Discussion:
"THE FACE OF MARS", Mariner 9, plus 26---8"X10" Stills
(too old to reply)
---...
2005-05-26 11:10:24 UTC
Permalink
"THE FACE OF MARS", Mariner 9, plus 26---8"X10" Stills
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3977193129

Original Lobby Cards from Films of MARS
http://posterazzi.topcities.com/lists/scifi.htm
Rick Nelson
2005-05-28 01:29:52 UTC
Permalink
I can see how it is easy to send material from Mars to Earth with
meteoric impacts. But how probable is it that material from Earth has
been ejected to Mars? And what is the probable tonnage during what ages?

Thanks,

Rick
Sir Charles W. Shults III
2005-05-28 18:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Nelson
I can see how it is easy to send material from Mars to Earth with
meteoric impacts. But how probable is it that material from Earth has
been ejected to Mars? And what is the probable tonnage during what ages?
Thanks,
Rick
While it is possible that some terrestrial materials have made it to
Mars, the chance of finding it would be about the same as locating a lost
pocket watch that could be anywhere on the land area of the Earth. Mars'
surface area is comparable to the land area of the Earth, and a piece of
material from Earth could literally be anywhere on its surface.
Now, imagine being dropped at random on Mars. We will see what the
chances are that you and a terrestrial meteorite end up in the same square
meter of area. Mars' surface area is about 125,139,000 square meters. The
chances that you will end up on top of this piece of the Earth are about
125,139,000,000,000 to one. Of course, walking around increases your
chances of finding it, if it is there.
But you are far more likely to be hit by lightning. Most experts put
the odds at about 700,000 to one, so it is nearly 179 million times more
likely that you will be struck by lightning, than that you will locate a
terrestrial meteorite on Mars.

Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Rick Nelson
2005-05-29 00:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sir,

Actually - Like in the "Little Prince" - I would think that any Earth
meteorite on Mars' surface would be very conspicuous. Have you seen
photos of the 'Mars Fossil' - What are your opinions concerning it?

Mars hasn't had much significant erosion in almost a billion years, etc.
I don't think your analysis is correct given a billion years of history.

Thanks,

Rick
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Post by Rick Nelson
I can see how it is easy to send material from Mars to Earth with
meteoric impacts. But how probable is it that material from Earth has
been ejected to Mars? And what is the probable tonnage during what ages?
Thanks,
Rick
While it is possible that some terrestrial materials have made it to
Mars, the chance of finding it would be about the same as locating a lost
pocket watch that could be anywhere on the land area of the Earth. Mars'
surface area is comparable to the land area of the Earth, and a piece of
material from Earth could literally be anywhere on its surface.
Now, imagine being dropped at random on Mars. We will see what the
chances are that you and a terrestrial meteorite end up in the same square
meter of area. Mars' surface area is about 125,139,000 square meters. The
chances that you will end up on top of this piece of the Earth are about
125,139,000,000,000 to one. Of course, walking around increases your
chances of finding it, if it is there.
But you are far more likely to be hit by lightning. Most experts put
the odds at about 700,000 to one, so it is nearly 179 million times more
likely that you will be struck by lightning, than that you will locate a
terrestrial meteorite on Mars.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Sir Charles W. Shults III
2005-05-30 15:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Nelson
Hi Sir,
Actually - Like in the "Little Prince" - I would think that any Earth
meteorite on Mars' surface would be very conspicuous.
Think about what I wrote- I said nothing of how comspicuous they would
be, only what the chances are of finding one. Even at that, one scorched
meterorite mixed into all those hundreds of millions of square kilometers of
area might easily be similar to any of the other rocks. Mars has meteorites
from all over the asteroid belt on its surface today.

Have you seen
Post by Rick Nelson
photos of the 'Mars Fossil' - What are your opinions concerning it?
See my site: http://www.xenotechresearch.com Try this page:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsy6.htm and try this when you are done
with that: http://www.xenotechresearch.com/spicrin1.htm and then check out
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o111fos1.htm and you may like this one as
well: http://www.xenotechresearch.com/murchins.htm
There is a lot of material there.
Post by Rick Nelson
Mars hasn't had much significant erosion in almost a billion years, etc.
That is an interesting position, when we can see the soil changing in a
matter of days and we know there are dust storms and dust devils active now.
We also know that there is water ice and frost and that it melts and seeps
into the rock, only to freeze and expand, splitting the rock. Erosion is an
ongoing process on Mars. Furthermore, the present opinion is that there is
still some remenant volcanic activity and that the sea frozen on the equator
was formed only some 5 million years or so ago. That pretty much puts the
axe to the idea that erosion has not occurred for a billion years.
Post by Rick Nelson
I don't think your analysis is correct given a billion years of history.
See above. And once again, note that the analysis was based only on
land area, not in any way on erosion, appearance of the meteorite, etc. The
analysis holds.
Post by Rick Nelson
Thanks,
Rick
Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Rick Nelson
2005-06-06 01:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Hi Chuck,

Well, I almost completely concur on all you wrote except the 5 million
year part at the end about an equatorial sea. I think that was the 5
billion year old event I was talking about - and how life could have
occurred from Earth ejecta toward Mars or vice versa.

I'm not sure what you think of the Mars fossil based on your web-site
citations. Could you be more clear in a statement here? The Mars
fossil looks like a shallow sea life form's remains left in strat by
very weak calcification - (Mars' gravity is very weak - and compression
of remains for possible calcification would be very rare) . I would even
go so far as to say that this object is probably the artifact left by an
animal.

Thanks,

Rick
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Post by Rick Nelson
Hi Sir,
Actually - Like in the "Little Prince" - I would think that any Earth
meteorite on Mars' surface would be very conspicuous.
Think about what I wrote- I said nothing of how comspicuous they would
be, only what the chances are of finding one. Even at that, one scorched
meterorite mixed into all those hundreds of millions of square kilometers of
area might easily be similar to any of the other rocks. Mars has meteorites
from all over the asteroid belt on its surface today.
Have you seen
Post by Rick Nelson
photos of the 'Mars Fossil' - What are your opinions concerning it?
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsy6.htm and try this when you are done
with that: http://www.xenotechresearch.com/spicrin1.htm and then check out
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o111fos1.htm and you may like this one as
well: http://www.xenotechresearch.com/murchins.htm
There is a lot of material there.
Post by Rick Nelson
Mars hasn't had much significant erosion in almost a billion years, etc.
That is an interesting position, when we can see the soil changing in a
matter of days and we know there are dust storms and dust devils active now.
We also know that there is water ice and frost and that it melts and seeps
into the rock, only to freeze and expand, splitting the rock. Erosion is an
ongoing process on Mars. Furthermore, the present opinion is that there is
still some remenant volcanic activity and that the sea frozen on the equator
was formed only some 5 million years or so ago. That pretty much puts the
axe to the idea that erosion has not occurred for a billion years.
Post by Rick Nelson
I don't think your analysis is correct given a billion years of history.
See above. And once again, note that the analysis was based only on
land area, not in any way on erosion, appearance of the meteorite, etc. The
analysis holds.
Post by Rick Nelson
Thanks,
Rick
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Sir Charles W. Shults III
2005-06-06 18:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Nelson
Hi Chuck,
Chip or Charles, please.
Post by Rick Nelson
Well, I almost completely concur on all you wrote except the 5 million
year part at the end about an equatorial sea. I think that was the 5
billion year old event I was talking about - and how life could have
occurred from Earth ejecta toward Mars or vice versa.
Considering that this solar system is only 4.6 billion years old, it
would be sort of difficult to have a 5 billion year old event on a planetary
surface. The 5 million year figure comes from the researchers who found the
sea, and their dating methods used a comparison of cratering and erosion to
nearby features, The sea is relatively crater-free. Knowing roughly how
many impacts of a given scale you can expect, you get a figure based on the
size and density of craters.
Their numbers comes in at 5 million years, a relatively very recent
event. Also add to that the layer of dust on the ice and you get the idea.
The very limited erosion and wear on the surface is the key indicator of its
age.
Post by Rick Nelson
I'm not sure what you think of the Mars fossil based on your web-site
citations. Could you be more clear in a statement here?
Are you referring to the crinoid from Opportunity, Sol 034? Sure, it is
most definitely a crinoid, or something so similar to a crinoid that we
would have difficulty telling them apart. There are also many other things
on that image that are extremely intriguing.
Post by Rick Nelson
The Mars
fossil looks like a shallow sea life form's remains left in strat by
very weak calcification - (Mars' gravity is very weak - and compression
of remains for possible calcification would be very rare) . I would even
go so far as to say that this object is probably the artifact left by an
animal.
Crinoids, as many might not be aware, are animals. They look like
plants, they have a holdfast that resembles a root, they have a stem, and
the calyx is very much like the calyx of a flower. The legs are modified
into tendrils or fans that sweep microorganisms from the sea water. The are
filter feeders, like barnacles.
They make a skeleton from calcium carbonate on Earth, but on Mars, due
to the differences in the ocean chemistry, they likely used calcium sulfate
(gypsum) and therefore would leave little or no carbonate signature behind.
This speculation is based on the elemental analysis from the rovers, as well
as the salts found in the soil. The chief salts are iron sulfate, magnesium
sulfate (Epsom salts) and sodium chloride. The most common sedimentary
mineral appears to be gypsum (calcium sulfate) otherwise known as plaster of
Paris.
Note that iron sulfate is commonly a heptahydrate (meaning that it has
seven water molecules per iron sulfate molecule) and is 45% water by mass.
Magnesium sulfate is most commonly a heptahydrate also, meaning that it is
51% water by mass. Gypsum occurs in a number of hydrated states but is most
commonly found to have about 10% water by mass in its makeup.
Consider that up to half of the soil in some areas is salts, and you can
see that roughly a quarter of the dirt is actually water molecules, bound up
as hydrated minerals. A ton of dirt from Mars would yield perhaps 250
liters of water. By these figures, a cubic meter of Mars dirt and salts
would give us over 600 liters of water, meaning that even without the ice
deposits they have located, there is no shortage of water on Mars. These
are facts that you can personally verify with little equipment or expense.
Very, very little is made of this information. I would have thought
that these findings would have made NASA ecstatic. Any mission to Mars will
have essentially unlimited water on hand, requiring only that they heat a
small furnace to extract it from the soil. Solar furnaces could even do the
trick cheaply.
But now we face the big question- if all this water is present now, how
much wetter was Mars in the past? I have created an atmospheric erosion
model from the Aspera-3 data and applied what we know about the Earth's
history. We end up with a Mars with a thick atmosphere in the beginning,
plenty of water, and every opportunity for life to arise. In fact, if the
atmospheric model is correct (and it is well within the error range for the
hard data we have) then we can expect that Mars had a full atmosphere of
pressure 2.2 billion years ago, and was indeed covered with the oceans that
left these hydrated salts everywhere.
Even 600 million years ago, it would have had an atmosphere of 100
millibars, which is very reasonable for oceans and surface water. The
boiling point would have been 30° C, and at that time the Earth was
undergoing an immense ice age. If this was caused by solar output levels,
then Mars too would have been cold, and its oceans would have been covered
by pack ice and bergs. Glaciers could have dominated the landscape.
Now, why is all of this rejected by most of the traditional scientific
community? It violates no laws of physics and in fact is in keeping with
our knowledge of geology and chemistry, so you would think that there would
at least have been a look at the possibility.
The problem is simple. When Mariner 9 sent back pictures of Mars'
surface, it looked moonlike and without any further ado, it was declared
that Mars was bone dry. This one simple error has propagated for over 30
years now, and the "traditional" wisdom is that Mars has always been a
parched desert. This is wrong.
It is unfortunate that (paraphrasing Jonh F. Kennedy) the biggest
challenge to truth is not the lie, but the myth. As experiments have now
revealed, liquid water can still exist on Mars' surface. The images from
Opportunity and Spirit show plenty of sites where water has modified the
landscape, and there are fumaroles and geysers. Still, even in the face of
those images, the myth of a dry Mars persists.
Check out these images comparing both Earth and Mars soil and come to
your own conclusions:
http://xenotechresearch.com/wetnow02.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/marssoil1.htm
http://xenotechresearch.com/mhydro1.htm Note in particular the wet and dry
comparison images of Bounce Rock.
Even Steven Squyres admits that "something" is making the soil stick
together, but he is following the traditional line that it just absolutely
cannot be water. Shame, the results are exciting and simple to check- and
once again, are perfectly within the laws of physics, as verified by
experiment.

Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Rick Nelson
2005-06-07 00:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi Chuck,

You are right in everything you say and I am very honored to be
"speaking" to you. When Opportunity first landed - I was the one who
said it looked like the air bags retracted and left condensed moisture
on this newsgroup.

As I understand it - you are the guy who worked on Viking's results and
concluded biological life was active in the soil? And nobody believed
you and everyone ignored you? That is typical of science - 30 years
later we finally start thinking reasonably (when the resource is about
to be exploited financially)..

What I am concerned about is the scenario that life first evolved on
Mars - it was pre-biotic before Earth was (so I was saying 5 billion buy
probably meant 3 billion to 1 billion years) - and then that life was
transported to Earth to evolve further. Thus making advanced life in
the Universe a very rare event - even if Hoyle and Chandras were correct
in their "interstellar dust" as bacteria theories -- which I think they
were. Bacterial life is Universal - but advanced life might be very rare.

Again, I'm so happy to be talking to someone who has some credibility -
that is my "real" email address if you'd care to take our conversation
off this newsgroup.

Thanks,

Rick
Rick Nelson
2005-06-07 00:30:07 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry, I didn't read your whole email carefully and respond to it
point by point and missed some things. I'm sorry about that but I am so
glad to be speaking with you.

I think NASA is covering up a lot of things - like today - navigating
"dust dunes" - they admitted they were driving too fast and hadn't
checked the wheels for hundreds of meters before they got stuck - and
they ARE supposed to be turning around to look back at the tracks to see
what happened. And they ARE heading into a deeper crater that should
show more strata than they have seen before.

Do you know how much heat and how close to the ground Opportunity is?
It has those solar cells.. Mars obviously isn't heated to water ice
melting by solar radiation - maybe it IS microbial activity that occurs
under rocks where frosts and nightly deep cooling cannot take place.

Thanks,

Rick
Paul Morris
2005-06-16 04:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Post by Rick Nelson
I can see how it is easy to send material from Mars to Earth with
meteoric impacts. But how probable is it that material from Earth has
been ejected to Mars? And what is the probable tonnage during what ages?
Thanks,
Rick
While it is possible that some terrestrial materials have made it to
Mars, the chance of finding it would be about the same as locating a lost
pocket watch that could be anywhere on the land area of the Earth. Mars'
surface area is comparable to the land area of the Earth, and a piece of
material from Earth could literally be anywhere on its surface.
Now, imagine being dropped at random on Mars. We will see what the
chances are that you and a terrestrial meteorite end up in the same square
meter of area. Mars' surface area is about 125,139,000 square meters. The
chances that you will end up on top of this piece of the Earth are about
125,139,000,000,000 to one. Of course, walking around increases your
chances of finding it, if it is there.
Your argument assumes there is only one Earth meteorite on Mars.
On what do you base that assumption? For all we know, there could
be 125,139,000 Earth meteorites on Mars, in which case there would
be one per square meter on average, and they might be easy to find.

Of course, the fact that none have been identified by the Mars rovers
suggest they are less common than that. No doubt, with some effort,
one could calculate an expected flux by using a simulation of solar
system dynamics. I rather expect it would be more than one.

Paul
--
Email: lastname at best dot com. No spam please.
Sir Charles W. Shults III
2005-06-16 18:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Morris
Your argument assumes there is only one Earth meteorite on Mars.
On what do you base that assumption?
It was meant to be an example only. There are most likely a few dozen
(if not more) meteorites from Earth on Mars, just basing this on the number
of Mars meteorites we have found on Earth, cross-sectional area of Earth
versus Mars, the difference in gravitation, and the uphill path it takes for
such a meteorite to get there from here.
Post by Paul Morris
For all we know, there could
be 125,139,000 Earth meteorites on Mars, in which case there would
be one per square meter on average, and they might be easy to find.
You will note that that should have been square kilometers in my
original post, not square meters. Sorry for the typo, but the principle is
the same. However, if there were that many terrestrial meteorites on Mars,
then there would be far, far more (statistically) Martian meteorites on
Earth. Alernatively, they could be dust sized, and we would probably never
see them at all. Typically, for the number of elements of a given size, if
you reduce the size by one order of magnitude, the number of elements
increases by one order of magnitude.
What this means is, for however many (let's say A) asteroids of a
diameter of 1 meter, there should be 10A asteroids of 0.1 meter diameter.
This is 1% of the volume of the first population of 1 meter asteroids. The
same approximation appears to apply to all meteorites as well.
So for however many 10 centimeter terrestrial meteorites on Mars, there
would be ten times as many 1 centimeter meteorites from Earth, and 100 times
as many 1 millimeter meteorites, etc. Also take note of the fact that these
sizes are an average distribution meant to overlap to some degree the larger
and smaller sample populations. Otherwise, some wise guy would say, "well,
then, we can expect an infinite number of them since there is an infinite
number of size intervals between 1 and 10". Sorry. Won't work.
Post by Paul Morris
Of course, the fact that none have been identified by the Mars rovers
suggest they are less common than that. No doubt, with some effort,
one could calculate an expected flux by using a simulation of solar
system dynamics. I rather expect it would be more than one.
Paul
Agreed. Once more, this was just an example.

Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Rick Nelson
2005-06-20 00:47:27 UTC
Permalink
The other question is over what ages have the Earth meteorites been
ejected to Mar? Most have to be during a very life-bearing epoch of
Earth's history IMHO for life to "take" on Mars from Earth. I think
life began on Mars and was ejected to Earth several times. I also think
we are constantly rained down on with space primordial bacteria whose
DNA microstrands are always being incorporated into our genome by the
Earth bacteria that infect us (and share DNA between one another - even
with space bacteria) - and so we evolve as humans (even though I could
make a pretty good argument for the de-evolution of most of humankind..)

Do all of you know about the Javanese super-volcano that reduced
homo-sapiens to less than 5K individuals about 50-60K years ago? It may
have also caused the virtual extinction of the other intelligent ape
species (there were about 20 I think) - though I tend to think of homo
sapiens are murderous greedy non-cooperative shits who probably just
raped and killed the "them" for fun.

I'm trying to piece this all together in my mind and make some sense of
many things I have learned in diverse sciences. alt-life-mars seems to
be full of like-minded people so please express yourselves in respect to
these thoughts of mine.

Thanks,

Rick
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Post by Paul Morris
Your argument assumes there is only one Earth meteorite on Mars.
On what do you base that assumption?
It was meant to be an example only. There are most likely a few dozen
(if not more) meteorites from Earth on Mars, just basing this on the number
of Mars meteorites we have found on Earth, cross-sectional area of Earth
versus Mars, the difference in gravitation, and the uphill path it takes for
such a meteorite to get there from here.
Post by Paul Morris
For all we know, there could
be 125,139,000 Earth meteorites on Mars, in which case there would
be one per square meter on average, and they might be easy to find.
You will note that that should have been square kilometers in my
original post, not square meters. Sorry for the typo, but the principle is
the same. However, if there were that many terrestrial meteorites on Mars,
then there would be far, far more (statistically) Martian meteorites on
Earth. Alernatively, they could be dust sized, and we would probably never
see them at all. Typically, for the number of elements of a given size, if
you reduce the size by one order of magnitude, the number of elements
increases by one order of magnitude.
What this means is, for however many (let's say A) asteroids of a
diameter of 1 meter, there should be 10A asteroids of 0.1 meter diameter.
This is 1% of the volume of the first population of 1 meter asteroids. The
same approximation appears to apply to all meteorites as well.
So for however many 10 centimeter terrestrial meteorites on Mars, there
would be ten times as many 1 centimeter meteorites from Earth, and 100 times
as many 1 millimeter meteorites, etc. Also take note of the fact that these
sizes are an average distribution meant to overlap to some degree the larger
and smaller sample populations. Otherwise, some wise guy would say, "well,
then, we can expect an infinite number of them since there is an infinite
number of size intervals between 1 and 10". Sorry. Won't work.
Post by Paul Morris
Of course, the fact that none have been identified by the Mars rovers
suggest they are less common than that. No doubt, with some effort,
one could calculate an expected flux by using a simulation of solar
system dynamics. I rather expect it would be more than one.
Paul
Agreed. Once more, this was just an example.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Sir Charles W. Shults III
2005-06-20 14:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Nelson
The other question is over what ages have the Earth meteorites been
ejected to Mar?
Surely the greatest numbers would have to coincide with a period of
heavy bombardment. Natural forces on the surface of the Earth are very
unlikely to have enough energy to throw something into interplanetary space.
Incoming asteroids on the other hand are quite energetic enough. This
limits the periods to specific times- maybe a dozen such windows of
opportunity during the course of history, if we are generous in our
estimates.
Post by Rick Nelson
Most have to be during a very life-bearing epoch of
Earth's history IMHO for life to "take" on Mars from Earth.
And as some people have pointed out in other discussions similar to this
one, there is a serious limit to the size and hardiness of such organisms
that hith a ride. We aren't going to see anything much more complex than a
bacterium or a spore. Complex, multicellular organisms tend to be more
fragile than single celled organisms. Of course, this is a trade-off since
complex organisms can judge the envirnonment and move away when things get
rough far more effectively than most bacteria.
But long, difficult journeys lasting millions of years with extremes of
vacuum and temperature are far more easily coped with by spores and encysted
bacteria than by goldfish or pine trees. We already know that some seeds
can be dormant for thousands of years, and some bacteria appear able to
remain frozen for tens of thousands of years, and there is evidence that
some halophiles (bacteria which can survive in very salty environments) can
last for millions of years if they dry out inside a forming salt crystal.
Post by Rick Nelson
I think
life began on Mars and was ejected to Earth several times. I also think
we are constantly rained down on with space primordial bacteria whose
DNA microstrands are always being incorporated into our genome by the
Earth bacteria that infect us (and share DNA between one another - even
with space bacteria) - and so we evolve as humans (even though I could
make a pretty good argument for the de-evolution of most of humankind..)
It may well be that life started on Mars before it did on Earth, but if
it started on both worlds, then we cannot assume that the genetic material
from both worlds is identical. There is no single genetic code- the
mitochondria inside your cells have a slightly different version of the
genetic code that is not fully compatible with the cellular genetic code.
Instead, it shows common origins. It is like a dialect of a main language.
Since there are at least two genetic codes here on Earth (although they
are very similar), it stands to reason that life on an entirely different
world could well have a completely incompatible genetic code. Such a
finding would be a strong indicator that we had located alien life forms.
But that is simply the tip of the iceberg.
In the two variations of genetic code here on Earth, the same chemicals
and same base pairs are used. There are many millions of possible
variations using those compounds only. And, without the original organisms
to extract them from, it would be difficult to determine if they were
actually from a different genetic "family tree". Only the punctuation codes
would be good indicators if we had a bottle full of alien genes that
happened to use the same chemistry as our own. Think of two languages that
use the same alphabet, but scramble the meanings of the letters, like a
substitution cypher. It might look almost okay, but would be illegible.
However, we have synthesized other base pairs that work just fine inside
genetic strands, but are completely different from the ones used by life on
Earth. What that seems to say is that other worlds might have life
stumbling upon a different set of chemicals for writing down the code of
life. This would be an immediate indicator that we had something unusual.
It would be an incompatible, unreadable language of genetics, like comparing
the Arabic alphabet to the English alphabet.
Then again, it could be that some other wildly different scheme, not
even involving DNA or RNA, might be used by other life. What would it be?
Impossible to say; the combinations of chemicals have not even been
investigated. But we can probably assume that whatever it is, it would be
based on the stuff that shows up in tholin, that primordial soup of
compounds formed from basic, abiotic chemicals when they are exposed to
heat, lightning, and ultraviolet radiation.
The bottom line is this- is Martian DNA the same as our own? If it is,
then that would be evidence that we shared a common past. If it is not,
then it tells an even more fascinating story. We can then expect perhaps
millions of different genetic codes all over the galaxy, and we can dismiss
fears of alien viruses because they are not compatible- think Windows based
program running on an Atari-800. Won't work.
Post by Rick Nelson
Do all of you know about the Javanese super-volcano that reduced
homo-sapiens to less than 5K individuals about 50-60K years ago? It may
have also caused the virtual extinction of the other intelligent ape
species (there were about 20 I think) - though I tend to think of homo
sapiens are murderous greedy non-cooperative shits who probably just
raped and killed the "them" for fun.
Typically, the only reason that one species will eliminate another,
non-prey species is because they need the same resources. Cats and dogs in
the wild (think: panthers and wolves) are natural enemies because they are
competing for the same resources of food and hunting grounds. But in the
domestic setting, we often have cats and dogs that get along with each other
very nicely. This is because in this idyllic setting, they are not in
competition. There is plenty of food and nobody has to fight anyone for a
meal.
Now, let's project that to nearly identical species such as the many
variations of Homo. We can well imagine that they might have been just fine
with each other, and even might have had trade, sex, and other
non-threatening relationships with other human species. Dolphins have
relationships with other species of dolphin, and things seem to work out
fine most of the time.
But when the crunch comes and survival becomes a dire situation, a
species will select its own, because only in that manner can it ensure the
production of offspring (and long-term survival). Species that do not stick
to this rule vanish. It means that the scenario of multiple human species
and sub-species working around each other fairly peacefully for a long time
is a good one, and when the climate changes or the food becomes scarce, war
ensues.
Remember that species do not survive by being nice guys. Only hard-core
fighters and survivalists will make the grade.
Post by Rick Nelson
I'm trying to piece this all together in my mind and make some sense of
many things I have learned in diverse sciences. alt-life-mars seems to
be full of like-minded people so please express yourselves in respect to
these thoughts of mine.
I find that everything, no matter how semingly unrelated, comes together
somewhere. We simply have to be broad-minded enough and able to find the
relationships to make sense of it. Of course, it also takes many years of
reading, studying, and experimenting to verify those ideas. But what a
great way to spend an existence- learning.
It sure beats fighting larger carnivores.
Post by Rick Nelson
Thanks,
Rick
Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Rick Nelson
2005-06-21 01:12:21 UTC
Permalink
I am so glad to have you here, Sir. It is almost what I wished for from
first finding alt.life.mars.

There were so many comets in the beginning of our solar system that
probably contained bacteria or bacterial precursors. Given the amount
of them and their various sizes - couldn't some of them be slung out to
Mars from near Earth non-collisions? Do you think Mars ever had the
lightning Earth does - do you know if Venus has lightning? (That might
be an interesting understanding of life's essentials..) Most folks
think lightning is a static atmospheric phenomenon - I kind of wonder
about the static electricity that is generated under the crust and in
the Van Allen belt meeting and greeting - but that's an artifact of my
Tesla reality.

I'm very sad that the world is ruled by willfully ignorant idiots greedy
for nothing other than their selfish uglifying moronity. But so it goes..

I wish some folks wouid "step up to the plate (wickets)" and change
humankind's course very soon.

So - has anyone given all the images a close glance for fossils?

Thanks,

Rick
Sir Charles W. Shults III
2005-06-21 15:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Nelson
I am so glad to have you here, Sir. It is almost what I wished for from
first finding alt.life.mars.
Thanks- there typically does not seem to be a great deal of activity in
the group. I am always happy to answer serious questions.
Post by Rick Nelson
There were so many comets in the beginning of our solar system that
probably contained bacteria or bacterial precursors.
Even now the comets are known to have organic matter on them. This is
because anywhere there is basic materials present (such as ammonia, methane,
nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water) there will be an accumulation of tholin,
provided that there is energy present to make it form. The most interesting
point is this- lightning is only one method of providing that energy.
Starlight can do it to, albeit slowly. The ice covered bodies in the outer
solar system have accumulated that orange or brown crust of materials
because they are cool enough to prevent evaporation of volatile materials,
and they are constantly bombarded by weak sunlight and distant starlight.
Ultraviolet that is present in both drives the chemistry processes that
produce organic material from abiotic material.
Post by Rick Nelson
Given the amount
of them and their various sizes - couldn't some of them be slung out to
Mars from near Earth non-collisions?
Mosy comets are from the outer solar system. They can potentially rain
down on any world, and they quite often do. But terrestrial planets
(Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) each had thick atmospheres early in their
histories. These were lost as the planets evolved, with only Earth and
Venus retaining some significant amount of that atmosphere. Our atmosphere
has been heavily modified over that time, due to geological and organic
processes. Mars lost its air slowly, leaving it as we see it now- with less
than a percent of what Earth has. Mercury not only lost its atmosphere, it
was driven off by solar wind. Consider that the solar wind flux at mercury
must be about 2.6 times what we have here on Earth.
Post by Rick Nelson
Do you think Mars ever had the
lightning Earth does - do you know if Venus has lightning? (That might
be an interesting understanding of life's essentials..)
Mars had a thick enough atmosphere for lightning and for most of its
history had plenty of liquid water on its surface. Venus does have
lightning today. We can catch the radio emissions from it here on Earth.
Most of it appears to originate about 35 miles above its surface during
local "afternoon". Some feel that it is driven by volcanic activity.
Jupiter also has lightning and we can easily detect its radio emissions
here as well.
Post by Rick Nelson
Most folks
think lightning is a static atmospheric phenomenon - I kind of wonder
about the static electricity that is generated under the crust and in
the Van Allen belt meeting and greeting - but that's an artifact of my
Tesla reality.
Moving a mass of dry, chilled air generates plenty of static charge. I
made a machine that takes advantage of this for a lightning demonstration.
I used the effect and a lot of tiny styrofoam beads as the collectors of the
charge to make a wind tunnel lightning machine. As long as the humidity was
low and the air continued to blow through the metal collar built into the
tunnel, a constant stream of static charge could be seen.
The trick is to use a combination of insulation and conducting materials
to allow the charges to separate and then be carried to the collector.
Atmosphere does this admirably well because dry air is a very good
insulator. Think of the tiny particles of ice or droplets of water that
move through the air at high speeds in clouds. There is a simple device
that can collect the charge present on raindrops passing through two metal
bowls that are separated by insulating threads (such as monofilament fishing
line) and generate considerable sparks from them. It is an eye-opening
demonstration.
Post by Rick Nelson
I'm very sad that the world is ruled by willfully ignorant idiots greedy
for nothing other than their selfish uglifying moronity. But so it goes..
I wish some folks wouid "step up to the plate (wickets)" and change
humankind's course very soon.
It is easiest to accept the standard line. Investigating means effort.
Funny how investigation starts with "invest", isn't it? But if you
discovered something that totally violated the standard picture of reality,
just how would you go about presenting it? The resistance to such
discoveries is immense, because it means too many mental readjustments would
have to be made for it to be accepted. People have a great deal of
difficulty "unlearning" what they think they know before they can accept the
facts.
Post by Rick Nelson
So - has anyone given all the images a close glance for fossils?
I have spent the last 16 months combing through the images for fossils
and have found some truly amazing things. Mars clearly was a water world up
until recently, and even today remains wet in many locations. Think about
what the Earth would be like if we removed its oceans. Springs,
groundwater, and aquifers would continue to supply water to many locations,
and deep water from the mantle would continue to erupt in geysers and
fractures in the rock substrate for many millions of years. That is the
situation on Mars today.
In a single crater recently imaged by Malin Space Science Systems, there
is a glacier (they call it a "persistent frost feature") that is ten
kilometers across and estimated to be 200 meters thick. If we average it
out to 100 meters thickness, this represent 8.2 cubic kilometers of water in
that single location. Think about it- 8.2 billion cubic meters of water
ice. The salts in the ground are loaded with water, the gypsum rock is as
well, and the frozen sea found on Mars' equator just months ago all add to
the water ice in the polar caps (which are partially dry ice as well) and
the estimates of water ice in the soil. Just counting the soil ice, it is
estimated that it equals the ice cap on Greenland in volume.
There are so many images and so many fairly clear fossils (with a
handful of perfect representatives) but think about how people have let the
project slip through the cracks. It's like the moon walks; after the first
two or three, it was just "oh, that's on TV again." It was sad to see how
quickly people got used to the Apollo video feeds. I wanted to see more of
it as it happened, but day to day work and living placed themselves firmly
in the way.
Post by Rick Nelson
Thanks,
Rick
Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
Rick Nelson
2005-06-22 03:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Post by Rick Nelson
I am so glad to have you here, Sir. It is almost what I wished for from
first finding alt.life.mars.
Y0u're almost like an agent of the NSA humoring me..
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
there will be an accumulation of tholin,
Can you send me some organic structures - I have some 3D software and
like to look at the pieces of life.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
constantly bombarded by weak sunlight and distant starlight.
Actually all of the Universe is bombarded by gamma and x-rays etc. What
is interesting is that most organic clouds exist within a gas cloud that
protects them from harsh radiation - much like our atmosphere and
magnetosphere protects us.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Ultraviolet that is present in both drives the chemistry processes that
produce organic material from abiotic material.
I kind of think primordial life material was created in the first 5
billion years of this Universe's existence.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Mosy comets are from the outer solar system. They can potentially rain
down on any world, and they quite often do.
I think they were more common when inside comets from other solar
systems made an interesting kind of variant into the primordial life
invading the eveolution of our solar system.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Mars had a thick enough atmosphere for lightning and for most of its
history had plenty of liquid water on its surface. Venus does have
lightning today. We can catch the radio emissions from it here on Earth.
Most of it appears to originate about 35 miles above its surface during
local "afternoon". Some feel that it is driven by volcanic activity.
Well that is all very interesting - and over time it has created those
weather/life systems.. I think it is mostly be comet impacts - and
comets are kind of loose out their orbiting other solar systems and
traded between them. I think comets are the kind of glomming together
or organics in dust clouds and primordial bacteria are probably the
executor of their accrection.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Jupiter also has lightning and we can easily detect its radio emissions
here as well.
It has a very strong magnetic field (probably caused by strong
solid/states of magnetic gravitationally crushed hydrogen in twisting
layers..)

Do we have an exit strategy from the moronity of the rest of human
Christian Right that occupy the most powerful positions of politics in
the World?
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
It is easiest to accept the standard line. Investigating means effort.
Funny how investigation starts with "invest", isn't it? But if you
discovered something that totally violated the standard picture of reality,
just how would you go about presenting it? The resistance to such
discoveries is immense, because it means too many mental readjustments would
have to be made for it to be accepted. People have a great deal of
difficulty "unlearning" what they think they know before they can accept the
facts.
Try to contact aliens - (even though that is illegal) - and book me a
flight out.

You're not a bad guy, Sir - but I think you have a problem comprehending
yourself as a naked ape on an exposed planet about to be exterminated,
but you have a great genius potential. It is only how we can chemically
alter yourselves inside your cultures that makes us different from one
another.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with your "triblobite" micro-fossil
understanding - I must admit I wish there were more magnification - and
that life should evolve in smaller sizes with less gravity

Kill the Morons,

Rick
Rick Nelson
2005-06-23 01:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Thanks- there typically does not seem to be a great deal of activity in
the group. I am always happy to answer serious questions.
I'm sorry I was harsh in my last post. You have a great deal of
knowledge and are extremely thoughtful.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Even now the comets are known to have organic matter on them. This is
because anywhere there is basic materials present (such as ammonia, methane,
nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water) there will be an accumulation of tholin,
provided that there is energy present to make it form.
I'm sure that this is what set me off - I was very disappointed with
this answer from you.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
The ice covered bodies in the outer
solar system have accumulated that orange or brown crust of materials
because they are cool enough to prevent evaporation of volatile materials
So they have bacterial coatings?
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Mosy comets are from the outer solar system.
Or from many other solar systems - can you imagine the Oort cloud
dynamics that must sling comets across the galaxy and even between galaxies?
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
They can potentially rain
down on any world, and they quite often do.
We all saw the black impacts into Jupiter's volatile atmosphere from a
small nearly extinct comet's broken up trail of debris.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Mars had a thick enough atmosphere for lightning and for most of its
history had plenty of liquid water on its surface. Venus does have
lightning today. We can catch the radio emissions from it here on Earth.
Most of it appears to originate about 35 miles above its surface during
local "afternoon". Some feel that it is driven by volcanic activity.
This was the other comment that ticked me off. Geological UFO
reference? I'm not a believer in that theory. Do you know that most
chemical/oil/gasoline refineries put out as much sulfur dioxide on a
continual basis as several small venting volcanos? I'm tired of the
idiocy of "hyper-capitalism" - that actually steals money from the
working poor to line the pockets of the rich. I'm so tired of hearing
about a new technological revolution spurred by hyper-capitalism. It
ain't gonna happen - the rich steal from the poor whenever they are set
loose from the control of the many against their tiny minority of greedy
amoral vomitorium shitdumbasses ( W and his family being primary
expamples..) OK, enough on this topic.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Moving a mass of dry, chilled air generates plenty of static charge.
Can you imagine making AC out of static stuff like this? Rain pipes?
Hail pipes?
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
Funny how investigation starts with "invest", isn't it?
You're for a capitalistic solution? No wonder China has the leg up.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
I have spent the last 16 months combing through the images for fossils
and have found some truly amazing things. Mars clearly was a water world up
until recently, and even today remains wet in many locations. Think about
what the Earth would be like if we removed its oceans. Springs,
groundwater, and aquifers would continue to supply water to many locations,
and deep water from the mantle would continue to erupt in geysers and
fractures in the rock substrate for many millions of years. That is the
situation on Mars today.
I don't see what you see in these "trilobite" images of yours.
Post by Sir Charles W. Shults III
In a single crater recently imaged by Malin Space Science Systems, there
is a glacier (they call it a "persistent frost feature")
I must admit I see water everywhere on Mars and expect microbial life to
exist, but was flumuxed by the "arthropod" fossil that NASA
intentionally destroyed. I also find it very sad that NASA outsources
war and science at the behest of the Republicans. I kind of see how
fascist this trend will become and have urged my progeny to move to
Canada. I hope you get a clue NSA boy and derive some real human
mission for yourself and your family from my criticisms of your posts.

Thanks,

Rick

Rick Nelson
2005-06-21 01:28:29 UTC
Permalink
I just thought of something even worse.. What if EARTH AND VENUS ARE
INVOLVED IN LIFE'S PRIMORDIAL SOUP EJECTA TO MARS - how unlikely would
that make life in the Universe? Ejecta from metallic planets in the
formation of a solar system to a light metal planet and then back
again.. No wonder we don't see aliens among us.. *just angels* sigh.

Ok, sub-space aliens are al around us - and I've seen a couple of orange
ones.. But most folks are too stupid to watch in their peripheral
vision outside of their little TVs.

Human life is now insanity controlled by the super rich - make youreself
heard - yelp?

Thanks,

Rick
Loading...