Uh, they already know there are active flood regions on Mars that flow annually, and they know there are regions that recieve flowing water other
than this one volcano. Posted by Hammerite
Correction: They suspect
but have no proof. (Granted, this new evidence may in fact be the proof they are seeking). Also, granted, there is
evidence of massive exchange in water ice between poles depending on the summer/winter cycle, however, this exchange has been proven to be in the form
of water vapor, and has been mapped by tracing large plumes of water vapor in the atmosphere.
There is very little oxygen and there is very little if ANY geologic activity, which causes massive amounts of CO2 to be trapped in limestone rock.
Posted by Hammerite
Couple problems with this: first, there is not a great deal of active seismic/volcanic activity, at least that we have observed in the past 30-40
years... however, there is ample evidence of rather extreme volcanism in the past. Mons Olympus is the largest known volcano in the solar system... it
got there somehow!
As to the CO2 and carbonate, I agree, if you assume large amounts of water and CO2, you could logically assume that large amounts of CACO3 would be
formed. (Synthesis between C02 and water being the only way form CACO3, unless you assume/prove biological activity, which we have been unable to do,
aside from Cydonia...) However, as mentioned in this link, CACO3 has a specific IR signature, that has been searched for, and has not been found. That
would indicate an absense or very low amount of CACO3 on the planet.
Now granted, this link comes from NASA, and most everyone knows my opinion on NASA at the moment, but it was the best link I could find regarding this
In fact, there never had to be massive amounts of flowing water ever, iron rusts just as well in acid (such as the sulfuric acid that our own
planet was bathed in before things cooled off), which means that Mars could have frozen up as a dead world, before water even began to truly form.
Posted by Hammerite
There has been no evidence of sulfuric acid, or any other chemically active agent of that type found on mars... considering that we DO know that mars
at one time in the past had a considerably thicker atmosphere, it is MUCH more likely that it held at least some amounts of O2, which would have led
to widespread oxidation.
Well two things, one Earth is believed now to have a Uranium "battery" in the center of the core, and Mars may not Posted by Hammerite
I have not read this theory, sounds interesting. However, Earth is known to have a highly compressed iron/nickle core, and evidence is now being
presented that mars has one to, albeit much smaller.
The first possibilty is the collision caused a fracturing of our crust, allowing geothermic activity to continue for as long as it has, rather than
a solid crust forming and thickening, Posted by Hammerite
The continental drift theory has NOTHING to do with a massive impact. It has been well proven that continental landmasses act as a "blanket" to trap
heat concentrations rising from the mantel, focusing magmatism, which then causes faulting to form. This is the reason that both Pangea and Gondwana
Mars's crust is about 1000 miles thick, the Earth's is only 5). Posted by Hammerite
Mars crustal thickness is pure conjecture, and due to release of recent data, that number has been revised downward considerably (although granted it
appears to still be thicker than earths). Oceanic crust can be
as thin as 5 miles, thickening to 20-30miles or so. Continental crust often adds
at least another 75-100 miles depth.
This mantle is a puddy substance, much like plastic, the constant and rhythmic stress it recieves by the orbiting moon may be one of many reasons
why our planet is regularly geologic Posted by Hammerite
Hmmm... Puddy substance only if you consider that the mantel is largely made up of things like amphibole, orthoclase, and other similar granitic
rocks... Also, yes, we do get a good deal of lunar tidal effects, but we recieve far more tidal effect from the sun...
So why is Venus volcanic? It has no moon, and the "uranium battery theory" is just that, a theory. So Venus is actually a prime example of just
what a massive meteoric impact can do to a planet's gelogic system. Posted by Hammerite
Absolutely 100% false. We have no evidence of a meteor impact on Venus, and certainly no correlation with volcanic activity there. To begin with,
Venus has a very dense atmosphere, which would make it VERY difficult for a meteor to survive reentry to surface impact. Indeed, Venus is probably the
best *defended* planet against asteroid impact. Yes, there is evidence of a good deal of volcanism on Venus, but it is totally driven by internal
forces and tidal forces with the sun (much more pronounced due to its closer location to the sun).
Also no moons, without moons there is no tidal forces on Mars, no tidal forces means no gravitationally
generated energy seen on Io, and Earth Posted by hammerite
Again, you are forgetting tidal influences of the sun... granted, they are less influential the further out you go, and the gradient of tidal effects
increases geometrically the closer you get to the sun. Io has high degree of activity as its primary takes the place of the sun.
So finally where is all its atmosphere that would have been created by the volcanic activity? Posted by Hammerite
read my previous post
You still have some holes, but I have spent too much time on this already...