You are not logged in.
http://mars.lyle.org/synth/1-101.html]Lyle site containing special sun images
Hope this provides the link for my previous comments.
If you wish to see some of the mathematics describing river meanders, see the March 1966 Scientific American article featured on the cover.
The pseudocolor "sun ring" image is no longer on the lyle site at the location where I saw it yesterday. I sent Lyle an e-mail requesting it's location. Interesting that it's not still there.
Sorry I didn't provide a link to the ring around the just set sun. I'll try to get back to it for everyone. I just saw it yesterday at my day job while cooling off.
It is now May 18, 2004 and several of the near horizon views of the sun or setting sun show characteristics which still suggest we are observing through regular ice crystals or perhaps even falling snow somewhere in the line of sight to the sun. We don't seem to see the saturated image pixels we were seeing earlier.
One of the pseudo color images on the http://www.lyle.org]www.lyle.org site even showed a ring around the just-set sun, although I haven't measured and calculated its angular separation to confirm that that is what it actually is as observed for such situations here on earth.
There is a lot to be learned from these images.
One possible resource in this vein is the asteroid 2001 AV43 which shuttles between near Earth and near Mars.
Thanks, folks,
One thing that should be remembered is that while the image I referred to seems useless as evidence, that does not prove the negative. Also, from the image or two we have out of the Viking missions showing transient snow we know it's possible for it to happen on Mars for those (Viking) latitudes.
Rxke and Cindy,
Thanks. Both of you are, of course, correct. I appologize for wasting time.
I was negligent in ignoring the overexposure as much as I did and jumping to the conclusion that the same filter was being used that is typically used in making the other direct solar exposures. I intend to not let such a thing happen again.
If it is an equipment induced effect, then the other sun images, other than this one near the horizon while there are certified water ice clouds present, should show similar effects.
A recent image of the sun near the horizon on Mars seems to show the "pillar of light" phenomenon.
This image, although apparently over exposed, shows a pillar of light above and below the sun. This may be caused by snowflakes falling flat with sunlight being scattered by their upper surfaces below the sun's disk, and from their lower surfaces above the sun's disk.
In combination with today's image of the day and the statement on the Malin site about water ice clouds over the Opportunity site, it begins to make sense.
http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery/1N1365 … G.html]The Lyle site
Shaun,
I suspect that the answer to your question about why we haven't heard from JPL regarding some of our probes' recent observations is that the obvious explanations are at odds with their accepted models.
How do they gracefully adapt to that?
Atomoid,
Do we know certainly that the white "dust" is not frost?
A pertinent entry at this point might be the Space.com piece "Survey: Nasa Workers Afraid to Speak Up" as part of the April 14 items.
Lunarmark,
Please take up the subject with Dr. Brandenburg. That was almost two years ago.
I would suggest that both you (and Mark S who made the earlier comment) obtain a copy of the conference proceedings containing his presentation before you confront him with opinions without presenting any substantiation yourself. His presentation included charts and plots of measured isotope ratios.
Please let us know how it turns out.
This just for fun. I hope it doesn't detract too much.
In the right temperature regime, water is rock.
All three phases of water should be available, solid, liquid, and vapor, at some time and place on Mars. I also suggest that all three are detectable from orbit by at least one technique.
Has anyone seen a mathematical model of a "dust devil" phenomenon on Mars which includes energy transfers and heat capacities of the involved dusts and gasses?
I sincerely doubt that "dust devil" is a properly descriptive term when one considers the energies involved, although I'm certain dust may be entrained in the process.
Tornado may be a more descriptive term as I suspect H2O phase changes are the only reasonable means of such large energy transfers just as tornados are powered on this planet.
Many of the "dust devil" images show a tendency for them to originate at darker features which may be vents for H2O vapor. Please study the images carefully.
Marinaris Sauce,
Your comments indicate you're still accepting by faith (within the english language meaning of the word) what NASA says without any backup except their implied position that they are telling the truth; something that neither you nor I probably have the scientifically verifiable means to determine unless given the unbiased data.
I don't mean that they are always wrong. From my point of view they are right most of the time, but perhaps wrong sometimes.
I'll also point out that Isaac Newton, who laid the foundations of Optics, Gravitation, Calculus, Orbital Mechanics, and significant portions of Observational Astronomy did not seem to see that much of a separation between his faith and his science, so maybe there is something to emulated here.
Again, the best to you!
Well balanced reply, Cindy.
Byron, I understand your disdain for religion. After all, according to the documentation, even Jesus Christ was most critical of the religious authorities and many of the things they were trying to make their people accept.
However there are 'religious' or 'faith' aspects to some of the opinions which NASA presents as fact before they provide the data to back them up.
In my opinion, (you asked for thoughts) and according to my reading, there is more to support the position that there is life over and above that on Earth in the Bible than in the subset of science which denies the existance of an intelligence greater than those most prominent in that science. There is also, as far as I can tell, no prohibition to seeking it out as long as its for the benefit of humanity and not for its harm.
There also seems to be a more vehement evangelism amoung those who refuse to believe in a force smarter, stronger, and functioning adroitly in more dimensions than we do, than amoung most of those who seem to agree with me in these areas, perhaps to my shame. I've come to this conclusion partly by reading the posts within the New Mars forum.
Anyway, the best to you all. Lets try to keep our heads out of the sand and go to the next place where we might answer some more of the questions about life.
Dr K
This may be somewhat of a late reply, but thanks for the link you provided to the site with both anaglyphs and stereo pairs.
As my eyes do not see red as well as some other people, (I do see red some) the stereo pairs were best for me, as I do see 3D by the crossed eye method fairly well.
The biggest revelation for me was the appearance of apparent bubbles within the spheres, meaning that at least some of the spheres in the link you provided are partially transparent.
Those of you who have not looked at the link have probably not seen this spatial relation. To reiterate, some of the spots seen in the 2D view are quite apparently bubbles within the at least semi-transparent glassy looking bodies when viewed in three dimensions.
The best spheres to study are the rather large one in the link image next to the mid-sized pock-marked one. The pock-marked one in particular appears very different in 3D.
Also, for those of you missing small spheres, the background the larger spheres are in seems to show a lot of them.
Every example of concretion I can currently remember seems to have had some form of onion-like structure. Has anyone seen evidence of this amoung the partially ground away Mars spheres?
It seems to me that there might still be room for all: volcanic, meteor impact, and concretion. Can't say that fossils are impossible either. After all, aren't some concretions fossilized voids?
GraemeSkinner
I agree with you, except that Gilbert Levine's Viking life detection method WAS a modern probe with great sensitivity and elegance.
Well said, Shaun.
For the sake of reality and truth I hope we can soon find a bigger sharper stake to drive into the heart of the blood sucking "professional suicide" beast as I still detect signs of it twitching amoung some of the younger crew.
The answer to the first question is more than a little analogous to asking why there are no large droplets from a spray gun when the trigger is fully depressed--The energy added to the fluid (or melt) is enough to disrupt a droplet above a certain size before it can solidify throughout. There may be secondary collisions of fluid droplets, cooling but not completely solidified, resulting in those partially merged multiples.
Likely sources of enough energy to melt martian regolith? Obviously vulcanism and meteor impact and combinations of the two.
As an example of meteor impact, earlier today I looked at the asteroid impact risk page that NASA updates regularly, and observed that highest on the risk list is an object that is roughly 1.5 kilometers in diameter and having a collision velocity about 30 kilometers per second.
The projected impact energy to be released (extremely low probability of it happening around 2023) is equivalent to about 6 X 10 to the fifth million tons of TNT. The largest single atomic blast (done by the Russians during Kruschiev's time) had an energy release of about 60 megatons of TNT according to US instruments. The energy release by the specific single slightly possible impact event would be 10,000 times greater!
There is sufficient energy available to melt rock and regolith, and maybe even punch through to release vulcanism.
Consider the apparent lack of small spheres. A reason I would suggest that this may be true is that by rule of thumb, when a high velocity particle has interacted with a mass of atmosphere equivalent to it's own mass, it has been decelerated to terminal velocity. The range of the more massive spheres is much greater than the smaller ones, especially if the larger units can make it upward through most of the near surface gasses.
On the other hand, if we had more magnification and the environment had not degraded them (they would have a very large surface area per mass for chemical reactions to take place on) we would probably see some small spheres.
For what it's worth, I've spent a lot of time at work looking at thermally produced spherical objects, some microscopic and some as large or larger than on the surface around Opportunity.
There is nothing I've seen among the "blueberries" which doesn't seem familiar in that context considering the tremendous energies released in the many cratering events.
Doesn't mean that that is how they are produced, but it does cover all of their obvious visible characteristics.
![http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery/1N1365 … G.html]The](http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery/1N136550002EFF1900P2679L0M1.JPG.html]The){kind=link}