Slashdot Mirror
Martian Rock Found In Morocco
daeley writes "The BBC is reporting that a rock found in 2001 in Morocco is originally from Mars, similar in composition to the 1977 Antartica find. 'The meteorite would have been blasted off the Red Planet by an impact and may hold clues to Mars' watery past... scientists say the fragments are magmatic rocks. Magmatism is the main process by which water moves from the core of planets to their surface.'"
Even more ironic-- it contains olivine. Spirit's found some of that.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
Yeah, I saw the "magmatism is the main process by which water moves from the core of planets to their surface" thing and coughed quietly to myself *cough* *cough*.
Core differentiation generally happens REALLY early in planet's history, and it seems to me that it isn't precisely correct to say magmatism in this context, (which implies "volcanism" at least to me). Bouyancy and heat are what really moves water to the surface, since it is a) much less dense than rock (think about it) and b) not real stable at real high T.
In other words -- what moves water around is a whole mess of ugly chemistry and thermodynamics that I'll leave to my petrologist buddies to explain to me (dah? dah!) with odd pentagonal diagrams.
Two reasons for suspecting they originated on Mars
It never ceases to amaze me that in the world of "science" that theory is most always talked of as proven fact. If the probability that object x doesn't exist is 80%, that object is talked about as if it doesn't exist conclusively, even though the possiblity that it exists is in the other 20%t. The age of the universe is a good example. Scientist y estimates to to being x Billion years old, and every textbook, news article, journal, documentary, etc states that the universe is x billion years old as if proven fact. The truth is that no-one currently knows exactly whether it's one billion or a billion billion years old.
the distance from the earth to mars, at its closest is more than 55 million kilometers (33 million miles). the article states that about 20 such rocks have been found on earth so far. It seems that Mar at some point must have undergone some pretty serious bombardment from asteroids, and big ones too it seems, if the impacts caused martian rock to leave its gravitational field, and come all the way to earth. It seems like trying to throw a dart at an ant from 100 yards
> It never ceases to amaze me that in the world of "science" that theory is most always talked of as proven fact. If the probability that object x doesn't exist is 80%, that object is talked about as if it doesn't exist conclusively, even though the possiblity that it exists is in the other 20%t. The age of the universe is a good example. Scientist y estimates to to being x Billion years old, and every textbook, news article, journal, documentary, etc states that the universe is x billion years old as if proven fact. The truth is that no-one currently knows exactly whether it's one billion or a billion billion years old.
That's why scientists prefer convergent evidence over one individual's opinion.
BTW, AFAICT astronomers are now nearly unanimous on an age of 13.7 billion years. This is a fairly recent result.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Perhaps you mean another, now defunct, Sun. Ours is still made of Hydrogen.
Almost every piece of matter on Earth came from defunct Suns (stars) what exploded at the end of their lives. The very monitor you are staring at is left-over star boom boom. It is suspected that heavy elements like gold came from supernovas or hypernovas, really big stars with really big booms, the kind that can outshine entire galaxies for a few days or weeks. So next time you see a gold ring, realize that it came from the largest kind of explosions known in the entire universe. Booms beyond human comprehension.
Table-ized A.I.
I would have loved to send this rock into Nasa's new rock collecting program, which allows kids to compare their rocks to those on mars by having them analyzed by the same instruments used by the rover.
e at ures/F_Schoolhouse_Rocks.html
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/f
Do you think NASA would give a kid back a rock it found to be from Mars?
Oh, you have no idea how well you summed up the petrology of this meterorite:
"It is described as a peridotite, an extremely rare type of Mars rock consisting of the minerals olivine, pyroxene and plagioclase glass."
This beastie originated near the mantle, at great depth. And there is NO water down there. If the meteorite contains water, it may be from Mars, but it may also be contamination from earth.
I've seen zero evidence for either, and after NASA claimed they had proof of Mars life in a meteorite, I will accept no evidence until validated by and outside lab.
you don't need to _land_ there to measure the composition of the atmosphere. pfff, that is so yesterday.
True, but atmospheric entry is such a bumpy, complex, and involved process that I am surprised one can get decent readings during such time. I suppose an orbiter could take the spectrum of the limb (edge) of the planet, but the surface would interfere it seems to me. It just seems far more reliable to get it at the surface. Then again, I ain't no space scientist.
Table-ized A.I.
OK, I got a bit bitchy.
The point is, the specimen is contaminated and only limited samples are available. NASA held out the "Life on Mars" sample until its outrageous conclusions were forced into the public eye. They tried to prohibit peer review. Once a rare sample is set aside as untouchable, forget about validation.
We'll be getting important data from validated samples from the rovers and that data will be available to all for peer review.
But to state that the universe is 13.7 billion year old as a fact, is indeed error. The possiblity exists that man's feeble grasp at understanding the universe is incorrect - and thus the age of the universe might be of some other vintage in reality.