About Geological Mars Formations...

Maybe I am wrong but… As it seems, scientifics says that their huge volcanoes, up to 20 km tall, are product of the Mars lack of tectonic activity, that can be, but they also say that the huge canyons of about 4000 km are also a tectonic consequence, that doesn’t sound coherent to me…

Maybe a geologist would correct me, but... how the hell could a volcano or a mountain form without tectonic activity? With erosion taking place since billions of years, they would be flat if nothing else acts to raise them up!

do you have a link that will support this statement or theory. it was to my understanding, and also stated by spookyvince, that volcanoes/mountains are created by tectonic movement. as for canyons, they can also be carved by rushing waters.

Aren't they talking about "recent" inactivity. Like the last few hundred million years or so?

I don't think the scientists are saying that there was never any, but that there hasnt been for a long time.

If there had been there probably wouldn't be 40km tall volcanoes on the planet because they'd have blown by now.

Correct me if I'm wrong cuz I probably am.

Spiderj

Volcanoes don't need tectonic movement to blow, although it does help. Volcanoes are simply the mantle of the earth's pressure building up and blowing off the top of the weakest point in the crust.

However, I've not heard anything about no tectonic activity on Mars. If a planet were to have a liquid core, the crust would be moving. Since the heat wouldn't be equal everywhere, there would be currents in the magma. This would cause the magma to move against the crust, and away from the crust, breaking it apart and moving the plates. It wouldn't make sense that a volcano could form with no tectonic activity, at least in my research.

Now, it may sound like I contradicted myself here, so let me explain why I haven't. A volcano is not dependant on tectonic activity, it's dependant on a liquid core. However, a liquid core would cause tectonic activity

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Here is a link that curiously explains both things and didn’t answer me.... it keep seeing rather incoherent to me

there are actually no tectonics on mars. olympus mons, the largest volcano in the solar system, is just so large that it created an enormous gorge in the surface of mars on the other hemisphere.

Hmm, it sounds like that site is just presenting a theory, and explaining it in layman's terms. I'd be interested to find a more detailed explanation for why it's believed that there are no tectonics on Mars. The site also says, however, that there are no major tectonics as there are here on Earth. It says the canyons are formed by local tectonics, tectonics on a much smaller scale then those we have here.

there's no evidence of faults or earthquakes on mars, hence why it's believed there to be no plate techtonics.

there are plate techtonics on the earth though. after that, i would highly dispute anything on that website. what else do you explain the continants as they are now, after spreading out from pangea? (that's what the supercontinant is called, right?)

When the site said "There is no evidence on Mars for large-scale plate tectonics as we find on Earth. " it meant there are no tectonics like we have here on Earth.

As to there being no evidence of quakes on Mars, this would be expected if the core had cooled to the point of being solid. The Volcanos aren't active on there, either, but we know they were at some point.

i gotcha. thanks. i should read the sites people post...

and yeah, it's also supposed that mars' core has cooled down