Talk:Martian spherules

message: Have added 'Moqi Marbles' and 'Stone spheres of Costa Rica' to the 'See Also' section, sice these appear to be analogues to Martian Blueberries. IE, relatively perfect spheres of all sizes found all over the place. There have been similar spheres found in Southern Africa as well, I think, though no article is yet written up on them. If it were, I'd think it would be wise to add to the 'See Also' section as well. Mgmirkin 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: "Not only are there spherules on the surface but they are also found deeper in the Martian soil. The difference between these and ones which were found at the surface was that they had a very shiny surface, that created strong glints and glares which made them appear shiny or polished."
I'm wondering, does the shiny surface remark refer to the spherules on the surface or under the ground? Perhaps we could address these two separately: The above-ground items being more dull, whereas the below-ground items being more shiny, or vice versa. That should help to clarify this statement. Yeah? Mgmirkin 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor issue (clarification?)

message: Added several articles on spherule generation via electric fields. Published papers, I assume peer reviewed, found on http://adsabs.harvard.edu. I assume this is sufficient notability for inclusion as references. Articles include: "Creating Quasi-Spherules from Molecular Material Using Electric Fields (Inverse EGD Effect)," "Attention: FULGURITE!" and "Plasma Generated Spherules." Mgmirkin 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added several articles.

message: I deleted two articles on lunar spherules from the links page, since they don't have any obvious relevance to Martian spherules in size, composition, or method of formation. Geoffrey.landis 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted irrelevant links 

message: I just wanted to point out that statements like "he said on a February 9 press conference." are meaningless, unless a year is added. And even with a year, I can't really see the relevance of the exact time of the statement. Another problem is that the article has no stated source for its content, no citations at all! Perhaps, when I have time, I will hunt sources and rework this thing. TheMaster17 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of it appears to be copy/pasted from here. That's a NASA news release, which accounts for the unencyclopedic style. As a US federal government agency NASA is a free source (everything it publishes is constitutionally in the public domain), but it's still not suitable for Wikipedia as is and needs rewriting into a suitable style. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates without year make no sense 

message: two explainations are represented:
1) volcanic/impact origin
2) aqueous accredition
Impact/volcanic origin can be ruled out because the spherules ar not layerd (as it would be expected from isolated events.
Pore structure rules out aqueous accredition (see "Sedimentary Concretions vs. Impact Condensates: Origin of the Hematitic Spherules of Meridiani Planum, Mars" abstract).
Ni-enrichment is being considered as a biomarker for methanogens (see "A biomarker based on the stable isotopes of nickel", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2708719/)
This strongly favours a biogenic explaination. The relation to cyanobacteria and terrestrial stromatolites, seems very strong, as indicated by the source material, wich is unfortunately poorly represented in the text.
I think the Ni-enrichment, as well as the pores from the "Sedimentary Concretions vs. Impact Condensates: Origin of the Hematitic Spherules of Meridiani Planum, Mars" should be mentioned to point out this contraqdiction of reasoning, plus the biogenic explaination should be included, for it is the most likely, according to our current aviable data.
217.89.117.154 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: Does this section even belong in the article? It's a crank theory published in a predatory journal, and mentioned by more reliable sources only to debunk it. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungus