NASA Headquarters Mars-Rover Opportunity Press Briefing on March 2

Quite right. There is a fourth law of thermodynamics now, it is the science of self organization, once called chaos theory, now called complexity science. It is the mathematics of Darwinian evolution, but an abstract math that can be applied to any complex adaptive system, living or material. It is now known that the mathematics for living evolution is the same for material systems. Only the level of complexity varies.

INVESTIGATIONS THE NATURE OF AUTONOMOUS AGENTS AND THE WORLDS THEY MUTUALLY CREATE

formatting link

Evolution is set in ...motion by randomness. The mathematics of evolution can be seen in a simple cloud. Which is a system that is at a phase transition between its system specific possibility space. A cloud is neither water or air, but is chaotically jumping between the two. Much as water when at the transition to steam, that narrow window when it's both at the same time.

The 'edge of chaos' is the technical term for a system at this phase transition. This 'edge' state is where classical mechanics completely fail, in math it's simply considered a discontinuity. A place where the chaotic behavior makes deterministic methods entirely futile.

But this chaotic edge state is in fact the realm where self organization occurs. It is where adaptation, self tuning and evolution is generated. The one place where classical methods fail, is the ....source.....of all natural structure and order...of evolution and life.

The very minute one applies objective methods to an evolving system, is the same minute the system is deconstructed to either its static or chaotic states. In the analogy above the system would become either water or air, since classical methods only work at either extreme, not at the edge state.

So you see, objective, deterministic or classical reductionism is completely useless in modeling a ...living or evolving system. As the source of the organization is destroyed by objective measurements. This is also the source of the mystery of the wave and particle duality. When we measure it becomes one or the other, in nature it's at the edge state, and is both at the same time, as in a cloud.

The mathematics of evolution, at its heart, is strikingly simple. See the link below for a great intro into the science of the future, as it's applicable to....any....discipline. Whether in biology, psychology, stock market or religion, it works just fine. It is a universal science of real world systems.

An Introduction to Complex Systems Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford

formatting link

People see the enormous complexity of the world around them and assume the mechanisms of order must be as complex. But in truth there is a single and simple underlying mechanism that can produce splendid complexity...all by itself. A person can understand all the disciplines at once, as they all share the same fundamental cause.

Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ

formatting link

Randomness forces systems to an edge state, an edge state forces the system to self tune and adapt. Evolution is an inherent and pervasive property of the universe. Spontaneous creation, increasing order and diversity is the norm, not a fluke.

A very readable and complete description of complexity science is at the link below, and all in essay form. Start with the themes and concept links. This page comes across a bit new-agey at first, but give it a chance. There will come a point when all of a sudden...the light switch is turned on...and you'll realize you can take this math anywhere, answer any question, and swim where everyone else sinks.

formatting link

Jonathan

s

Reply to
jonathan
Loading thread data ...

No such thing as blind luck -- everything has to have a reason? There probably isn't a greater dichotomy in human thinking than that idea vs. happenstance. Personally, I think it was just a lucky bounce.

Reply to
Greg Crinklaw

...

So that would require the planet to have, at the least, some form of intelligence (does Mars have a brain?), an awareness of the existence of humans and the purpose of the Rover (does Mars have eyes, telescopes, radio and TV receivers?) and quite stupendous control of the movements of air currents (by what mechanism?) in order to quide the lander exactly into the crater.

It seems to me that if Mars had all this, and wanted us to find out about it, it would not be teasing us with hints of the existence of liquid water in ages past - it would be writing "HELLO NASA, WELCOME TO MARS!" in 10-mile-wide dust devil tracks on the Martian plains!

The more sensible explanation is that it was a fortuitous accident.

Reply to
Icarus

"Icarus" wrote in news:c247jn$1o1482$1@ID-

165613.news.uni-berlin.de:

Subtlety is not your strong suit, Ic -- :-). Perhaps a closer look at those dust devil tracks might reveal a coded message in Martian.

Of course you are right, luck, or good fortune has everything to do with it! (That was very much my point, too)

It is like contemplating the improbablity of how we all managed to ride our little blue speck of cosmic dust long enough to develop rockets that could give us a real close look at the next speck over. The red one.

Mark

Reply to
mlm

You've got me there :-)

There's a saying, isn't there: "Any actual event is extremely improbable" (or something like that).

Reply to
Icarus

I have posted the latest images of the spheres on my site now. Cut ahead to the views of the organisms. I did extensive frame layering to resolve the finer features and still had a tough time with the poor contrast. Then I wrote a differential analysis routine that revealed a good deal of detail. On the two lower spheres (which are from the Sol 014 images) you can see starfish patterns, groups and lines of warts and dots, and in some newer images (which I will release as soon as I get a go-ahead from my lawyer) you can see that some have TWO mouths- that is a very surprising find to me. Urchins have small beak-like mouth openings that are recessed into their integuments. This exact feature is visible on the spherules that are turned properly. But all show excellent contrast compared to the original images now. I just about have this enhancement thing whipped- soon I will post fully detailed images of all the spheres that I can get images of. Also, I am working hard to resolve the interior features of the cut spheres. I can make out some basic features already- for instance, there appears to be a roughly pentagonal inner symmetry and some sort of reticulated structure like a gut- but the information is still too hard to pick out. But these spheres show eyespots, rows of plates- they look bio-mechanical almost. Oh, and George- the "tiny crystal" was likely one of the eyespots- they can protrude a bit and are surrounded by pentagonal or hexagonal areas of plates and dots, so it could very easily be mistaken for an inorganic crystal. And, no offense taken about the "clueless" remark. I passed my data and methods along to JPL today- I have a good, long established lead on their releases now, so it's safe to say that once they realize that I have found the answers, they cannot dispute them.

Cheers!

Chip Shults

Reply to
Sir Charles W. Shults III

Mr. Sluts, you are not only clueless, you are insane. Who do you think you are fooling? The geological community? Anyone else in the scientific community? I don't think so. Take you toys and post them on alt.conspiracy, and maybe you will find a crowd that gives a shit about your non-science.

Reply to
George

It's still only photgraphic evidence. Remember the "canals" on Mars. Mostly a product of optical illusion and wishful thinking.

chris > I have posted the latest images of the spheres on my site now. Cut

Reply to
chris

" George" wrote in message news:ALB1c.35042$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

I have to say thanks for pointing out that you found my error in using the term "crinoid" where I meant "echinoderm" and that I have corrected. It was a simple mistake, just as anyone could make when typing as rapidly as I was. But I don't understand your vitriol. What is the problem with people finding something and then sharing it? I have posted easy to follow steps to verify my findings, if you would like to try them. Being insulting gains you nothing, but it reveals that you are a mean spirited individual. Nonetheless, I do benefit from your feedback, because I do tend to listen and sort out the wheat from the chaff. You probably do know something about crinoids. But as for fooling people, I have no intention to do so at all. Instead, I want people to see and judge for themselves. It is only natural that I would be excited due to the magnitude and detail of these findings. I certainly could not have found these things without the intense efforts and dedication of the NASA and JPL people, nor would I claim otherwise. I do expect that there will be some shock, outrage, and downright revulsion at the thought that we are not alone in the universe. Perhaps you have some deep-seated religious training that prevents you from considering the fact that Earth is not the unique "jewel of creation" that so many zealots insist it is. So, we had two hits in this solar system; two unique worlds where life took hold. It bodes very well for other places such as Callisto and Europa, in my humble opinion. What does that imply for the galaxy as a whole? I have the very strong conviction that our galaxy is literally teeming with life- a phenomenon that chemistry and physics pretty much dictates, even based on what we knew before Opportunity started sending back its images. Even the Oort cloud bodies are covered in tholin, that reddish-brown organic material formed when abiotic compounds are exposed to energy (such as stellar ultraviolet or a lightning discharge.) Would you prefer that we found alien life in the form of some silly science-fiction format; the skies opening and gruesome slimy, pop-eyeballed monsters with rayguns demanding women? We are privileged to have found some solid data that confirms what we have suspected but had no second samples to learn from- that life will begin wherever and whenever it possibly can. So no, George, I am not trying to "fool" anyone and no, I am not "clueless". I make my living in research and have worked in technical and scientific fields all of my life. I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories, I do not support the ideas of "black helicopters" sneaking up to nab citizens who step out of line or discover some dark secrets. I do not think that alien invaders are out to get us, or anything of the sort. I have simply found that the spherules are fossils, similar to sea urchins, and that this tiny finding has great implications for what we think and know. If you dislike my enthusiasm, then too bad, for you are then as fossilized as the spherules and will live your days out picking on others, hating those who smile and take joy in their lives, and leaving a dark cloud of ill-will over all those you interact with. And have a nice day.

Cheers!

Chip Shults

Reply to
Sir Charles W. Shults III

The vitriol comes from an impatience with having to weed through the kooks to find those who truly know what they are talking about. You obviously do not fit the latter. Why? Two simple reasons. 1st, there is not a reputable scientist on the planet, let alone a reputable paleontologist who would even suggest that the spherules are anything but inorganic mineral concretions. When you say things like "I have simply found that the spherules are fossils, similar to sea urchins", huge red flags go up. I've studied echinoderms for many years, both fossil, and living. I have published on eight new species of Mississippian-aged crinoids from the Mid-Continental U.S.

formatting link
. I presently have a 17" diameter (tip of appendage to tip of appendage) live green brittlestar that I've been raising for over ten years. So I do know a little about Echinoderms.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that Mars ever attained the complexity to have produced an environment that could have evolved such an advanced life form as an echinoderm. These animals are very complex struturally, and are the first animals to show up in earth's fossil record with a protected spinal nerve. It took at least 2.5 billion years of organic evolution in a tropical/subtropical oceanic environment for this trait to first appear on the earth. There is no evidence that Mars ever had such an ocean, or even a large body of water for a long enough period of time for such advanced animals to have evolved. It almost certainly was never warm enough. All echinoderms are community fauna, by which I mean that they by and large live on reefs within a specific ecosystem. And all are predators and filter feeders (a specialized form of predator). Since that is the case, there has to be something for them to predate if they are to survive. There are no known solitary echinoderms, at least none that I am aware of, and none that live as a singular fauna group, as would necessarily be the case with these alleged "fossil" echinoderms that you think you have found on Mars.

Secondly, to say without hesitation that you have found echinoderms on Mars, while Johanson over in outer slobovia is claiming that they are sponges (two completely different animals, I might add), especially in light of the evidence that has to date been presented by JPL, just raises alarm bells that you not only have no clue as to what you are talking about, but are, in fact, trying to draw attention to yourself to feed some egotistical need that you have. The whole concept that complex lifeforms that evolved on earth could also have evolved on Mars is something that I relegate to the catagory of the anthropomorphosing of Mars. And to suggest that NASA or JPL would take seriously any evidence you think you have that these spherules are echinoderms, or echinoderm-like is simply stretching credulity to its limits.

As for any notion that my objection stems from some religious conviction that life cannot exist anywhere else, that is simply hogwash, since I am not a religious man. Do I think that life exists elsewhere? Given the size of the universe, I think that if there is no life anywhere else but on earth, it would seem to be, as Carl Sagan put it, "a terrible waste of space". Having said that, I do not believe that higher life forms ever evolved on Mars. Bacteria? I think that an argument can be made that bacteria, or some similar form could have evolved, given what is currently known about the planet. Do I think that some form of life currently exists on Mars? I don't honestly know. The possibility certainly exists, at least in the subsurface. Do I think that these spherules are anything but inorganic in nature? No.

Reply to
George

God, ain't that the truth. I get so tired of all these failed human beings who live in their own fantasy world. Some are all the way in, others half in, and others still with just one toe in. Regardless it's such a big waste and a huge distraction from any real discussion. Why not take your own advice George and just kill file this guy along with ellifritz and the other loons? I'm doing it right now.

Reply to
Greg Crinklaw

Here's the thing -- if you have to tell him that in the first place, then telling him now is futile. Paul Reiser did a comedy bit about people who "just didn't get it." It's pretty funny, but at first I was completely baffled. In the real world I think like a teacher: if they "don't get it" they must simply be misguided and after the reality is carefully explained if they still don't get it that must somehow be *my* fault for not explaining it well enough. Fortunately for me I finally did get what the comedy bit was about: people who don't get it already aren't gonna get it now! If you've followed that there is a bit of irony that I finally did get it... Regardless, these net loons aren't worth our time and trouble. Just kill file 'em and poof -- they go away.

Reply to
Greg Crinklaw

Well, you certainly don't have to tell me twice. Done.

Reply to
George

I second that decision.

Done also.

Reply to
Alan Kilian

You are a brave soul, posting your telephone number on the newsgroups.

Reply to
George

Oh, it's only been 20 years now that I've been posting to Usenet Newsgroups with my full information.

Currently about 25% of my incoming e-mail gets through procmail and spamassassin and I consider that not too bad.

Reply to
Alan Kilian

Brave, nonetheless.

Reply to
George

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.