Rover Plastic - Page 2

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 Next
Author Message
Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 21



PostPosted: August 22, 2013 10:50 AM 

Biological processes on Mars, if present, will be quite small. That itself makes a visual-only search challenging.

However, the fact that is a stated goal tells you they're looking for it, too.

I freely admit that I could be looking for something that doesn't exist.

My line of thinking is this:

1. They didn't investigate it and simply said it was from Earth.
2. Their explanation as to how it got there is implausible and requires the use of way too many assumptions.
3. My in-situ/from the scoop theory is the simplest explanation, requiring few assumptions.
4. Find the Plastic elsewhere to prove 1-3 and establish it is Martian.

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 22



PostPosted: August 22, 2013 11:10 AM 

Example of my thinking:

Sol 111 MARDI:

1. It's a "bright object" (as they say)
2. It's visually the same shape as the one known instance of Plastic.
3. It appears to be of similar size (ie., its a MARDI image close to the ground by default, not a Mastcam image).
4. It is on the ground (as opposed to being atop one of the gigantic rocks we see on the horizon for example) in the same titled position.

Thus, I classify it as suspected Plastic.

Source:

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 23



PostPosted: August 22, 2013 12:21 PM 

SET OF SOL 111 MARDI OF SUSPECTED PLASTIC

RDR:


(BEST VIEW)

EDR:

Here's an annotated version showing the visual similarities on top as well as an attempt to annotate the similar morphology of the surrounding rocks:

Nichole


Posts: xxx

Reply: 24



PostPosted: August 22, 2013 12:52 PM 

Perhaps, but it is not the only shiny object in the billion pixel view...

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 25



PostPosted: August 22, 2013 5:53 PM 

SOL 88 MASTCAM OF SUSPECTED PLASTIC

Annotated:

Source:

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 26



PostPosted: August 27, 2013 1:56 PM 

This MAHLI from Sol 373 shares what appears to be an identical morphology as the Plastic itself:

Source:

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 27



PostPosted: August 27, 2013 9:25 PM 

Wildcat;

That sol 373 rock (too lazy to look up its name) certainly seems like an important one.

Seen some rough resemblances to the "plastic" in your sol 26 image but they aren't clear or distinct. However, the rock has some clear structures or textures that eerily resemble superficial or near subsurface fungal fruiting bodies and spores and perhaps even hyphae (less distinct)

Below is a crop from the rock that has been white balanced and magnified (x2). Use a virtual magnifying glass to look at the structures. The putative fruiting bodies are near the top left side on the rock side.
There are some SODS also that are clearly distinguishable from the putative spores which are discretely positioned throughout the image.

http://lws.smugmug.com/Other/MSL-Curiosity/i-fdj7cRg/0/X3/0373MH0153000002R0_DXXX-autoWBl_fruiting%20bodies-spores-X2-X3.png

Winston

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 28



PostPosted: August 27, 2013 10:41 PM 

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 29



PostPosted: August 28, 2013 12:09 AM 

Zoost


Posts: 56

Reply: 30



PostPosted: August 31, 2013 7:37 PM 

Very interesting stuff there in that last picture. Very. Intruiging structures. But as always. Im clueless

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 31



PostPosted: August 31, 2013 9:05 PM 

Wildcat;

Beautiful image at #29. It shows all the varieties of putative spores and spore bodies I've been attempting to show in my last several posts. Do you think there is some "plastic" there as well?

Winston

Barsoomer


Posts: 344

Reply: 32



PostPosted: August 31, 2013 10:57 PM 

That looks delicious---if a little old! Smile

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 33



PostPosted: September 1, 2013 8:19 AM 

Wildcat;
BTW is that from a sol 373 image?

Winston

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 34



PostPosted: September 5, 2013 1:21 AM 

Winston,

Regarding your No. 31, yes.

oi42.tinypic.com/w1zlea.jpg

I'll post a comparison image later, but I believe this to be a related, if not identical, structure (just in a different state)

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 35



PostPosted: September 5, 2013 1:26 AM 

oi42.tinypic.com/w1zlea.jpg

I made that (and No. 29) on my phone. Best I could do with that limitation.

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 36



PostPosted: September 5, 2013 10:42 AM 

Can't get the thumbnail to work for some reason:

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 37



PostPosted: September 5, 2013 11:28 AM 

Additional similarities between a rock I observed on Sol 382 and a rock from Sol 304 I referenced in relation to possible Plastic in Reply Nos. 1 and 2 in this topic:

Sources:

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 38



PostPosted: September 5, 2013 12:05 PM 

THE VISUAL SEARCH FOR IDENTICAL MORPHOLOGY BETWEEN THE PLASTIC AND OTHER OBJECTS IS NOT A FOOLISH ENDEAVOR

From the "Mars 2020 Science Definition Team Final Report" released in July:

"The search for evidence of life beyond Earth begins with the premise that biosignatures would be recognizable in the context of their planetary environments. A biosignature (a “definitive biosignature” or DBS) is an object, substance and/or pattern whose origin specifically requires a biological agent. The usefulness of a biosignature is determined not only by the probability of life creating it, but also by the improbability of non-biological processes producing it. Thus because a biological “signal” must be resolved from any non-biological environmental “noise,” the search for evidence of life is closely tied to interdisciplinary investigations of planetary environments and their capacity to sustain life (MEPAG, 2010)"

Let's break this down:

A biosignature is an OBJECT, SUBSTANCE, AND/OR PATTERN whose origin specifically requires a biological agent. (emphasis added).

The Plastic is clearly an object; a "bright," "foreign" one, remember? My search for identical instances of Plastic in its most basic sense is little more than visually searching for identical patterns. For example:

Everybody learned in middle school biology class that life as we know it is overwhelmingly symmetrical. Symmetry creates PATTERNS in OBJECTS. One thing we know from the "news" they put out there from Mars is that a gazillion years ago, Mars was just like Earth! It's not a stretch then they say Martian life is identical to ours. Indeed, they have people devoting their academic careers to that proposition.

Like hort often says, if we see the same weird rock time and time again, might it be life? If someone really smart were to write hort's hypothesis, it might go like this:

"The usefulness of a biosignature is determined not only by the probability of life creating it, but also by the improbability of non-biological processes producing it."

The purpose of this ramble is to show this is not a foolhardy endeavor with regard to the Plastic. The problem is that geological processes also create patterns like "concretions" and everything is defaulted to a geological explanation.

Here's an example:

Here's what he's referencing:

Ah, the "microchannels." Translation of what was written:

It's weird, I mean, they have to be really old because everything is old. You'd expect a thousand years of stuff to be filling up any holes in the ground, but it doesn't look like that at all. Maybe it has something else to do with the wind.

Notice that the possibility of anything whatsoever having to do with water (which life requires) was considered or even contemplated other than comparing the "voids" to a "rivulet."

The guy is clearly smart. Smarter than me, for sure. His post required a significant amount of dumbing down. But that's the issue on Mars: the few people that care about Mars are agonizingly reluctant to even consider plausible alternative theories that counter conventional wisdom despite the fact we literally know next to nothing about the entire planet.

It's akin to the Europeans having the New World all figured out in 1530, after 38 years of exploration. (Viking landed in 1975, it's 2013... 38 years of surface exploration).

Simply put, it's groupthink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 39



PostPosted: September 5, 2013 3:25 PM 

CLARIFICATION ON REPLY NO. 4 COMPARISON IMAGE AS INDICATIVE OF A POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EKWIR AND THE PLASTIC STRUCTURE

In Reply No. 4, I posted a comparison of the Plastic and Ekwir_1. Note the "nodule" in Ekwir. It seemed to me that the Plastic was propped in an upright position upon a small "mount" for lack of a better term at Rocknest. When I saw Ekwir, I observed the brushed part exposed a "mount" similar to that propping up the Plastic at Rocknest.

Note the "nodule" in Ekwir. It seems they're calling them "minibowls."

"Whereas nodules and concretions have been found elsewhere on Mars, to-date minibowls have been observed only at Yellowknife Bay. Mastcam, MAHLI, and ChemCam RMI data show that minibowls are similar in size to nodules, ranging from 0.6 to 5.6 mm in diameter, with mean diameter of 1.2 mm. The mean diameter of the minibowl depressions is 0.7 mm"

Source: "THE DISTRIBUTION AND ORIGIN OF NODULES AND MINIBOWLS WITHIN THE SHEEPBED MEMBER: IMPLICATIONS FOR EARLY DIAGENESIS IN YELLOWKNIFE BAY, GALE CRATER, MARS": [link]

Here's a "minibowl" from Wernecke:

Note the size of the "Minibowls" are "from 0.6 to 5.6 mm in diameter, with mean diameter of 1.2 mm."

Recall, the Plastic was "1.3 centimeters" in size (or, 13 mm). The total length of the Plastic, then is slightly longer than the average "minibowl" size. I believe the "folded" looking middle part of the Plastic is the part actually sitting atop the "minibowl" or "mount." Here's a visual representation of my terms:

Now, refering back to the Reply No. 4 picture with the Plastic directly atop the "minibowl" mount:

Source: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images/?ImageID=4806

Okay, so both the Plastic and the "minibowls" are diminutive in size. The "minibowls" only occur in one of two places on Mars known beyond doubt to be (1) habitable with (2) fresh, drinking water.

POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP (FACTS):

1. The Plastic was observed at Rocknest, in the Glenelg region.
2. Yellowknife Bay is also in Glenelg, YARDS away from where they observed the Plastic.

3. "to-date minibowls have been observed only at Yellowknife Bay"
4. The Plastic and the "minibowls" are millimeters in size (both very small).
5. Yellowknife Bay's habitability is known beyond doubt, or as one might say an "astrobiologically relevant ancient environment"

POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP (SPECULATION):
1. The cracks/dust clods that tend to transcend the Ekwir "minibowls" and "nodules" appear to be similarly patterned with the cracks tending to transcend various "pebbles" as well as the "mount" at Rocknest.

I speculate, then, that both the "pebbles" surrounding the Plastic at Rocknest, as well as the Plastic itself, fit perfectly in place ATOP the "minibowls" and "nodules," and are therefore related.

Or, as they would term it, "a potential biosignature" comprising "an object, substance and/or pattern that might have a biological origin and thus compels investigators to gather more data before reaching a conclusion as to the presence or absence of life."

Wildcat


Posts: xxx

Reply: 40



PostPosted: September 5, 2013 3:58 PM 

Referencing No. 38 about the reluctannce to even consider plausible alternative theories that counter conventional wisdom despite the fact we literally know next to nothing about the entire planet . . .

Based on my lifetime of experience of having seen ice, melting ice, water, mud, and so forth, here's what sure looks like a piece of ice, possibly melting, in a "rivulet" on Mars from Sol 94 at Rocknest:

Source:

Note the weathered grey-looking soil surrounding what sure looks like ice. It's not bright and peach like the surrounding soil. Maybe the interaction between the ice and the soil causes the darker color, much like how mud on earth darkens soil?

Note the "rivulet" around it. Maybe the interaction between the ice and the ground causes the ground to "slump?"

Note how the "rivulet" immediately surrounding the ice is bigger ... then tapers off in to what looks like a thinner "rivulet" before ending up in stringy/runny looking drips, much like if you spilled a drop or two of water on a plastic folder than tilted it.

Can there be liquid water on the surface? Nobody knows, but what we do know is that "during the first 200 Martian days (sol) of the mission, the REMS data shows that atmospheric pressure did not fall below 610Pa (i.e., the triple point pressure of water); water exists only as a solid or vapor below this pressure (see Figure 1). When atmospheric pressure is >610Pa, liquid water can exist on the surface of Mars if the ground temperature is 0–13.5°C. The REMS results also indicate that atmospheric and ground temperatures frequently peak above 0°C (see Figure 2). In addition, a direct measurement of liquid water has been made by SAM (see Figure 3). Water vapor is released from samples as they are heated and this has been interpreted as evidence of hydrated minerals and ancient habitable conditions. We highlight that the large amount of water vapor released from the sample when its temperature is between 0°C and 13.5°C can only be evidence of liquid water."

Source: http://spie.org/x102177.xml?pf=true&ArticleID=x102177

If ice (and ice melt) are near the Plastic, might that raise the "probability of life creating" the Plastic "as a biosignature" a few feet away?

Further, consider this from Sol 94 as well:

Source:

I know absolutely nothing about fluid dynamics, but I know from tilting a pop bottle on its side and watching the movie Titanic that still water tends to remain level. Presumably with 1/3 gravity, that would remain true. I don't know.

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 Next


Join the conversation:















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys