might be helpful for me to add more information to the site, and this sort of forum often leads me to improve my presentation. This is the most valuable thing that I gain from these postings and the debate. It helps me to test and refine my conclusions, and make a stronger case.
Pete wrote:
The point here is that I have a huge body of material that supports my belief, and nothing I have found so far, counters it in any way. I saw something odd, had a suspicion, and looked for more evidence that might confirm or deny it. Everything has fit exactly into place, and none of it violates the laws of physics or chemistry. That is a strong indicator that my conclusions are valid. But I realize that many people cannot believe such a claim until some venerable news anchor puts it on the 6 0'clock news. Oh, well. I cannot worry about that. I am only truly concerned with the evidence.Feelings of "belief" are valuable in science, but only for developing theories that are then tested by looking for evidence. Isn't formal scientific research supposed to be free of "belief", especially in the predominantly observational field of astronomy? An observer's belief and prejudice can deeply influence what he or she sees in data, which can lead to premature or optimistic conclusions.
Thanks, Pete, for the feedback and questions. That is what debate is all about, and I value those things.
For Harry:
Hello again. You have touched on some very interesting ideas, and probably correct ones.
That life began in space is a common theme for astrobiologists. I see that early solar systems appear to be bioreactors in the sense that the organics form and develop all over the place, but once they settle on planetary surfaces they have the chance to evolve in a more stable environment where resources are common.
Space is loaded with organic molecular clouds, and some coalesce to form stars and planets. This is a clear indication that life's basic building blocks are present throughout the universe. We cannot discount the thought that life is common in space, because if we do, then we have to explain how it came to be here and not there.
After all, the same materials and conditions are present, and to think it only happened here is monumental pride and folly. How do we explain that life could only come to be here, but nowhere else? There is no reasonable answer for this. It smacks of religion rather than science.
Well, I have ranted enough. Let us see where this all goes now.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Updates on the hollow pentagon object
I have updated the page on the hollow pentagonal thing, and I have the false color stereo view on the site at the bottom of the page. I also updated the POVray model to reflect the true shape of the object.
NASA did not release any higher resolution images of these things, and that is something that might have answered some questions.
http://xenotechresearch.com/pentobj2.htm
Thanks, Harry. I will continue to gather information and keep it updated.
NASA did not release any higher resolution images of these things, and that is something that might have answered some questions.
http://xenotechresearch.com/pentobj2.htm
Thanks, Harry. I will continue to gather information and keep it updated.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III