Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The methane spike on Mars could be caused by a couple of things, both would be localized to a fixed point:
1. It's probably geological processes. Methane is escaping for dormant volcanic activity. Cracks or sink hole, old volcanic vents do not move, so the methane would be coming from a fixed point. This is the simplest explanation.
2. Martian life is releasing methane where water mixed with toxic salts is keeping the water either a liquid or a slush. Maybe. However, there has been no other signs of life on Mars that are definitive. Maybe there is life on Mars;, but probably not. Mars is a cold, dry, and very hostile environment due to solar radiation, lack of a magnetic field, and a very, very thin atmosphere.
A theory known as Occam's Razor states that everything being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the most correct. Mars is probably releasing gases left over from ancient volcanic activity.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. "There's life on Mars!" is an extraordinary claim that requires an extraordinary level of proof.
I realize you believe this is what they are - hematite concretions, but we do not know these ARE hematite concretions in these rocks, do we? I know NASA has used the RAT to wear away rocks showing these spherules inside, but it does not give us data that all spherules are this. Besides, as I said in the previous post, where are the piles of spherules left on the ground at the base of rocks they have eroded out of.
First of all, YOU posted the questions then flatly stated a conclusion.
"Where are the rocks the concretions 'fall' out of when they get worn away by weathering and erosion? Where is the pile of concretions at the base of these rocks? Nowhere, thats where."
In response, I posted links that show the piles of "martian blueberries" in answer to your lop-sided question that you claimed are nowhere to be found.
I agree that (as far as I can tell) the objects have not been cracked open for a better look inside. Then again, Opportunity wasn't equipped for that kind of task. It could sort of scrape or bore into the overall rocks, more like wire-brushing the surface, but was not equipped to do that to such small round objects. To try would more likely just brush the objects out of the way. I think future rovers would likely be better equipped to do that. However, that would depend on where those future rovers will be sent. If we send a manned mission to the surface of Mars, it might be possible to collect some of these objects for a better look.
While you assume what my opinions are, you seem to be the one who is bent on declaring them as plant life. At the present time, they are still somewhat of a mystery. As such, I have no idea what they are, although there are some clues about them that are more likely than sprouting fungi. Suggestions have included accretion due to watery conditions, meteorite impacts, and volcanic eruptions. The MER team settled on concretions. Are they right? I don't know, but it's more likely than martian plants.
Such objects have been found right here on Earth. Those objects are not plants. It could be argued that the "blueberries" in question are on Mars, not Earth. True, but that would also poke a large hole into declaring them as plants. I can see how they might resemble certain kinds of plants. But then, after all, this is on Mars, not Earth. Why would Mars necessarily have plants that resemble plants on Earth? https://gizmodo.com/the-enduring-mys...ove-1832649426
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I am told, the wind is supposed to be too weak, the atmosphere too thin to blow these small 5mm balls around - otherwise we would see piles of them behind rocks where the wind should have blown them. But.. we dont, which suggests to me they might be sticky on the outside perhaps? Anyway, in some photos there are literally millions of these spherules just lying around on the ground, but none are blown into piles, and there are no large rocks nearby where they could have come out of. Think of how long (millions of years since water existed on Mars!!) they have supposedly being lying there without rain, wind, erosion, so why are they spread all over the place?
Hematite spherules form in the presence of water. It's been pretty well determined that Mars had a watery past, with large bodies of water. Mars likely had an atmosphere and probably stronger winds as well. Some evidence has also been shown that some areas had flowing water, that is, water traveling downhill (gravity). That could help provide the right conditions for such objects to form and erosion to expose the objects.
While winds on Mars today are not as intense as winds here on Earth, if you consider that over tens or hundreds of millions of years, it is entirely likely that the rock containing the spherules, even light wind could gradually erode the rock to expose the spherules. With enough of the rock base eroded, the spherules would naturally drop off to the surface. And with even a slight slope, the "blueberries" could roll away from it's point of origin because of gravity. Many spherules ARE in piles, usually in cracks of flat rocks on the surface. And yes, even a light wind could potentially blow some of the smaller spherules around. Most of these spherules are very tiny. We see evidence of wind-blown material in some areas of Mars that form crescent-shaped dunes of sand and dust.
While I agree that direct detailed examination of the spherules hasn't been done, other clues strongly support the idea that the spherules are probably hematite. Orbiters have scanned the area and detected large amounts of hematite in the area where Opportunity was exploring. It's thought that the abundance of spherules are probably the source of the hematite detected, and that such spherules on Earth are composed of hematite. That's not to say conclusively that the spherules are in fact hematite, but I think it's a more reasonable explanation than to assume and suggest they're plants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I agree, the images show these spherules are embedded in a rock-like substance(which is possibly the plant they come from?). How can we discuss methane being detected when we will not discuss one of the possible sources of that methane - life on Mars?
The problem you're having here is that you're fixated on plants on Mars and these objects could be the source of methane. If that were true, then we should be detecting methane being emitted all the time. No one is ruling out the possibility of life on Mars. But that's not the only source of methane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
If this really IS a science forum, then we all need to start asking questions about what we see and coming to logical answers.
That's just plain silly. We simply don't know what causes the bursts of methane that lingers in the atmosphere for a short while then fades away. That's also a problem because it doesn't tend to linger long enough to pinpoint exactly where it's coming from. And yes, this IS a science forum to discuss subjects that pertain to science. It is not a forum to tout hovering spoons, mini-Bigfoot, rodents wandering through the rocks, pyramids and faces of Egyptian kings and queens, and mushrooms on Mars. I've seen claims on some websites of forests of mile-high trees, of glass tunnels and giant worms. You've probably seen those claims as well. If we actually discover primitive plant life or microbial life, that'd be great. But until then, such wild claims are not scientific, and more likely pareidolia.
That's just plain silly. We simply don't know what causes the bursts of methane that lingers in the atmosphere for a short while then fades away. That's also a problem because it doesn't tend to linger long enough to pinpoint exactly where it's coming from. And yes, this IS a science forum to discuss subjects that pertain to science....
And I have presented a body of evidence which deserves to be taken seriously without discrediting me. So, more respect please.
If you want to argue that the accepted idea there is no life on Mars is correct, then please discuss the data presented not what you think of me.
And I have presented a body of evidence which deserves to be taken seriously without discrediting me. So, more respect please.
If you want to argue that the accepted idea there is no life on Mars is correct, then please discuss the data presented not what you think of me.
You clearly didn't fully read my post. That methane could be caused by deep underground life forms, probably microbes, is a possibility. It hasn't been completely ruled out. But there are also other possibilities as to the source. Haven't you kept up with things? A main mission of the Curiosity rover has been to determine if Mars was ever a wet planet with conditions suitable for life in its past. It was not designed to search for life past or present. It was designed to search for suitable conditions. The 2020 rover will go a step farther by searching for evidence of past (or even current) life. Somehow you choose to make assumptions that I am arguing there is no life on Mars. If you had read my post you would have noted that I've indicated that I do not know if there is or isn't. I've tried to stay on topic about methane on Mars, insofar as is currently known. You stated, "If this really IS a science forum..." IF??? What kind of statement is that? Instead, the "body of evidence" you've presented here has largely been what you try to claim as martian mushrooms. I believe I had stated that I could see your point (from the images). However, there are no reliable claims or studies that support such a view. If you know of any, please post such a link. As far as I know, there is no evidence to support your "body of evidence".
yes, I read your posts. There are not likely to be any studies or reliable claims to support plant life on Mars since NASA/whoever is not ready to reveal what I believe they already know.
I too have kept on topic by relating the methane to the plant life I believe is present in the images and actually, I think there is MORE supporting evidence for my theory than there is for the others (volcanic or deep underground pockets of ch4 from ancient microorganisms). Now we have the linked article below to discuss the simulated lichen survival on Mars too.
Although this is a simulation, it shows that lichen is likely to be able to survive and thrive in those conditions. I have shown small 2-leaf moss-like plants, there are plenty of lichen-like images and I have shown fungi-like images too.
So although you say you do not know, you also are happy to go along with the orthodox view. At least I have offered images which back each other up as to the existence of different plant life on Mars. Multiple images of moss-like structures, multiple images of fung-like structures, and although I have not posted it, there are multiple lichen-like images too.
Now, where is the evidence there is NO current life on Mars, what reasonable supporting evidence is there which scientists have for continuing to make statements about life in the past, ancient water, ancient life, searching for evidence of past water, etc, etc which leads everyone to think there is no current life on Mars.
Yes, a science forum should be asking questions and not bashing people who put forward suggestions along with supporting images. Saying that you see my point does not really help if you accept what orthodox science says without question. I would have thought you would WANT to look for evidence of this rather than evidence bashing like you are.
Quote:
the "body of evidence" you've presented here has largely been what you try to claim as martian mushrooms.
Yes, thats what a body of evidence is, a series of evidence which backs up each other. So, quit bashing me and do some analysis of the evidence. Bear in mind it ALL has to discounted because if ANY of it cannot be discounted, then it goes towards evidence for existence of life.
This article actually proposes that fungi might be a lot older than previously thought, so I am thinking this might be a possibility for the spherules on Mars producing the methane through life processes.
Quote:
Visually, these microfossils look like a partially deflated balloon with a stalk at its base. Those stalks are connected to a long tube that can link up multiple balloon-like structures. This looks a lot like some modern fungi, where the balloon-like structure is a source of spores while the tubes are how the organism grows and spreads within a surface. One critical feature that's shared with fungi is the fact that the stalk that attaches the sphere to the rest of the organism branches off at a right angle. The structure provided the new genus' name, Ourasphaira, for tail and sphere; the full species name is Ourasphaira giraldae.
... No unambiguous evidence of a fungus appears in fossils until after the Cambrian was over. A few things from earlier may have looked fungus-like, but the evidence was limited to their appearance. It could be that fungi branched off at the time suggested by the DNA but didn't evolve complex, multicellular structures until later. Alternatively, the fossils could be right, and there's something off about the DNA data. Or, finally, it could be that we simply haven't found old enough fossils yet.
A new paper out in today's Nature argues strongly for the last option. In it, a small team of researchers describe fossils of what appear to be fungi that could be up to a billion years old. And the researchers back up the appearance with a chemical analysis.
First of all, YOU posted the questions then flatly stated a conclusion.
"Where are the rocks the concretions 'fall' out of when they get worn away by weathering and erosion? Where is the pile of concretions at the base of these rocks? Nowhere, thats where."
In response, I posted links that show the piles of "martian blueberries" in answer to your lop-sided question that you claimed are nowhere to be found.
I agree that (as far as I can tell) the objects have not been cracked open for a better look inside. Then again, Opportunity wasn't equipped for that kind of task. It could sort of scrape or bore into the overall rocks, more like wire-brushing the surface, but was not equipped to do that to such small round objects. To try would more likely just brush the objects out of the way. I think future rovers would likely be better equipped to do that. However, that would depend on where those future rovers will be sent. If we send a manned mission to the surface of Mars, it might be possible to collect some of these objects for a better look.
While you assume what my opinions are, you seem to be the one who is bent on declaring them as plant life. At the present time, they are still somewhat of a mystery. As such, I have no idea what they are, although there are some clues about them that are more likely than sprouting fungi. Suggestions have included accretion due to watery conditions, meteorite impacts, and volcanic eruptions. The MER team settled on concretions. Are they right? I don't know, but it's more likely than martian plants.
Such objects have been found right here on Earth. Those objects are not plants. It could be argued that the "blueberries" in question are on Mars, not Earth. True, but that would also poke a large hole into declaring them as plants. I can see how they might resemble certain kinds of plants. But then, after all, this is on Mars, not Earth. Why would Mars necessarily have plants that resemble plants on Earth? https://gizmodo.com/the-enduring-mys...ove-1832649426
Hematite spherules form in the presence of water. It's been pretty well determined that Mars had a watery past, with large bodies of water. Mars likely had an atmosphere and probably stronger winds as well. Some evidence has also been shown that some areas had flowing water, that is, water traveling downhill (gravity). That could help provide the right conditions for such objects to form and erosion to expose the objects.
While winds on Mars today are not as intense as winds here on Earth, if you consider that over tens or hundreds of millions of years, it is entirely likely that the rock containing the spherules, even light wind could gradually erode the rock to expose the spherules. With enough of the rock base eroded, the spherules would naturally drop off to the surface. And with even a slight slope, the "blueberries" could roll away from it's point of origin because of gravity. Many spherules ARE in piles, usually in cracks of flat rocks on the surface. And yes, even a light wind could potentially blow some of the smaller spherules around. Most of these spherules are very tiny. We see evidence of wind-blown material in some areas of Mars that form crescent-shaped dunes of sand and dust.
While I agree that direct detailed examination of the spherules hasn't been done, other clues strongly support the idea that the spherules are probably hematite. Orbiters have scanned the area and detected large amounts of hematite in the area where Opportunity was exploring. It's thought that the abundance of spherules are probably the source of the hematite detected, and that such spherules on Earth are composed of hematite. That's not to say conclusively that the spherules are in fact hematite, but I think it's a more reasonable explanation than to assume and suggest they're plants.
The problem you're having here is that you're fixated on plants on Mars and these objects could be the source of methane. If that were true, then we should be detecting methane being emitted all the time. No one is ruling out the possibility of life on Mars. But that's not the only source of methane.
That's just plain silly. We simply don't know what causes the bursts of methane that lingers in the atmosphere for a short while then fades away. That's also a problem because it doesn't tend to linger long enough to pinpoint exactly where it's coming from. And yes, this IS a science forum to discuss subjects that pertain to science. It is not a forum to tout hovering spoons, mini-Bigfoot, rodents wandering through the rocks, pyramids and faces of Egyptian kings and queens, and mushrooms on Mars. I've seen claims on some websites of forests of mile-high trees, of glass tunnels and giant worms. You've probably seen those claims as well. If we actually discover primitive plant life or microbial life, that'd be great. But until then, such wild claims are not scientific, and more likely pareidolia.
One possible source for the methane on Mars, wind erosion releasing gases trapped within rocks, seems to have been eliminated.
Mars: Cause of methane spikes still unknown
Date:
August 12, 2019
Source:
Newcastle University
Summary:
New study rules out wind erosion as the source of methane gas on Mars and moves a step closer to answering the question of whether life exists on other planets.
''Now research led by Newcastle University, UK, and published in Scientific Reports, has ruled out the possibility that the levels of methane detected could be produced by the wind erosion of rocks, releasing trapped methane from fluid inclusions and fractures on the planets' surface.''
Last edited by Michael Way; 08-12-2019 at 09:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
