"Could the Meridiani Spherules be Surficial?" Options

[djellison]

How do you make hematite rich spheres sat on top of olivine rich soil? The two are essentially mutually exclusive minerals. The existence of one makes a VERY strong case against the formation of the other. You're going to have to some up with something extraordinary to do that.

You've still not touched the fact that the spherules are different and/or absent in different places.

And the earth analogues we've seen of concretions show a lot of concretions in not a lot of rock - the ratio is certainly similar, if not higher, than the one here.

And - if you're proposing the surface formation of the spheres at the same time as the surface formation of sulphate rich rock - why is there not sulphate rich rock everywhere? Why is there some forming and hiding spheres to a depth of a few mm here (pointing straight down at a piece of outcrop) but none there ( pointing to a patch of soil a metre to the right).

Surface formation has a lot more issues to tackle than any other theory I've seen. It seems like you're trying to solve one problem, by creating many more.

Doug

[Kye Goodwin]

Doug, re your post 31, in the same order: I am not proposing that bulk liquid water is involved. The jarosite and nanophase iron-oxide crystals at Meridiani needed water to form, but ample water would have altered them further. Olivine sharing the surface with water-altered minerals might similarly be an indication of water activity that is limited in some unknown way. I don't buy the idea that there was water chemistry happening billions of years ago that stopped and has been preserved ever since by totally dry conditions.

The spherules are different in different places at kilometer scale, but that fact could be interpretted in many ways. (We saw few large spherules near Erebus, but they seemed to be replaced by many tiny spherules.)

The trouble with trying to compare the frequency of occurence of spherules in rock at Meridiani versus Earth is deciding how much rock to include in your calculation. What is the average frequency of Utah spherules if the entire sandstone formation is included as the denominator? I think that the spherule frequency that is suggested by what we see at the surface at Meridiani is more like that of a concentration of Utah spherules where groundwater conditions were favorable than it is like the average in an entire formation.

I think you are asking if mineral is accreting on rock surfaces at Meridiani, why isn't it accreting on soil surfaces. I don't know. The fate of deposited dust on Mars surface is highly variable. It interacts chemically with some surfaces and is relofted from others. Because of the large difference in thermal inertia the microclimate of soil is very different from rock at times in the daily cycle.

Of course I need the Alien Planet Pardon to discuss the topic of surface spherule growth at all. Part of being ultra-conservative in our interpretation of Mars is not ruling out anything prematuely. If a hypothesis can simplify the picture a lot by proposing a previously unknown process then we should consider it.


Here is another way to consider the surface spherule vs deep spherule question:

Let’s review the evidence that the spherules are integral to the layered deposit, that is that they are present throughout at frequencies like we see at the surface:

1. Many spherules are visible partially embedded in the rock, and the RAT has revealed that some are fully embedded.

That’s it. There is no other evidence that the spherules occur throughout the rock. If you think I missed a line of evidence, let me know.

Now how about the evidence that the spherules are not integral to the rock:

1. The spherules do not disturb the fine bedding in the rock.
2. The spherules are distributed in a way that shows no correlation with the bedding or contacts in the rock.

There may be more evidence on this side but these two lines are pretty persuasive. Considering that we are on an alien planet and do not know how to properly weight these indications, I think that it is premature to conclude that the spherules are present throughout the layered rock.

[paxdan]

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.

* The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish sheep are black!"
* The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."
* The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."

[djellison]

I think that it is premature to conclude that the spherules are present throughout the layered rock.

Until you can come up with ANY viable means by which they could form on the surface - it's not premature at all.

I'm not going to try and defend or explain the MER line of geology at Meridiani - but have you considered asking them, or searching for references regarding the interaction of concretion formation and rock layering. If the best you can do to explain your own theory is to find fault with another one - you're going about it the wrong way. Finding fault with theory A does not make theory B any less or more correct. Focus on YOUR theory with the evidence we have.

Simply looking at the laymans-terms evidence we've seen - I have not seen you tackle any of the major issues involved here - and you've got to. It's that simply. You can't keep arguing for this theory whilst continually ignoring the big issues sat on top of it (which you have been for a long time)

The berries-on-stalks we have seen at places like Fram are indicators surely that the 'muffin' is eroding (and leaving berries behind as it goes) , not being deposited. How can you form a berry in mid air and then form a connecting rod of sulphate rich rock to connect it to the rest of the rock? Did the rock know to form out to a point and then magically grow a berry on top?

If you're saying they're forming, today, on the surface, then why are they different not over km scales - but METRE scales - from the top of endurance to the bottom - a distance of <20m and a height of 5m. If you're aguing they're forming today - they why only here and nowhere else. Why not other equatorial regions of similar elevation?

How can you explain that over a distance of 1cm, you go from the formation of hematite on top of olivine soil, to the formation of hematite which is then burried by sulphate rich rocks?

How can you explain the composition of the rock you say is forming today - is different from the top of Endurance to the bottom? Whatever water vapour etc you're saying is forming this stuff is going to be the same from Tennesse to Axel Heiberg. But it isn't. Nor, simply at face value, does this stuff look like it's forming today. If it were, it would be the same look everywhere - but it isn't. Just in a few metres of Burns cliff it looks different from top to bottom, which indeed we see in matching APXS data. It it were forming today - would it not all be the same? Would it not have hidden the cross bedding? Why, if it's forming today, do we see this bright band at Victoria?

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/press/op.../20040818a.html - look at the MI's, look at the graphs. How can this be happening today?

I'm not trying to have a go at you - I genuinely want you to try and tackle these questions because for your theory to become anything other than against the mainstream hand waving ( which is where it's at currently ) - you've got to start answering these sorts of questions.

Doug

[Kye Goodwin]

Doug, Thanks for removing that off-topic post.

Regarding your post 34, Sorry I do not have all the time that I would like to have these days and just trying to read all the content pouring into Dr Burt's thread takes up much of it.

You say that I do not "tackle any of the major issues", but I think that I am cutting to the heart of the matter. The spherules do not distort the bedding layers and are distributed in a way that shows no correlation with bedding layers or contacts in the rock. These are the key observations that have led the MER team to propose their concretion hypothesis. They strongly suggest that the spherules were not deposited along with the layered material. These two observations have forced the MER team to a concretion hypothesis that seems extraodinary to many and is a such a bad fit with Earth concretions that Dr. Burt can savage it at will. (Why the shape invariance, size limit, and distributions that in no way suggest growth from materials in moving ground water?) I give the MER team credit for continuing to take these two observations seriously. The impact spherule theory just ignores them.

[djellison]

but I think that I am cutting to the heart of the matter

You're avoiding it. You couldn't be avoiding it more if you tried. You're avoiding the fundamental point of your theory..

how

In light of all the evidence I've shown ( stalks, different surface elemental compositions, different spherule sizes and distributions, etc etc)... the only thing that could be considered the heart of the matter is...

how?

Until you tackle that issue - we're all wasting our time. Sorry to be so blunt about it - but that's the truth.

Doug

[MarsIsImportant]

To be fair, you are tackling the distribution problem with a unique approach. You are suggesting a surface location for the origin of the spherules. Let's assume temporarily that that is correct. What process created them?

My understanding is that you suggest the spherules were embedded into the surface through accretion of some sort. But I don't understand your proposed origin of the spherules themselves given your hypothesis. What process created them and gently laid them down onto the surface?

Edit: Doug and I are really asking the same question. We just expressed it differently.

[djellison]

Interesting paper regarding erosion rates :

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/40227

You have to explain why this entire paper is utterly wrong to begin making sense of your theory Kye. You've got to stop pretending a theory can hang on a contraindication but at the same time ignore it's own contraindications - such as that paper.

Dou

[Stu]

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.

* The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish sheep are black!"
* The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."
* The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."

The conversation was overheard in a neighbouring carriage, by a member of UMSF and an ESA scientist, both travelling to a conference in Edinburgh.

"I want pictures of those sheep! Now!" said the UMSFer impatiently, booting up his laptop ready to attack the sheep images with Photoshop, eager to enhance the colour and texture of every strand of wool on their bodies.

"I have the pictures here," smiled the ESA scientist, looking at his own laptop, before adding "but I'm not showing them to anyone else..." and flipping the screen down.

[Kye Goodwin]

Doug, Yes, "How?" is now the heart of the matter if you have followed me this far. How could the spherules be surficial? I am advancing a sub-aerial concretion hypothesis, but others might think of other possibilities. I am not a chemist and cannot offer a detailed chemical model but I can make make some general points toward the possibility that hematite spherules could form spontaneously under recent or current surface conditions.

Many aqueous chemical processes have been proposed to take place in the Martian surface environment under conditions like the present conditions. There is a long tradition of surface-weathering discussion, from Viking weathering pits and Pathfinder rock-coatings to many phenomena discovered by the MERs. I could post a whole bibliography in time, but here are two. This Yen et al paper introduces the idea of weathering facilitated by a daily water cycle:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1571.pdf
This Yen et al paper suggests a roll for recent water activity in the formation of rinds at Meridiani:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2128.pdf

My point is that scientists think that a variety of aqueous chemical processes are probably happening on the present-day surface. Is there a particular reason to think that hematite formation could not be among these processes? There is plentiful magnetite in the ever-renewed airfall dust. This could be oxidized to hematite by a spontaneous (energy-yielding) reaction if oxidant is present as believed from the Viking results. A chemist would have difficulty setting up the assumptions for a hematite-forming process because so little is known of Martian soil chemistry or the planet's diurnal water cycle.

If we accept that it might be possible for hematite to form, why would it form as tiny spheres? Why would it be sharply localized in any form? I can't offer any reason for the sphericity or localization.

OK, I admit that this is not a sophisticated or close-to-complete model, but I haven't resorted to mysticism. Maybe a chemist will comment. I think that I will continue to consider the surface-spherule idea because it is a possiblity that would explain much simply.

[djellison]

My point is that scientists think that a variety of aqueous chemical processes are probably happening on the present-day surface. Is there a particular reason to think that hematite formation could not be among these processes? .

No - not surface - the near SUB surface - and in one case speculated as being places that have been recently exhumed.

They're talking about alteration by thin films of water. You're talking about the deposition of hematite and sulphate rocks. If you're getting water deposition from frost - then it's pure water - not the sort of water that could leave rocks behind.

Dominating Meridiani is erosion. It's clear to see from the imagery. How you can propose that the surface is growing, and burrying Berries - I just don't know.

Doug

[Aussie]

Kye,
Could you please provide a model for your theory of sub aeriel deposition and how this can result in spherical hematite products embedded withing the matrix. Look, I will even leave the accretion as opposed to erosional argument aside. Just explain how grey hematirte can form into spheres on the surface. Please don't reference weathering rinds or desert varnish, we are talking about spheres. and hematite. If you have a valid model then this thread is a valuable entity. If this is just against the mainstream arm waving then perhaps we should stop wasting time.

[Kye Goodwin]

Doug, re your post 41, Yen is referring to the surface environment in that paper in the sense that the activity he describes must be within the diurnal thermal skin depth which is generally agreed to be no more than a few centimeters. The water from frost that he suggests as an agent of chemical weathering falls on the surface each night and the heat that moves it around comes from the sun shining on the surface. I include the top few centimeters in what I am calling the surface environment.

Aussie re your 42, There are many ways to work on this problem besides starting with a detailed chemical model. Were science to become convinced that hematite spherules have formed on the surface then chemists would soon find models to explain how it might have happened. The necessary reagents are plausibly present and other aqueously catalysed processes are probably happening in the same environment. I can't yet explain why spheres would be the result, but as Dr Burt has pointed out, the MER team concretion theory does not explain the sphericity either. I'm afraid that the impact-spherule idea is the only theory so far that can explain the sphericity.

It occurs to me that I should try to find out more about the non-spherule instances of hematite that have turned up at Gusev. One was a possible hematite coating on Mazatzal (see the first Yen paper in my post 40), the second was Pot-o-gold, and the third was Halley at Low Ridge. Do we know enough about any of these to say if the hematite was in the grey or red form?

[djellison]

You've had ten days to bring some sound science to your theory - and have avoided or found it impossible to do so. You've repeatedly avoided ignored the difficult issues around it.

I'm going to take a leaf out of the BAUT rule book and put a time limit on this thread. I'll give it 5 more days – and then close it. Long enough for you to bring some science to it if you're ever going to, but short enough so we can all stop wasting our time if you're not.

If you're looking for somewhere to carry on talking about it thereafter, I would highly recommend the BAUT forum - as it's exceptionally tolerant of theories that are against the mainstream, but within well established rules.

Doug

[Kye Goodwin]

Paxdan, re your 33, That's funny, Thanks. We have crossed the border to a far stranger place than Scotland. On Mars the mathematician's humourously cautious approach may be the most appropriate.

Doug, I do this for pleasure, and I've found that deadlines tend to spoil the fun, so your proposed deadline just isn't going to work for me. You have been keeping this thread alive with your keen interest. If there isn't any further interest by others this is likely to be my last post here. There are lines of evidence which I have not discussed suggesting that the spherules may be surficial, but I am not in any hurry.

In the fall of 2004 I read the original Brine-splat paper and soon thought that the Meridiani layered deposit had been well and simply explained. Impact-surge is such a good idea that I expected to be reading about it in the newspapers within weeks. I did read it in Nature a year later and have watched the impact surge idea slowly gain prominence in the discussion. The MER team now regularly addresses it as the primary alternative to their own work. It seems that you have decided to cut off Dr. Burt's thread. It is hard to understand why you wouldn't want the central debate about Meridiani to take place on your site.

I would be happy to hear from anyone with friendly or constructively critical comments about the ideas I have raised here. I haven't got very far yet with my research on the three occurences of hematite detected at Gusev. I have a paper copy of "Water alteration of rocks and soils on Mars at the Spirit rover site in Gusev Crater" from Nature July 2005, Haskin et al. It includes the detail that the coatings on Mazatzal "contain the only occurrence of CRYSTALLINE haematite detected to date on the basaltic plains of Gusev" (emphasis mine). The source of that is referenced but I ran out of dimes at the library that day and failed to copy the last page. If anyone is ahead of me on this, just what sort of crystalline haematite was detected on Mazatzal? This info-pauper will continue the search. This question may be pertinent to the impact spherule hypothesis because if grey hematite has been found in a form other than spherules it would suggest that a Mars process other than impact may be able to create grey hematite.