Look at new Opportunity Pancam image:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...34P2536L6M1.JPG
Middle-Left you can see:
A Martian Marble sitting on a "Stem".
It's very clear by the shadow the thing is casting.
Wow !
Full Version: Marble On Stem
Not totally unexpected feature - especially with the main erosion being wind. The ball will have cast a 'wind shadow' where erosion couldnt take place, which has left it where it is.
Facinating little feature though - like a tiny version of some of the huge erosion feature you sometimes see in the rocky deserts of the US
Doug
Facinating little feature though - like a tiny version of some of the huge erosion feature you sometimes see in the rocky deserts of the US
Doug
I can see several similar "marbles with stems" in this picture.
Gentlemen, these are life forms.
Gentlemen, these are life forms.
Yeah,
wind blown erosion is an option.
Biology another.
I would then expect the stem to be wider closer to the marble for wind blown action. (wind shadow should be more efficent there)
A microscopic image of the junction between marble and stem would help.
I wonder if some NASA guys sometimes visit the web...
If I were NASA I would spend a couple of days just taking MI images of sites that just "look interesting". (kind of sightseeing)
Sometimes you get the best results when you don't even expect them...
But I bet every single step they do has be be justified in terms of "hard science".
And that excludes past or present macroscopic life. :-(
Well, the water story they came up with was great nevertheless.
Rocks formed in large body of water...WOW !!!
wind blown erosion is an option.
Biology another.
I would then expect the stem to be wider closer to the marble for wind blown action. (wind shadow should be more efficent there)
A microscopic image of the junction between marble and stem would help.
I wonder if some NASA guys sometimes visit the web...
If I were NASA I would spend a couple of days just taking MI images of sites that just "look interesting". (kind of sightseeing)
Sometimes you get the best results when you don't even expect them...
But I bet every single step they do has be be justified in terms of "hard science".
And that excludes past or present macroscopic life. :-(
Well, the water story they came up with was great nevertheless.
Rocks formed in large body of water...WOW !!!
You seem to think that they'd avoid any chance of finding life. Believe me, nothing would interest the scientists more - and nothing would guarentee funding of missions in the future better than that.
I'd rather they got on with the mission in hand, and not waste time - astonishing valuable as it is - on inspecting statistically probable odd features.
And they didnt ' come up with a story '
They presented findings from scientific investigation.
Doug
I'd rather they got on with the mission in hand, and not waste time - astonishing valuable as it is - on inspecting statistically probable odd features.
And they didnt ' come up with a story '
They presented findings from scientific investigation.
Doug
Sorry for my misleading statement "came up with a story". I'm not a native english speaker and didn't want to play the data down.
In fact I'm very impressed by the data.
What is your opinion about it ?
What does it mean for the blueberries ?
I heard that meteoritic impact and vulcanic eruption are much less likely now.
Are we left with the concretions or fossils/lifeforms hypothesis ?
In fact I'm very impressed by the data.
What is your opinion about it ?
What does it mean for the blueberries ?
I heard that meteoritic impact and vulcanic eruption are much less likely now.
Are we left with the concretions or fossils/lifeforms hypothesis ?
"You seem to think that they'd avoid any chance of finding life. Believe me, nothing would interest the scientists more - and nothing would guarentee funding of missions in the future better than that."
You again totally misinterpreted me. I totally agree with the above.
I just don't think that they are allowed to hunt after the "fossil" hypothesis.
They have to justify each of their steps and that puts some limitations on their options.
You again totally misinterpreted me. I totally agree with the above.
I just don't think that they are allowed to hunt after the "fossil" hypothesis.
They have to justify each of their steps and that puts some limitations on their options.
It has nothing to do with being "allowed" or not. Fossil-hunting simply isn't even practical nor does it make sense with the equipment on the rovers. Should they keep "rat"-ting down the entire outcrop in a vain hope of finding something? It would take forever, and wear down the tools until thry are useless, or the rovers lifespan is used up.
It makes much more sense for the rovers to learn as much as they can about the sediments, and then leave any future fossil hunting for future missions or sample returns - if it makes sense at that point.
These rovers have no organic compound detection ability, and looking for life is not its mission. But you can be sure that if they actually happen to find something, we will know about it.
It makes much more sense for the rovers to learn as much as they can about the sediments, and then leave any future fossil hunting for future missions or sample returns - if it makes sense at that point.
These rovers have no organic compound detection ability, and looking for life is not its mission. But you can be sure that if they actually happen to find something, we will know about it.
It certanly wouldn't make sense to try to dig around löike mad.
Well, the they have found these marbles, and some of them show features that look very biotic to me. (I'm not telling they are biotic)
I would make more use of the MI to get better statistics of these marbles and their morphologies.
I have only seen round about 10 - 15 of them in micrographs so far.
And if these once was the bottom of a body of standing water doing more micrographs of the soil would make sense to look for microfossils.
Well, the they have found these marbles, and some of them show features that look very biotic to me. (I'm not telling they are biotic)
I would make more use of the MI to get better statistics of these marbles and their morphologies.
I have only seen round about 10 - 15 of them in micrographs so far.
And if these once was the bottom of a body of standing water doing more micrographs of the soil would make sense to look for microfossils.
First up...dj, great forum, great images. Thanks!
Onto the the blueberries/marbles/spherules. There is no shortage of oddly-eroded spherules for the rovers to check out. Indeed, many have been photographed already, some of them in great detail. The primary concern has become "what are they actually made of?" While pictures help, they need more to answer that.
The plan, after investigating more of the layered rocks, is to travel to a small depression (the "Blueberry Bowl") on the far side of the outcrop where a number of spherules have rolled together. There, Opportunity will use the MI and spectrometers in what promises to be the most efficient way of gathering a large amount of data about them.
Then, with the primary mission past its halfway point, and the (might I say) dazzling and tantalizing Endurance Crater laying two weeks to the east...it's onward ho!
The primary mission is to look for evidence of water and, now having found it, to determine exactly what form of water (groundwater? sea?) and how long it might have been there. Opportunity is making extensive use of the MI. Should it happen to find a fossil, GREAT!, but the rovers have very limited ability to methodically hunt for them. (Indeed, interesting bits are seen in some MI shots...though I think some of the speculation I've seen elsewhere is a bit premature.)
You can place your money, however, that future missions will return to this area specifically designed to look for fossils or even life itself.
Eric
Onto the the blueberries/marbles/spherules. There is no shortage of oddly-eroded spherules for the rovers to check out. Indeed, many have been photographed already, some of them in great detail. The primary concern has become "what are they actually made of?" While pictures help, they need more to answer that.
The plan, after investigating more of the layered rocks, is to travel to a small depression (the "Blueberry Bowl") on the far side of the outcrop where a number of spherules have rolled together. There, Opportunity will use the MI and spectrometers in what promises to be the most efficient way of gathering a large amount of data about them.
Then, with the primary mission past its halfway point, and the (might I say) dazzling and tantalizing Endurance Crater laying two weeks to the east...it's onward ho!
The primary mission is to look for evidence of water and, now having found it, to determine exactly what form of water (groundwater? sea?) and how long it might have been there. Opportunity is making extensive use of the MI. Should it happen to find a fossil, GREAT!, but the rovers have very limited ability to methodically hunt for them. (Indeed, interesting bits are seen in some MI shots...though I think some of the speculation I've seen elsewhere is a bit premature.)
You can place your money, however, that future missions will return to this area specifically designed to look for fossils or even life itself.
Eric
Thanks
Of course, we never know what is over the next hill as it were - but I'd be very confident of a future MSR mission visiting the Challenger station - there is too much to be learnt from that outcrop.
Of course, the far side of the Eastern Crater seems to have a quite ENORMOUS outcrop, that will dwaft the current one, and the rover. Will be the most stunning sight I am sure
Doug
Of course, we never know what is over the next hill as it were - but I'd be very confident of a future MSR mission visiting the Challenger station - there is too much to be learnt from that outcrop.
Of course, the far side of the Eastern Crater seems to have a quite ENORMOUS outcrop, that will dwaft the current one, and the rover. Will be the most stunning sight I am sure
Doug
Have you seen the "rotini" picture
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/oppo...asa_040301.html
?
If you look closely, you can see several "rotini" like structures that remind me of sea anenome or shells.
Of course, no scientist is going to risk his/her reputation by declaring any such features to be fossils unless there is cast iron evidence, but its great to look at these pix from an armchair and speculate and dream!
I think the brilliant success of these missions is a compelling argument against sending a manned mission to Mars. These robots are true extensions of mankind. The internet culture and the great excitement generated amongst millions of surfers who watch these pictures and spectographs as they come in make the fact that the work is being done by a machine, rather than some guy, irrelevant. A manned mission would cost at least 200 times as much, would be v. hazardous and can't happen for another 25-30 years, by which time i'll be dead or senile!
More importantly, the danger of bio-contamination by a manned mission, that could mask any slight chemical traces of ancient life, is v. real. We don't wanna have some some guy from Iowa or Hong Kong coughing and peeing on Martian microfossils.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/oppo...asa_040301.html
?
If you look closely, you can see several "rotini" like structures that remind me of sea anenome or shells.
Of course, no scientist is going to risk his/her reputation by declaring any such features to be fossils unless there is cast iron evidence, but its great to look at these pix from an armchair and speculate and dream!
I think the brilliant success of these missions is a compelling argument against sending a manned mission to Mars. These robots are true extensions of mankind. The internet culture and the great excitement generated amongst millions of surfers who watch these pictures and spectographs as they come in make the fact that the work is being done by a machine, rather than some guy, irrelevant. A manned mission would cost at least 200 times as much, would be v. hazardous and can't happen for another 25-30 years, by which time i'll be dead or senile!
More importantly, the danger of bio-contamination by a manned mission, that could mask any slight chemical traces of ancient life, is v. real. We don't wanna have some some guy from Iowa or Hong Kong coughing and peeing on Martian microfossils.
QUOTE
I think the brilliant success of these missions is a compelling argument against sending a manned mission to Mars. These robots are true extensions of mankind.
I agree, these missions have been amazing, but I still think there is a place for manned mars missions. There are so many things that humans can do better.
I think the real lesson from these missions is that all future landers need to be mobile. If Opportunity wasn't a rover, all of its instruments would of been almost useless. Being able to move is essential.
The Phoenix lander in 2007 wont be mobile. Even though it doesn't have to be for its mission, I think it would be a lot better if it was mobile. While the results from Phoenix will be interesting and exciting, I don't think it will be nearly as exciting as the rovers. Looking forward to MSL in 2009.
Well - of course, Phoenix is just the 2001 lander with the rover ripped off an a different instrument bolted on.
After Rover-mania -it' will be a very dissapointing mission for the public. No roving, image quality not as good.
GOod science all the same though
Doug
After Rover-mania -it' will be a very dissapointing mission for the public. No roving, image quality not as good.
GOod science all the same though
Doug
I've posted a zoomed crop of another and better view of this "stemmed spherule" from Sol 37. This is more of a nice side view, with the "stem" and associated shadow clearly seen:
Original:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...18P2392L7M1.JPG
I've also posted crops of two other possible ones, from Sols 16 and 34, one seemingly sticking up from the soil in the outcrop and another "extension" from one of the spherules sliced by the rover:
http://www3.telus.net/paulanderson/mer.html
No specific claims here, just think it warrants looking at!
Original:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...18P2392L7M1.JPG
I've also posted crops of two other possible ones, from Sols 16 and 34, one seemingly sticking up from the soil in the outcrop and another "extension" from one of the spherules sliced by the rover:
http://www3.telus.net/paulanderson/mer.html
No specific claims here, just think it warrants looking at!
I've been percolating on these spherules for a while now, and while trying to fathom how they could have formed, I have to keep reminding myself that conditions on the surface are a lot different than here on Earth. We base many the theories we formulate on what we can relate to here on Earth.
For example, we don't get to experience many major meteor strikes. Especially meteor strikes significant enough to impart enough energy to splash and/or spray molten rock around. Nor did any of the rare examples of energetic strikes occur in in very, very cold and thin atmosphereic conditions. I'm just itching for someone to melt a bucket of rocks and fire a gun into it into a deep freeze. Or drop the molten juice from a very high-flying aircraft where it is cold and the droplets have a chance to "freeze" in a thin, cold atmosphere. What would the resulting spray/ejecta look like? Would the droplets freeze into a spherical shape? If its syrupy, would some of the droplets have a trailing "stem"? Would many of the "stems" break off on contact or erode more quickly, except the ones that happened to "spear" their way into some salty sludge where they got preserved?
Also, we ARE looking in a crater where the things we are looking at have been traumatized by another lesser meteor strike. What of what we are looking at is a result of that event, and what is a result of other processes and/or events?
Don't get me wrong. I would like nothing more than for these spherules to have been (or be!) alive. I just suspect we don't really have much experience with microscopic geologic physical processes under the conditions on Mars where gravity is much less, temperatures are much colder, and the atmosphere is much thinner. Things WILL act differently.
We don't even know what is common and what is rare because we don't have the experience. Yet. So many questions. So few answers.
For example, we don't get to experience many major meteor strikes. Especially meteor strikes significant enough to impart enough energy to splash and/or spray molten rock around. Nor did any of the rare examples of energetic strikes occur in in very, very cold and thin atmosphereic conditions. I'm just itching for someone to melt a bucket of rocks and fire a gun into it into a deep freeze. Or drop the molten juice from a very high-flying aircraft where it is cold and the droplets have a chance to "freeze" in a thin, cold atmosphere. What would the resulting spray/ejecta look like? Would the droplets freeze into a spherical shape? If its syrupy, would some of the droplets have a trailing "stem"? Would many of the "stems" break off on contact or erode more quickly, except the ones that happened to "spear" their way into some salty sludge where they got preserved?
Also, we ARE looking in a crater where the things we are looking at have been traumatized by another lesser meteor strike. What of what we are looking at is a result of that event, and what is a result of other processes and/or events?
Don't get me wrong. I would like nothing more than for these spherules to have been (or be!) alive. I just suspect we don't really have much experience with microscopic geologic physical processes under the conditions on Mars where gravity is much less, temperatures are much colder, and the atmosphere is much thinner. Things WILL act differently.
We don't even know what is common and what is rare because we don't have the experience. Yet. So many questions. So few answers.
NASA thinks that both Meteor Strike and Vulcanism are not the cause of both, the spheres and the outcrop itself.
All the evidence is here:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/pre.../20040302a.html
So the only good explanation left is that the spheres are concretions...and (just my opinion) fossils/lifeforms. I think NASA is also cosidering that possiblity, but can't tell it to the public. The media hype would blow them away and they won't take the L... word into their moth before they have conclusive evidence. That may never be reached during the actual mission...
...but this is amazing stuff anyway...more that I ever dreamt of...
All the evidence is here:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/pre.../20040302a.html
So the only good explanation left is that the spheres are concretions...and (just my opinion) fossils/lifeforms. I think NASA is also cosidering that possiblity, but can't tell it to the public. The media hype would blow them away and they won't take the L... word into their moth before they have conclusive evidence. That may never be reached during the actual mission...
...but this is amazing stuff anyway...more that I ever dreamt of...
http://www.aboh44.ukgateway.net/gallery/jordan4.html
Here is a pic of natural salt concretions in the Dead Sea on Earth. They occur as clumps as shown in pic or as rough-surfaced spheres that roll around on the sea bottom. The waters of the Dead Sea are super saturated with mainly sodium salts and phosphates. It could be that a sea on Mars would have left similar concretions as it dried up.
Here is a link to another pic of salt columns on the Dead Sea shoreline. They have been weathered into weird shapes by wind and rain erosion. I can't recall seeing any neat stems like in the Mars pic.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~shand/images/Salt_pillar_high.JPG
Here is a pic of natural salt concretions in the Dead Sea on Earth. They occur as clumps as shown in pic or as rough-surfaced spheres that roll around on the sea bottom. The waters of the Dead Sea are super saturated with mainly sodium salts and phosphates. It could be that a sea on Mars would have left similar concretions as it dried up.
Here is a link to another pic of salt columns on the Dead Sea shoreline. They have been weathered into weird shapes by wind and rain erosion. I can't recall seeing any neat stems like in the Mars pic.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~shand/images/Salt_pillar_high.JPG
That doesn't even come close to the marbles...well for the outcrop itself...there is a slight similarity.
I've been to the dead sea, and it just looks like it's full of Icebergs. Nothing like rock at all - it's just salt.
Doug
Doug
Look at the attached image "shell_structures". This is part of a NASA image
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...42P2375L7M1.jpg
(colored version is at http://www.keithlaney.com/OCI/O7.jpg ).
Is it just me or do I see indications of shell like, hollow structures ? (look at the shadows that indicate hollow structure (yellow arrows) ?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...42P2375L7M1.jpg
(colored version is at http://www.keithlaney.com/OCI/O7.jpg ).
Is it just me or do I see indications of shell like, hollow structures ? (look at the shadows that indicate hollow structure (yellow arrows) ?
I think that the "hollow" effect is a very common optical illusion in these types of shots. It's easy to get craters to look convex or concave in many MOC photos. Even the glorious ME shot of the Olympus Mons caldera, the largest known volcano in the solar system, is easily visualized as a hole in the ground!
What intrigues me about these shots of ground is the splotchy, thin surface coloring. Not sure if it might be a trick of light and shadow, but here is a close-up:
A single-celled organism might produce an effect like that. We know there is water near the surface at Meridiani and there is sunlight in this one of the warmest places on Mars, in an area that may have been inundated at one time.
What intrigues me about these shots of ground is the splotchy, thin surface coloring. Not sure if it might be a trick of light and shadow, but here is a close-up:
A single-celled organism might produce an effect like that. We know there is water near the surface at Meridiani and there is sunlight in this one of the warmest places on Mars, in an area that may have been inundated at one time.
Huh..the color didn't came through.
This looks much too red.
Regarding the hollow structure.
There can be an optical illusion if there is only one feature to judge.
But I think in this case the situation is very clear.
There are lots of "normal" spheres and at least two hollow ones.
(See yellow arrow in ATTACHED image at very bottom of post !!!)
This looks much too red.
Regarding the hollow structure.
There can be an optical illusion if there is only one feature to judge.
But I think in this case the situation is very clear.
There are lots of "normal" spheres and at least two hollow ones.
(See yellow arrow in ATTACHED image at very bottom of post !!!)
Here is the attached image again.
There appears to be several spherules in the dirt there that have been split in half (or near half) - perhaps due to thermal stresses? I think those "shell" or "hollow" spherules are just split spherules that happened to split concave or convex, and then the sand has partially covered them.
Very interesting indeed.
Seems that we have a couple of new interesting marbles in the newest images:
1. A flattened type (like a sphere deformed from pressure from one or two sites)
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...44P2933M2M1.JPG
2. A marble with a "leaf like" substructure
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...44P2953M2M1.JPG
(upper-left)
Does it point toward any haypothesis or against any hypothesis ?
Any explanations ? New Hypothesis ?
All I can say is "strange, strange, strange..." but that means nothing...
The "leaf" looks particular starange, doesn't it ?
Seems that we have a couple of new interesting marbles in the newest images:
1. A flattened type (like a sphere deformed from pressure from one or two sites)
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...44P2933M2M1.JPG
2. A marble with a "leaf like" substructure
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...44P2953M2M1.JPG
(upper-left)
Does it point toward any haypothesis or against any hypothesis ?
Any explanations ? New Hypothesis ?
All I can say is "strange, strange, strange..." but that means nothing...
The "leaf" looks particular starange, doesn't it ?
Leaf like?
You mean the one that's split in two?
Some people have very active imaginations w.r.t. describing things
DOug
You mean the one that's split in two?
Some people have very active imaginations w.r.t. describing things
DOug
Where do you see two ( one split in two ) ? I only see one with a "disk like" appendage (if you like that term more than "leaf").
wow !....
Look at that new one...at
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...74P2952M2M1.JPG
It looks like (JUST SPECULATION !!!) the big "thing" has two "channels" connecting it to one of the marbles.
The lower left marble shows bifurcation (mirror symetry) again....
wow !....
Look at that new one...at
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...74P2952M2M1.JPG
It looks like (JUST SPECULATION !!!) the big "thing" has two "channels" connecting it to one of the marbles.
The lower left marble shows bifurcation (mirror symetry) again....
QUOTE (chaosman @ Mar 9 2004, 12:39 PM)
Where do you see two ( one split in two ) ? I only see one with a "disk like" appendage (if you like that term more than "leaf").
.
.
Sorry - I had the two mixed up. I cant see ANYTHING even slightly leaflike in the one you actually mean. I thought the one thats been split in two was what you were describing as leaf like (not that I would have thought as much myself)
I cant see any relation between the projected disk, and a leaf.
Oh - hang on. Now I get what you mean. Nahh - doesnt look like a leaf
Doug
Well O.K.: Lets say "disc like feature".
But "projected disc" ???
What do you mean ?
I'm not longer sure we are talking about the same feature...what a pity :-(
But "projected disc" ???
What do you mean ?
I'm not longer sure we are talking about the same feature...what a pity :-(
A pretty good summary/discussion of the "biologic origin for marbles" topic can be found here:
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mars/
I do not agree in everything discussed there and have found some additional evidence (e.g. a subtle mirror symetry) but I think it's a pretty good summary for everyone new to the topic.
Neither I nor the site above state to have found "THE PROOF".
But I think a lot of evidence has been collected in the images.
But see for yourself and judge for yourself.
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mars/
I do not agree in everything discussed there and have found some additional evidence (e.g. a subtle mirror symetry) but I think it's a pretty good summary for everyone new to the topic.
Neither I nor the site above state to have found "THE PROOF".
But I think a lot of evidence has been collected in the images.
But see for yourself and judge for yourself.
This is cross-posted from another forum I have participated in concerning the spherule mystery...
I have refined my theory on the blueberries. The more I think about it, the more I think this "globules from below" theory is the most viable explanation. Biology may or may not be involved, but I don't think the globules are themselves living entities.
As the salton sea evaporated, and the water/brine got thicker and denser, (and colder?) a crust of minerals formed on top of the water. There was darker gooey mud on the bottom of the body of water (probably pretty shallow by now) that, consisting of now fresher water, and material that was lighter (masswise) than the liquid but highly concentrated brine mixture above it. This caused globules of darker muddy goop on the bottom to begin separating and rising toward the top, many trailing a string of goop with them.
When they reached the bottom side of the crust where crystals were forming, they lodged there, sometimes in softer stuff, trapping globule and trailer. Sometimes they lodged up against crystals. The indentations on the sides of the soft blueberries are due to this lodging against a crystalline underside. Sometimes, the bottom globules lodged up against a flat side of a crystal, and before the hardening process occurred, they flattened on one side. Some hit areas where the shape was basically unaffected.
Over time as crystalline mush grew thicker and thicker, encircling the globules closer to the surface and catching new globules at the descending crystalline surface on the underside.
As for what the meteor strike did, probably nothing more than fracture the already hardened layer we now see, and freeing a few blueberries from their crystalline prisons to be with their cousins that have eroded out of the top of the crust.
I'll leave the composition of the crust and berries up to geologists, chemists, and (hopefully?) biologists who have a much better clue about what these materials might be.
Perhaps? Does this scenario seem reasonable?
I have refined my theory on the blueberries. The more I think about it, the more I think this "globules from below" theory is the most viable explanation. Biology may or may not be involved, but I don't think the globules are themselves living entities.
As the salton sea evaporated, and the water/brine got thicker and denser, (and colder?) a crust of minerals formed on top of the water. There was darker gooey mud on the bottom of the body of water (probably pretty shallow by now) that, consisting of now fresher water, and material that was lighter (masswise) than the liquid but highly concentrated brine mixture above it. This caused globules of darker muddy goop on the bottom to begin separating and rising toward the top, many trailing a string of goop with them.
When they reached the bottom side of the crust where crystals were forming, they lodged there, sometimes in softer stuff, trapping globule and trailer. Sometimes they lodged up against crystals. The indentations on the sides of the soft blueberries are due to this lodging against a crystalline underside. Sometimes, the bottom globules lodged up against a flat side of a crystal, and before the hardening process occurred, they flattened on one side. Some hit areas where the shape was basically unaffected.
Over time as crystalline mush grew thicker and thicker, encircling the globules closer to the surface and catching new globules at the descending crystalline surface on the underside.
As for what the meteor strike did, probably nothing more than fracture the already hardened layer we now see, and freeing a few blueberries from their crystalline prisons to be with their cousins that have eroded out of the top of the crust.
I'll leave the composition of the crust and berries up to geologists, chemists, and (hopefully?) biologists who have a much better clue about what these materials might be.
Perhaps? Does this scenario seem reasonable?
hmmm...that is...well...it seems a little bit "constructed" to me...but of course can't be ruled out...
I'm not a geologist...I'm a molecular biologist...
I would say:
They look biologic in origin ... so maybe the easiest way to to describe their origin is to think about a biologic origin...I have no problem with that option.
But as I already stated: I can't rule out your explanation.
I'm not a geologist...I'm a molecular biologist...
I would say:
They look biologic in origin ... so maybe the easiest way to to describe their origin is to think about a biologic origin...I have no problem with that option.
But as I already stated: I can't rule out your explanation.
Well I'm not against finding life on Mars, I would love for it to be there. I just think that when you add up the odds for life evolving at all on Mars (volatile subject I know) + unknown and fairly obviously shorter time window for it to have evolved + discounting our human aching desire for there to be life there + very different physical processes existing on Mars (cold, gravity, mineral profile, atmosphere profile), it just seems to me that its far more likely for us to encounter uncommon/unknown physical processes than life itself. In the grand scheme of the universe, I'm sure life "happened" elsewhere countless times. But I also feel that life doesn't happen often enough to pop up everywhere, in this case, virtually next door. Statistically, I think we're in for a disappointment when we are expecting evidence of life to be anything we can't explain. I feel it's much more prudent and easy to rule out physical processes than to prove life. We can reproduce all manner of conditions in labs and test physical theories. But it's gonna be exceedingly difficult to prove life.
I would bet my own improbable life that there are no sponges, grasses, segmented worms, crustaceans, or *anything* like life here on Earth except perhaps microbial life, yet reasonably knowledgeable people are spotting and identifying all those very things. All manner of experts and quasi-experts are declaring evidence of lifeforms.
I think we've all got a strong innate desire to feel we're not alone. We have to be sure we follow the straight and narrow scientific path and resist the temptation to veer toward that tempting feeling that this or that is a critter of some kind. You can pretty safely do that on Earth, where life has crawled into every nook and cranny.
It's far more likely to me that the spherules were borne of a relatively simple set of physical circumstances we don't yet know of than to have been the result of the complex circumstances it takes to begat life - especially in the kind of volume we are witnessing with the spherules.
I would bet my own improbable life that there are no sponges, grasses, segmented worms, crustaceans, or *anything* like life here on Earth except perhaps microbial life, yet reasonably knowledgeable people are spotting and identifying all those very things. All manner of experts and quasi-experts are declaring evidence of lifeforms.
I think we've all got a strong innate desire to feel we're not alone. We have to be sure we follow the straight and narrow scientific path and resist the temptation to veer toward that tempting feeling that this or that is a critter of some kind. You can pretty safely do that on Earth, where life has crawled into every nook and cranny.
It's far more likely to me that the spherules were borne of a relatively simple set of physical circumstances we don't yet know of than to have been the result of the complex circumstances it takes to begat life - especially in the kind of volume we are witnessing with the spherules.
I've not seen anything that would suggest biology at all - but plenty of things that can form geologically.
Doug
Doug
Oh, and by the way, the odds that the spherules actually formed exactly according to my theory are certainly slim. Although I feel "globules from below" is correct, the mechanisim that formed them could be any number of processes.
I guess it seems "constructed" because I singled out a single possible scenario involving fresh/salt water density mismatch, and even plausibly covered a couple of "yeah but..." issues. It could have been thermal differences due to geothermal heat from below or solar energy filtering through the lighter crust onto the darker muddy ground below. Or something else. No way to know that just yet.
The point is that there are relatively plausible physical possibilities that I feel we are overlooking in our zeal to find bretheren life on Mars.
I guess it seems "constructed" because I singled out a single possible scenario involving fresh/salt water density mismatch, and even plausibly covered a couple of "yeah but..." issues. It could have been thermal differences due to geothermal heat from below or solar energy filtering through the lighter crust onto the darker muddy ground below. Or something else. No way to know that just yet.
The point is that there are relatively plausible physical possibilities that I feel we are overlooking in our zeal to find bretheren life on Mars.
QUOTE
I'm sure life "happened" elsewhere countless times. But I also feel that life doesn't happen often enough to pop up everywhere, in this case, virtually next door. Statistically, I think we're in for a disappointment when we are expecting evidence of life to be anything we can't explain.
I agree completely with this statament.
Well nobody knows about the probability that life can develop or under what conditons it can develop or waht kinds of life could evolve.
It could be nearly everywhere or nowhere except earth.
We just have to keep searching....
It could be nearly everywhere or nowhere except earth.
We just have to keep searching....
Here's a 3D anaglyph of the "marble stem": (lower left)
This is a great discussion. In the absence of definite evidence, we're just gonna have to enjoy the tension of not knowing and wondering what Oppertunity might show us in the next photo or in the next crater.
There really are so many unknowns surrounding the origin of life and the speed at which it evolves that the questions as to whether there is/was life on Mars or what level of development it might have reached can only e resolved thru exploration.
There really are so many unknowns surrounding the origin of life and the speed at which it evolves that the questions as to whether there is/was life on Mars or what level of development it might have reached can only e resolved thru exploration.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.