Mars gets hazy!!!

I have to question the notion these 2 episodes of 'clouds' from back in 2012 are actually dust or ice or anything lifted from the Planet Mars...

(( The phenomenon was observed on March 12, 2012 over the "terminator", the boundary between day and night on Mars....The "clouds" -- if that is indeed what they were -- were seen at high altitude, at about 200-250 kilometres, roughly above Terra Cimmeria... A second was spotted nearby on April 6, 2012, and lasted about 10 days.)) ~ source: news.yahoo.com...


What if the amoeba like forms are from interplanetary space instead & descending into the thin atmosphere instead of the other way around...

there are obscure theories that life building molecules come from Space instead of some primordial soup mixture created in some pools of watery clay on the surface of Earth... Mars might just be getting probed by a conscious molecular cloud

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: RoScoLaz4

I doubt this was a meteorite ,

The vast, bright haze lasted for about 10 days. A month later, it reappeared for the same length of time. But it has not been seen since.

bbc website

what's interesting to me is that round thing, surrounded by the white stuff in the centre of mars ..

funbox

That looks like it could possibly be in the near vicinity of 19.5 degrees?..hmmm interesting

originally posted by: CryHavoc
I'd say it's impossible. Earth's atmosphere is only about 70 miles thick or just over 100 km. Mars' atmosphere would be much less. Whatever is in that image is partly outside of Mars' atmosphere.

The International Space Station, orbiting at around 300 km, experiences a tiny amount of atmospheric drag. The Earth's atmosphere doesn't stop abruptly at some level; it gets progressively thinner and thinner, but extends beyond that 100 km mark.

Mars, with its lower gravity, can support a much higher atmosphere.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: Christosterone
But it does also remind me of the often arrogant nature of the scientific community.

On the one hand I fully accept that belief and "fact" is based on all available evidence, but the vehemency with which so many hold to their beliefs, at the expense of discovery and advancement, is worrying to me.

I am puzzled by these sentiments. There is plenty of discovery and advancement in science, but it must come on the back of verified observation or experimentation. Science can't advance on speculations and "gut feeling" alone. Scientists (and scientifically-minded amateur astronomers) discovered this event, they published it, and they are researching it, which may lead to new or updated models of what we know about Mars in particular and planetary physics in general. So where is the arrogance and objection to discovery and advancement? I don't see it, it must be simply in the minds of those who are opposed to mainstream science for some reason. (That reason usually includes believing in crackpot theories)

In fact, it is this prejudice against science and scientists that holds people back from truly embracing discovery and the progress of knowledge.

Just to throw an idea out there if it has not been mentioned.

Could it be the result of a volcanic eruption?

It does show some resemblance to images caught off a volcano erupting on Io, one off Jupiter's moons.

NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft zipped past Jupiter and caught this image of Io, the planet’s third-largest moon, as a volcano was erupting on the surface. The plume emanating from the Tvashtar volcano is 200 miles high.

Source

it sure looks very simuliar, and might explain why it has only been seem 2 times.

peace

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'm a firm believer that Mars has more of an atmosphere than we are being led to believe.

The dust in that picture ought to fall quite rapidly without an atmosphere, does anyone know how long it was there?

Mars has an atmosphere, not sure where you heard it had none, it has one that is thin but it is there, complete with clouds, weather, storms, etc.

Mars is far from a "dead planet" whoever taught you that Mars was dead was a pretty bad science teacher.

And you seem to be a poor reader!
Out of the four posts I made in this thread you jumped on the one line where I said "without an atmosphere".
Yes I should have written - Without a thick atmosphere, but it was rather obvious what I meant, especialy if you'd taken the time to read the other posts first, or even the very first line I wrote in this thread!

"I'm a firm believer that Mars has more of an atmosphere than we are being led to believe"
That was the very first line I wrote, yet you chose to jump on the other line, I wonder why?

I would expect someone of your scientific abilities to at least gather all the evidence before accusing my teachers of being a "pretty bad science teacher".

From my second post "I know it has an atmosphere, I'm just suspicious as to how dense it is"

From my third post "wonder why whatever that cloud is hasn't been rapidly pulled back to mars, unless of course the atmosphere is thick enough to hold it there"

Please show me where I said mars is a dead planet!

Really, your entire response was a bit of a nonsense, wasn't it.

a reply to: EndOfDays77

the Tharsis region , looks like its spewing smoke, there definitely seems to be an increase in white stuff , or is just normal cloud accumulation at the tops of mountains ?..

slumbering mars awakening?

funbox

a reply to: funbox

The "round thing in the center of Mars" is the largest volcano, Olympus Mons. You can also see three others volcanoes just down and to the right. From north to south they are Ascraeus Mons, Pavonis Mons, and Arsia Mons. There are also a number of smaller volcanoes in the region, not visible in these images.

I remember that this comet siding last year came awfully close to Mars but and some said that it's tale could touch the Martian atmosphere. Maybe it left some dust or ice particles behind and they are now clustering together ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Jonjonj

So then, taking everything into account, some kind of outgassing could probably be the cause.

Probably? Not really. The clouds are nearly certainly composed of CO2 or water ice. How would outgassing account for the formation of the clouds?

they surely must know more than they let on.

Why?

Mars has been shown to have massive dust storms, winds, and with the known ice, water, and CO2, there should certainly be some atmospheric phenomenon. Combined with the rotational period of the planet, etc.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'm a firm believer that Mars has more of an atmosphere than we are being led to believe.

The dust in that picture ought to fall quite rapidly without an atmosphere, does anyone know how long it was there?

Mars has an atmosphere, not sure where you heard it had none, it has one that is thin but it is there, complete with clouds, weather, storms, etc.

Mars is far from a "dead planet" whoever taught you that Mars was dead was a pretty bad science teacher.

And you seem to be a poor reader!
Out of the four posts I made in this thread you jumped on the one line where I said "without an atmosphere".
Yes I should have written - Without a thick atmosphere, but it was rather obvious what I meant, especialy if you'd taken the time to read the other posts first, or even the very first line I wrote in this thread!

"I'm a firm believer that Mars has more of an atmosphere than we are being led to believe"
That was the very first line I wrote, yet you chose to jump on the other line, I wonder why?

I would expect someone of your scientific abilities to at least gather all the evidence before accusing my teachers of being a "pretty bad science teacher".

From my second post "I know it has an atmosphere, I'm just suspicious as to how dense it is"

From my third post "wonder why whatever that cloud is hasn't been rapidly pulled back to mars, unless of course the atmosphere is thick enough to hold it there"

Please show me where I said mars is a dead planet!

Really, your entire response was a bit of a nonsense, wasn't it.

There is an atmosphere, but it is much less dense than the Earths, and far FAR less dense than say Venus where the average ground altitude pressure is something like 90 times that of Earth's at sea level.


I few ways to get an idea as to the thickness of the atmosphere:


1) Obscuring of planetary surface by gaseous substances (clouds, storms, geysers, etc.)

2) Images of the planets by space based telescopes. As you can see in that picture of Mars, there isn't much of a "halo" around it. However, take for example this image of Earth, you can clearly see the "Belly" or atmosphere that the Earth has in full uniformity around the planet: Linky

3) Rate at which objects fall with parachutes as compared to in the Earth's atmosphere (look into the Mars landers and take into account gravity).



Another easy way would be to send a rover to the peak of Olympos Mons. At roughly 63,000 feet in altitude, a pressure measurement there as compared to a pressure measurement at the same altitude on Earth.

a reply to: Phage

You said something very cool, "It brings to mind a phenomenon which is thought to occur on the Moon, an electrostatic event caused by sunlight, the lofting of lunar dust to high altitudes."

As it was exactly my thought too, however, you have it a little wrong. The sunlight (daytime on the moon) reduces the charge in the dust by knocking electrons off the surface, this is when astronauts can wonder about and the charge is not dangerous. As soon as the sunlight goes away (night) the charge is enormous and causes the dust to levitate and that awesome terminator line display to happen. Source

And then you said something even cooler, despite it being in brackets, "(but then, they don't seem to have considered some form of electrostatic levitation)." That's weird right? That the scientists have not considered this? It was my first thought and perhaps even yours so... why?

I would like to invite you to an article that is a follow up on the on a press release, American Astronomical Society a couple of years back, on faster than light electric currents in space. Faster-than-light electric currents could explain pulsars. It's a good one because here we have a couple of scientists being brave and going a whole different approach that is yielding exciting results - and most importantly they haven't been laughed off yet.

So fingers crossed more scientists look at the Electro aspect when it comes to understanding the the cosmos around us!

Could the cloud be simply dust being whipped up by strong surface winds and held aloft in the thin atmosphere? We have had sand from the sahara desert landing here in UK due to storms in that region throwing sand into the jet streams (wish I could provide a link to that article, but I am new here and still fiddling with the icons, sorry for being such a clod )..could it be as simplistic as that?

a reply to: thepitpony

if it was , the winds can lift far in access of two microns , a dust cloud made up of such fine *invisible* particles would kind of end up looking a bit like fog , is that what we are seeing ?

funbox

a reply to: funbox

metofficenews.files.wordpress.com.... tag/sahara hope this link works..If you scroll down the page their is a satellite picture of the Sahara sand in the atmosphere, very cloud like in appearance. I wish they could have got a picture of the sand coming over the horizon to make a comparison to the Mars picture.

Sorry the link takes you to the wrong page on that site, apologies all round, but a quick look for Sahara sand in the atmosphere will (hopefully ) show the image.

The Liars could be terraforming Mars. ~$heopleNation

Could it be volcanic?

If it is volcanic in nature, this plume, then it would show that the planet is still geolocially active and that would have big news.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I was kind of wondering about that.

Volcano or ice volcano.

Either these or a meteor impact maybe,
that is about all I can think of that would cause something like that to rise in the atmosphere.

a reply to: Darkblade71

but apparently the aberration rose twice.. did I misunderstand that as meaning the event happened twice . or that it came into view twice , via rotation of the planet /..

funbox

originally posted by: Phatdamage

The news article that I read earlier said that the aurora first appeared in 2012 twice and was photographed over a 10 day period in both occasions. It reaches 20km into the atmosphere and that causes them to rethink the whole "what-is-going-on-up-there" theories they previously had because nothing that easily visible should be rising that far off the surface. They said it could be aurora borealis but to the 1000x power.