It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Green Martian valley?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Water Phase Diagram and explanation

More than enough info on why there is no liquid water on Mars.




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
prove it einstein.

your speculation counts for squat...............

i repeat, why di you debunk?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Water Phase Diagram and explanation

More than enough info on why there is no liquid water on Mars.


I'll say more than enough! A bit too complicated and wordy to be normally read! Still, I'll try to summarize.

Basically, it says that at certain pressures, water that's warm enough to melt, "melts" directly into steam. Take this experiment. When it's REALLY cold outside (like -35 celsius) go outside with a cup of hot water. Throw the water into the air. All the water will instantly freeze, a large portion of it becoming a mist. The energy from it just escapes so rapidly.

On Mars, according to these diagrams, the pressure causes something roughly similar. The water is released, but becomes steam so readily that there's no liquid part inbetween.

HOWEVER, I will say that water mixed with sand could still create a mud-type substance, a sort of slush, that's only partially liquid water. Once again I reiterate how this would not be useful for life (since it would freeze and/or dry out so fast again), but would help explain some of these lake-like images. It would preserve a shape, rather than erode it.

And yes, I understand your anger at how people can sometimes seem so misinformed - but like I said, just be respectful... and Jaguar, that goes for you too buddy
. I think the charts he provided, although confusing, are useful for showing how normal liquid water wouldn't exist on Mars. Once again, whether other forms are possible (such as the slush-mud), or not, that's another question - one that I'm not qualified to answer.

As for life, yeah, I totally believe life could have formed on Mars in the past - back when the sun was hotter during its early life - or before Mars lost most of its atmophere. But, sadly even, I see blues for a red planet - a planet that had potential, but lost it simply because it was JUST not big enough, or JUST too far away. Still, if anything, this holds that a terraforming project on Mars could be quite successful.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Yarium, thanks for taking the time to view the photo's objectively.


Originally posted by Yarium
Ah, thanks for the link Probie!

I see the image now, and the crater in specific you were talking about. I see also how it was modified - mainly by tilting the picture to be horizontal instead of vertical.

Seeing it vertically, and in black and white, does make me think different of it.


Yes, it has been rotated from the original and that does change the perspective. But I don't think that invalidates it, and I think it's a necessary step in evaluating any satellite photo since you're basically taking a picture of a ball and there is no 'correct' orientation.



The two "engine" like things on the back of the vehicle in the coloured version, clear (to me) look like two craters in the unmodified version. Also, the sideways interpretation (with colour) makes it look like the vehicle is "propped up" into the crater. The unmodified version looks more like there is a cliff-face/rock-face that sinks down into the larger crater. Now, there's also the "head' of the vehicle. I wouldn't put it past being a rocky outcrop or rock-slide down into the older crater that it was in.


I would go along with those interpretations, if not for the problem that the 'rocks' appear to be highly reflective and smoothly contoured. My interpretation is also somewhat reversed to yours, although I'm not saying either is right or wrong. I see it as a view from the rear, and interpret the "engines" as being tracks similar to a bulldozer. Above those I see what looks like two chutes for expelling debris.



Also, an important note to make, the scale on this image looks pretty big from the left side of the image to the right side is probably a dozen kilometers. That would place the "vehicle" at a massive size of one kilometer across. I don't think such a massive tunneling vehicle would be the efficient means of an advanced civilization.


Actually, the image is extremely high resolution at about 0.5 meters per pixel so the object measures about 17 x 14 meters, which is around the size of our heavy mining equipment on earth.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Someone enhanced this image to show "ridge patterns".
Looking at the image the first instinct is "these are valleys".


I kinda got it from the fact that they called it valleys. I assume they would get at least that right but if your telling me differently.....


After-all, on Earth where there is water, valleys are very common.


Kinda yes, yes.


But on Mars, where there is no water, erosion is aeolian and gravity specific.



On Mars the globally-averaged surface pressure of the planet's atmosphere is only slightly less than 6.1 millibars.

"That's the average," says Haberle, "so some places will have pressures that are higher than 6.1 millibars and others will be lower. If we look at sites on Mars where the pressure is a bit higher, that's where water can theoretically exist as a liquid."

science.msfc.nasa.gov...


Actually that is not accurate and just another of those assumptions people like you have decided to make so as not to get called named by your equally ignorant peers.


Thus, ridges form, not valleys.


The type of distinction made by someone in denial imo.


You people can't even interpret the picture correctly, and you're trying to make claims that there's vegetation? Get out of here.


Well thanks for the vote of confidence.
Well i am making these claims and while i am not alone i guess i found someone worth arguing with. Try sticking to the forum rules ( be nice) as it would suck for everyone concerned if you turned out to be as ignorent as the rest of us.

Stellar

[edit on 10-2-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
\I should refrain from further comment? I'm a Planetary Geologist...you're some kid looking at a picture of what you thought were valleys but they are all ridges.


Well the pictures i posted are of valleys according to the ESA. Take up the issue with them if you like.


There's not a single valley in the entire area of interest.


I guess that's why they call it the grand canyon of Mars?


There is no water on Mars as far as anything is concerned, it's no longer an erosional force...whatever features may have been eroded by water are very old.


There is plenty of evidence that water my flow in the same regions at some hours of the day.


There certainly is no liquid water on Mars so that rules out any life (which requires water for a balance to chemical reactions).


Probably not true as all evidence would indicate otherwise.


The atmospheric pressures are too low to support life period.


Wrong again. How much have you read about the Lunar landers and what grew on them>


The atmospheric composition is nearly entirely Carbon Dioxide.


And that is a problem how exactly? Earth plant life grow better with higher Carbon dioxide levels so why rule it out on Mars?


Martian Soil composition is very monotonous as well and lacks Carbon.


" ScienceWeek

PLANETARY SCIENCE: THE PUZZLE OF MARTIAN SOIL"

Yeah they have it all figured out and there are no questions remaining. I think if left alone you will do yourself more harm than anything else.


There is no evidence that the Martian climate has been any different for billions of years.


Shear nonsense.


Even Valles Marineris had nothing to do with erosion.
Mars is a very dead world.


Worse than nonsense.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
\I should refrain from further comment? I'm a Planetary Geologist...you're some kid looking at a picture of what you thought were valleys but they are all ridges.


Oh, a planetary geologist? Not a lot of call for that in the private sector is there?

Good thing you accidentally stumbled on to this forum.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Yarium, thanks for taking the time to view the photo's objectively.


You're quite welcome!



I would go along with those interpretations, if not for the problem that the 'rocks' appear to be highly reflective and smoothly contoured. My interpretation is also somewhat reversed to yours, although I'm not saying either is right or wrong. I see it as a view from the rear, and interpret the "engines" as being tracks similar to a bulldozer. Above those I see what looks like two chutes for expelling debris.



Actually, the image is extremely high resolution at about 0.5 meters per pixel so the object measures about 17 x 14 meters, which is around the size of our heavy mining equipment on earth.


Yes, the smoothness of that rock is very strange... which I was very tempted to include the phrase "it is unusually smooth" during my prior post - and I probably should have.

However, once again I was assuming the image to be a dozen kilemeters across. Now you say that the resolution is 0.5 meters per pixel - and that it makes the object about 17 by 14 meters large. While a much more believable size, it also opens up new possibilities for what the image is showing. For example, the strangely smooth group of rocks, now becomes a larger, though normally smooth, large rock - like a collapsed face of the bigger crater. That explanation is very plausible and very likely.

Anyways - visually it doesn't look like a vehicle to me - and is like that "face in the rocks" image we have elsewhere on these forums. That feature is a coincidence in the rocks, but this feature is one that we find because we're looking for symetry, and we're looking to make connections. If you want something to be there, you'll see it there. Now mind you, I DO want to see evidence of life on Mars - because the implications are huge - but I must remain as objective as possible. Objectively, this is not a machine.

Now, past simple objective viewing, I'll also try to meta-reason it out as for why this wouldn't be a machine. For one, where's the rest? If we assume a civilization advanced enough to build a machine like this, why don't we see others (which would have to look exactly the same remember - not just similar)? Why don't we see buildings, or construction sites? Why aren't there roads and dams and cities? So yeah, where's the rest of this civilization?

If we assume hyper-tech, and that this is equipment from an off-Mars race, then why is this equipment still there? Why didn't they retrieve it? If it's a probe, why such a big probe?

So there's some reasons why I stick by, and why I think you should change to, the view that this is natural, and not artificial.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
planetary geologist caught in intractable paradigm.

send help.

if you consider salinity, the pressure/temperature gradient for liquid water is substantially altered.

but then you knew that.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
"Take for example Jag's lake pics, he has no CONTEXT to them at all, they could be taken of the Earth for all we know, we have no clue where he even got them from...that's a big mistake. "

I apologize for not linking the original MOC images, but I can assure you while I did not provide CONTEXT, I do possess integrity. These are unaltered (other than zoomed and cropped) MOC images.

I find it very interesting that you state they could be taken from Earth (they weren't).

I have the MOC images saved on my laptop and will try and resurrect the links back to Malin's site.

I must admit, for a planetary geologist, you are indeed "old school".

Does the very name LOUROS VALLES mean anything to you?

It is not called LOURUS RIDGAS now is it?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
"I know I'm brusque but there's a difference from knowing that you don't have a formal education in it and thinking you do..."

it is that "formal education" which is now suffocatiing you. You need to loosen up, after all, the entire scientific establishment is beginning to quake as questions arise to the validity of many of its long-held and cherished sacred cows. evolution, big-bang, cometary genesis...etc.

I would also appreciate your not insulting me further.

That is all sir.


jra

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

The atmospheric pressures are too low to support life period.


Wrong again. How much have you read about the Lunar landers and what grew on them>


Could you clarify this? I don't recall anything growing on the lunar landers. I believe in one of the missions (Apollo 14 I think) they brought seeds with them, but only planted them once they got back to Earth.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I didn't realize that life was constrained by atmospheric pressures.

The topography of Mars is more extreme than Earth.

The "valleys" are in fact as low as everest is high here on earth.

pressures and temperatures increase at depth.

this is a basic scientific fact that anyone w/ a formal education would acknowledge.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Could you clarify this? I don't recall anything growing on the lunar landers. I believe in one of the missions (Apollo 14 I think) they brought seeds with them, but only planted them once they got back to Earth.


I make sure that i always can.

science.nasa.gov...]Earth microbes on the moon


One of those little talked about events. And some here say they would tell us about plant life on Mars....

Stellar



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by jra
Could you clarify this? I don't recall anything growing on the lunar landers. I believe in one of the missions (Apollo 14 I think) they brought seeds with them, but only planted them once they got back to Earth.


I make sure that i always can.

science.nasa.gov...]Earth microbes on the moon


One of those little talked about events. And some here say they would tell us about plant life on Mars....

Stellar

I hope you realize the microbes are in stasis and can only theoretically be "revived" if brought back to Earth.

They are in no way living on the Moon...



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
1) These are ridges, any Geologist can obviously tell this fact. I already stated how.




I want you to look at the areas on the larger version of the image that I have circled in Green (or outlined).

These areas show exposed bed-rock or some other kind of rock. They are exposed due to erosion. Erosion that occurs on a ridge, not in a valley.

This gives you perspective of what is "up" and what is "down" in elevation. With that perspective you can clearly identify that everything that is even remotely greenish is a "Ridge" not a valley.

Is there any arguments!?

Moving on.

Water to survive on the surface of Mars would need to be extremely brackish...beyond hospitable, probably a negative pH level.

Martian Atmospheric Pressure does not allow liquid water anywhere.

Martian Atmospheric Pressure Models

Namely that Martian Atmospheric Pressure only varies from 6 to 10 hPa.

Either way, this is also a good paper that sheds light on possible reasons for the Martian Dust Storms. (Which we still don't know the cause).

If the ESA thinks that what I have shown to be valleys, then the ESA is retarded.

But I think the ESA was talking about the actual valleys (which are nothing that I have circled and certainly nothing that is remotely "greenish".

Thus it's an error of the author of this thread that has caused confusion.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Martian Dust Storms. (Which we still don't know the cause).


Phobos/Deimos. Yes they're small.. but they're comparatively very close to Mars. Also.. dust/air is light, easier to move by the gravitational fields.. than say our moon and the oceans here.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Martian Dust Storms. (Which we still don't know the cause).


Phobos/Deimos. Yes they're small.. but they're comparatively very close to Mars. Also.. dust/air is light, easier to move by the gravitational fields.. than say our moon and the oceans here.


You've got it backwards.

The more massive something is the more easy it is to affect by something else.

This is why the corriolis effect does not work in a toilet bowl (so the myth goes that it does). There is not enough mass of water in the toilet bowl to be affected by the spin of the Earth.

The comparably less mass of the Martian atmosphere and the infintesimally smaller mass of both Phobos and Diemos combined (both are under a mile in diameter...the moon is many tens of thousands of times more voluminous) means that they have a negligible affect on the Martian atmosphere.

If Phobos and Deimos were able to cause such massive Dust Storms, each passing of the Moon would tear a mountain out of the ground by its roots.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   


Please focus on the area circled in red, and please refrain from stating that high salinity precludes life.

it doesn't here on earth, why should it on Mars.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by jdjaguar]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdjaguar


Please focus on the area circled in red, and please refrain from stating that high salinity precludes life.

it doesn't here on earth, why should it on Mars.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by jdjaguar]


Nothing lives in anything with a pH imbalance you're talking of that'd allow water to briefly survive as a liquidus on the surface of Mars.
And the area you circled is no where near "Green"...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join