Martian Rocks are Fossils

extrasense · Dec 23, 2005

Read this: Petrified Trees of Mars <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />the rocks seen now on Mars are result of the, possibly multiple, extinction recycling - which should be expected, considering how much earlier than Earth Mars must have had conditions, hospitable to life<hr /></blockquote> e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s

telfrow · Dec 23, 2005

There's a typo on the page, ES. It says Here is stereo presentation of this remarkable object, likely a billion years old fossil tree. That should read "...billion year old rock." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

centsworth_II · Dec 23, 2005

Another phenominal post from extrasense! However, this is the Space Science & Astronomy forum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

extrasense · Dec 23, 2005

""""should read"""" You seem to know how everything should be. Too bad it is in fact other way around. e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s

telfrow · Dec 23, 2005

So I know how things "shouldn't be?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

extrasense · Dec 23, 2005

I am trying to help you by pointing to the real science, instead of usual hog wash. e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s

extrasense · Dec 23, 2005

Yes, and in fact it is other way around <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> es

telfrow · Dec 23, 2005

Right. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

odysseus145 · Dec 23, 2005

Pointing at rocks and calling them life is not science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

pocket_rocket · Dec 23, 2005

Those are fossils of rocks which look like rocks that looked like trees.

yevaud · Dec 23, 2005

Hey, what's up, Es? I notice you posted this stuff at another board I belong to. Odd, really. All I said was "getting no action at SDC, eh?" and you left and never returned... Hmmm.... (By the way - they're ROCKS) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

unlearningthemistakes · Dec 23, 2005

I always stumble upon some post saying: life on this, life on that, NASA's imbeciles---and sham and ET's. now, rock pictures as vegetation/trees/shrubs etc. I believe one needs concious filtering of ideas from beliefs and rumors. We must also check the credibility of web links, so useful knowledge can be shared...unless someone wants to spread rumors. people...any reaction??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> pain is inevitablesuffering is optional </div>

yevaud · Dec 23, 2005

Absolutely. Agreed. There's one hell of a lot of pap out there. You have to choose very carefully. A lot of people don't even *bother* to do that. It *sounds* interesting and plausible to them, and Hey! It's real science as far as they're concerned, and everyone else is out to "get them." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

unlearningthemistakes · Dec 23, 2005

and one thing I find fantastic is the courage people has to re-post this things, which would mean redundant rebuttal and discussions; all of which are superfluous. in addition to this, I am not ashame to say I also had a slip of concept, because I lack basic knowledge about geology, particulary seismology. my lack of knowledge in that area was reflected in one of my post against some old folk here. I'm sure that folk is aware about this. but that slip was not repeated again. I did not try to say that hypothesis of non-sense again in any other thread. because I've learned I was wrong. And what follows next is understanding. unless some people here start reflecting their drivel blended post and research further, they could never escape ignorance. we must accept that some things and ideas are sometimes just beliefs and common clutter. acceptance of mistakes by this people should be reflected in their next/coming post. I admire some guys here who are not afraid to say: thanks!! I was wrong yet you corrected me. SDC is lucky to have some guys and MODS who try to correct drivels and immaterial post. I don't call it moaning. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> happy holidays.... senores and senoritas!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> pain is inevitablesuffering is optional </div>

yevaud · Dec 23, 2005

Hell, there's all sorts of topics I am a rank amateur at. I admit it freely, and lurk, trying to learn - from the right people (as well as almost continually taking courses). I would learn Chemistry from TheChemist or Silylene, or perhaps Steve33 than anyone else, and that's a simple fact. And so on, by speciality, through the userlist. I can talk your ear off about Atmospheric Physics. The people who believe in these off-topics don't do this, near as I can tell. They read something, and then cut right to the chase as far as the're concerned - no hard work in between is required (no offense guys, but this is frequently the truth). It seems to be the distinction, between the two sides. One is part of the science, the other on the outside, trying to chip away at it using imperfect tools. Not to say that the loyal opposition isn't precociously intelligent - they most certainly are (the charm of SDC, n'est Pas?). You also frequently get good arguments. And this particular Thread is the third, assumed and unmentioned, category: Crap. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

telfrow · Dec 23, 2005

Well said, Yevaud. Well said. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

telfrow · Dec 24, 2005

It’s early, I’m up and getting the house ready for the family and grandkids later today, so I looked at, and read, the link ES posted. Following are three statements from the link: Now, lets say the general jest of what has been described above, is mostly correct. One year a catastrophe strikes, as the forest has grown too big and consumed a lot of water, while the Sun was extremely active - so an extreme draught occurs. The forest catches a huge fire, which consumes all the oxygen from atmosphere and suffocates all the oxygen-supported life, including all trees. The life that has had developed since, is apparently around, but it must be able to exist without breezing oxygen. Jest: to kid; joke; tease So the sentence reads: Now, lets say the general joke of what has been described above, is mostly correct. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> draught: a board game; checkers So the sentence reads: …so an extreme game of checkers occurs…<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> The forest catches a huge fire What did it use to catch the fire? Traps? <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> breezing: to move quickly or confidently; as in “breezing through the test.” So the sentence reads: The life that has had developed since, is apparently around, but it must be able to exist without moving quickly (through) oxygen.<img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

extrasense · Dec 24, 2005

""""" Mars never had time for such complex life to develop. It took Earth several billion years for life to develop from simple single-celled organisms to plants and trees. Mars dried up much faster than that. """" ? Even if the latter is correct, the drying up was only relative, since there is water out there even now. es

yevaud · Dec 24, 2005

"Even If???" Man, do *you* need to hit the books. 1/1000 of sea-level atmosphere is "relative" as well. Care to try to breath in it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mikeemmert · Dec 24, 2005

You wouldn't happen to know the N14/N15 ratio, would you? I really don't...this would tell how dense the early atmosphere is, since N14 is lost from the planet faster than N15. C12/C13 is also an indicator.

yevaud · Dec 24, 2005

I don't, offhand. That's probably one of thousand small experiments planned for various Mars missions. Mars has a smaller gravitational field than Earth, so Atmospheric Escape Velocity for Species is much lower than Earth. Gasses escape with ease, and are swept away in the Solar Wind or just plain lost. It has no real Geomagnetic field to help block UV, Cosmic Rays, trap various Species. And since it is smaller, it cooled much faster (and hence differentiated faster). It has little geological activity, except for rare periods. It's core appears to be a near-solid. Honestly. This speculation is all fine and well, and it is very interesting, but the ultimate yardstick for the possibility of any advanced life on Mars boils down to the ancient surface conditions, and how long they lasted. And neither is really indicative of the proper conditions for life to develop, except for perhaps the most primitive of organisms (Bacteria and so on). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Dec 24, 2005

Of which, now that I think about it, leads into the Face on Mars (FOM), and similar ilk. Given the relative lack of time for an advanced organism to develop and thrive due to those physical conditions, means for that it to happened at all (e.g. the FOM), said organism would have had to developed much faster than on Earth. But that's a contradiction, as the more active our type of life is, the more oxygen is required. That's a quite basic biological fact. We are energy-burning machines, at base. How, given the conditions on Mars, did a civilization develop? You would have to be something that lives for a year, and moves faster than the blink of an eye, to develop a civilization to the point that you could build the FOM. Anything slower, and you'd be extinct before you knew that your left flagella itched... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

extrasense · Dec 25, 2005

"""""relative lack of time for an advanced organism to develop """"" It is a groundless assertion. You make it up, that's all. e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s

yevaud · Dec 25, 2005

HA!!! *I* make stuff up. And when did *you* ever obtain schooling in this, Bub? This coming from the man who see's all things in rocks...except a rock. Nice try. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

extrasense · Dec 26, 2005

/* deleted */

Martian Rocks are Fossils

extrasense

Guest

telfrow

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

extrasense

Guest

telfrow

Guest

extrasense

Guest

extrasense

Guest

telfrow

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

pocket_rocket

Guest

yevaud

Guest

unlearningthemistakes

Guest

yevaud

Guest

unlearningthemistakes

Guest

yevaud

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

extrasense

Guest

yevaud

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

extrasense

Guest

yevaud

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page