I've May Have Solved the Mystery......The Spheres Are Sponge Gemmules!!

"Chosp" wrote in message news:sDe_b.12651$7k3.10078@fed1read01...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...


This explains everything we see.

Guess again.

I haven't the time to document it
better, but the most recent micro images from mars shows a
coating on the rocks that could be a decomposing sponge and
its gemmules.


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EFF0454P2953M2
M1.HTML


Please note that the gemmules you referred to
are on the order of 400-500 microns in diameter.
The spherules on Mars are closer to the size of BBs.


Why are males so obsessed with the size of things~

A basic tenet of complexity theory, of self organizing
systems, of fractal geometry, of chaos theory is that
self organized systems are self-similar across scale.
Size is not terribly relevant. I would expect much smaller
versions of the spheres are to be found. Certainly we've
already seen a spicule or two, those threads Nasa
calls airbag fibers!




Jonathan

s




Once again, your superficiality leads you.

"jonathan" wrote in message
news

A testable prediction if I'm correct.

As Opportunity travels away from the crater
the number of spheres will evenly dissipate. As their
distribution is from floating away from the
outcrop/reef.


We'll see........


Jonathan


ps...what will I win~

Win what? That the images look similar
to a reef structure?
You can't win. You're not the first.
The suggestion of the exposed outcrop being
a fossilized reef structure has been mentioned
in various newsgroups before you showed
up here. In a thread about the improbability of finding
fossils on Mars (or anywhere) by just landing in one
spot and looking around, I argued that if the landers
had landed in the Guadalupe range in northern Texas
(in which, Carlsbad caverns are located - as is El
Capitan, the namesake of rock currently being studied
in the Meridiani crater) they would have been able to
discern unquestionably that they had landed on a fossil
reef. The entire Guadalupe range is just the exposed part
of an enormous buried fossilized reef structure that is also
exposed in various other parts of Texas.

You are not the first to suggest similarities to possible
reef structures. However, no one else has discussed
it quite so superficially as you.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Let me try to defend this idea in another way. In complexity
science the concept is to use global and cyclic patterns
of outward behavior in order to determine the state of
the components. This, imo, is a far more efficient and
simpler way of problem solving real world systems.

Just one reason this is so is due to the fact that outward
global system patterns are easy to observe, often with
the naked eye and a quick glance.

Superficiality rules.

When two or more global patterns exist in the same system
the possible search space for a solution quickly
dwindles.

The two patterns at play at the Rover sites are the
shape of the spheres, and the environmental context.

Size of the spheres is just as important.
The gemmules referred to previously are over ten times smaller
than the spherules found on Mars. They are closer in size
to the smallest grains visible in the Mars images.
Far more important to understanding is finding out what
the spherules are actually made of. If they are basalt,
that changes our view of their origin, regardless of their
superficial appearance.
Don't you think?

Form and context. When they coincide to another established
system the conclusion is that the system specific components
also have similar...behavioral... characteristics.

May have. Not must have.
One could just as well conclude that whales must be fish
because of their superficial similarities.


The site is chosen for its likelihood of a marine environment
....context. Spheres of a very similar shape on earth form
in just such an environment.

And in a variety of other environments. Even non-aqueous
ones.


The specific details can be worked out...later..by all those
clerks in all those counting rooms. For me it's time to move
on to the next question/goal.

You are so full of yourself.
Not having answered a single question, nor demonstrated
a single well thought-out conclusion -
you move on, obliviously.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Why are males so obsessed with the size of things~

Is your name not Jonathan?
Are you hiding something?

A basic tenet of complexity theory, of self organizing
systems, of fractal geometry, of chaos theory is that
self organized systems are self-similar across scale.
Size is not terribly relevant. I would expect much smaller
versions of the spheres are to be found.

Then, for the very same reasons, you should find them
much larger as well. If size is really not relevant, one might
equally expect to see the spherules several feet in diameter.
Why don't we? Do we find gemmules on earth the size of BBs?
The size of basketballs? Why not?

Certainly we've
already seen a spicule or two, those threads Nasa
calls airbag fibers!

More of you purely speculative "certainty" again.

February 22, 2004

Chosp wrote:


Win what? That the images look similar
to a reef structure?
You can't win. You're not the first.
The suggestion of the exposed outcrop being
a fossilized reef structure has been mentioned
in various newsgroups before you showed
up here.

No, but he is clearly the first to use the term 'gemmule' to describe
Martian 'spherules'.

I checked. He clearly gets priority, unless he is willing to pass it on.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

February 22, 2004

Chosp wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Let me try to defend this idea in another way. In complexity
science the concept is to use global and cyclic patterns
of outward behavior in order to determine the state of
the components. This, imo, is a far more efficient and
simpler way of problem solving real world systems.

Just one reason this is so is due to the fact that outward
global system patterns are easy to observe, often with
the naked eye and a quick glance.

Superficiality rules.

No, simplicity rules.

When two or more global patterns exist in the same system
the possible search space for a solution quickly
dwindles.

The two patterns at play at the Rover sites are the
shape of the spheres, and the environmental context.

Size of the spheres is just as important.

Mars to Chosp, do you copy ... over.

The gemmules referred to previously are over ten times smaller
than the spherules found on Mars. They are closer in size
to the smallest grains visible in the Mars images.
Far more important to understanding is finding out what
the spherules are actually made of. If they are basalt,
that changes our view of their origin, regardless of their
superficial appearance.
Don't you think?

That would require some spectroscopy, wouldn't it?

You are so full of yourself.
Not having answered a single question, nor demonstrated
a single well thought-out conclusion -
you move on, obliviously.

Leaving you all in the dust, the Martian dust, literally.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

February 22, 2004

Chosp wrote:

Then, for the very same reasons, you should find them
much larger as well. If size is really not relevant, one might
equally expect to see the spherules several feet in diameter.
Why don't we? Do we find gemmules on earth the size of BBs?
The size of basketballs? Why not?

Let me take a wild guess. Because life evolves differently in different
environments, for instance, like environments that might be found on
*another planet*.

If you want to refute the 'gemmule hypothesis' the generally accepted
method is to provide evidence. Simple skepticism isn't enough. It does,
however, provide evidence that you do not fully understand or appreciate
scientific methods.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"jonathan" skrev i en meddelelse
...

snip

If this is true, you know what else must be true.
That the dark areas show where water flow is
not ancient, but...well..from the condition of
the spheres at the Opportunity site, rather
recent. There should be a way to tell eh?

So these wider angle views show a rather
large and recent reef system it seems. With the
spheres settling in the channels.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/


This story just gets better by the day....

Jonathan
I'll jump into your elaborations somewhat arbitrarily.
To see most of your water-created dunes or reefs you fail to take the
shaping factor of a energetic environment as the surface waves would enforce
on your structurs during the time that the water slowly 'dissapears'. The
raise and fall of a watersurface and it's resulting structuring of sediments
is a well studied subject on Earth. I believe that you will not object to an
expectation, that a fall in waterlevel enforces the entire bottom of the sea
to be structured in a costal or beach-fashioned way - as the sea recedes.
This point should make you reconsider some of your ideas.

Carsten

"jonathan" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Jonathan
If you see my new post on cross-bedding you'll get a good idea that the
layered sediment is laid out in a streamy environment, and not a result of
quiet growth. What you see on the pic is a spherule that has survived the
sedimenting intact or a completely new subaireal growth.

snip


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EFF0454P2953M2
M1.HTML

there has been a picture of a broken sphere, and it shows no internal
structuring.

Carsten

February 23, 2004

Carsten Troelsgaard wrote:

I believe that you will not object to an
expectation, that a fall in waterlevel enforces the entire bottom of the sea
to be structured in a costal or beach-fashioned way - as the sea recedes.

Those remnants have been covered up and wiped clean long aga by eons of
glaciation and ice sheets driven by greenhouse effects induced by impacts and
volcanism and orbital obliquity. We already know why we don't observe them.

This point should make you reconsider some of your ideas.

As well should you.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
hppt:://elifritz.members.atlantic.net