Standing water on Mars in PIA16550

reply to post by qmantoo


I am addressing your points. Calmly and politely I might add. Where as you are being rather aggressive.

Let's try again, shall we?

You are trying to compare erosion and weathering here on Earth to that on Mars. A common mistake and understandable.

For example, you expect that the amount of dust being moved around on Mars by it's winds will be the same as here on Earth, and happen with the same speed and frequency. That's wrong. It does not.

You've also just discounted the weathering and erosion effects of Ice (which IS water, just in solid form), which you should not do. Plenty of evidence here on Earth shows what ice can do to rocks given enough time. You can not just throw that out the window and say you only want to talk about martian wind and dust, when there is ice there too in the form of frost.

I am well aware of the time scale of 1,000 million years (a billion). However you are failing to realize that given a material's hardness factor (called "Mohs" by the way when talking about rocks and minerals), or frequency when the wind does blow and contains that material. Even given a billion years, the same rock will not have a constant stream of very soft material blowing on it 24/7.

The MERs have only explored a tiny amount of Mars itself. While we've had many orbital probes that have taken very high resolution pictures of the surface of Mars, the fact remains that the MERs have only scratched a very small amount of the surface.

The fact remains that the majority of the surface of Mars does not have enough atmospheric pressure for liquid water. Water is present on Mars in the air and as frost/ice on the ground. It's theorized that there may be large amounts of liquid water underground where it can't sublimate into the thin atmosphere. The only place on the surface of Mars where liquid water has a chance of existing for any length of time is at the bottom of Valles Marineris because it is so deep and the pressure is greater there. That and if the water has a high salt content.

I can't help that you want to believe that a photo that you see of the surface of Mars makes you think that there is standing water there, even though it's been shown many times that it can't be because of how conditions are there, and the very fact that most of what you say is water, is in fact on a slope and defying gravity.

If you want to continue to believe that you're seeing standing water, that is just fine, as you made your mind up about it the moment you saw the photograph. I'm not going to try and change your mind, especially when you've obviously decided ahead of time that everyone else that says otherwise is wrong, seem to not understand how erosion works, or want to believe that you're being lied to.

Fruitless to argue with someone like that.

However, I will continue to post for those lurkers and readers that are on the fence, or are wanting to understand Mars better (in a non- paranoid, non-conspiracy type of way).

Other than that, have a nice post Christmas day. I've got a laser sight to align on a new rifle and the rain has finally stopped so I can get out there and do it.

Where as you are being rather aggressive.

Really? How can you tell, as you do not have visual clues or gestures to add to the written word. I am merely asking for a direct answer to my points rather than your points which are often not related in any way. If you see that as aggressive, then that must be caused by your interpretation of it. I do not intend it to be so, just trying to get you to stick to the points I raised.

Let's try again, shall we?

No need to be condescending. Yes, you have been patient in attempting to answer my queries. I have already (politely) thanked you for that.

You are trying to compare erosion and weathering here on Earth to that on Mars. A common mistake and understandable.

Common? Really? Understandable? Really? I do not think it is a mistake either since we all live on Earth, and this is all we have experience of. What experience do you have which is NOT from Earth?

Visually, scientists are supposed to draw conclusions from the images taken on Mars, the Moon, etc. Of course they have instruments too, to back up their observations. However, in this case the images do not agree with the instrumental data.

For example, you expect that the amount of dust being moved around on Mars by it's winds will be the same as here on Earth, and happen with the same speed and frequency. That's wrong. It does not.

Putting words into my mouth which I have not said. A common tactic. I am afraid this is an erroneous assumption on your part.

I have not said that I expect the winds on Mars to be as powerful as the winds here on Earth. In fact you have explained this already that due to the reported lower pressure, and thinner atmosphere there is nothing like the same amount of force behind the winds on Mars. I do not see evidence for much wind at all in Mars pictures.

You've also just discounted the weathering and erosion effects of Ice (which IS water, just in solid form), which you should not do.

NO, what I said is that you have gone off on a tangent about ice weathering.

You are continuing to try to bring this into the discussion, but we are NOT discussing the breakdown of rocks due to ice weathering.

I am well aware of the time scale of 1,000 million years (a billion). However you are failing to realize that given a material's hardness factor (called "Mohs" by the way when talking about rocks and minerals), or frequency when the wind does blow and contains that material. Even given a billion years, the same rock will not have a constant stream of very soft material blowing on it 24/7.

And you fail to realise that if you blow small dust particles on a rock over a billion years, that rock will be worn away - however soft and small the particles. What is it you dont understand about that?

The MERs have only explored a tiny amount of Mars itself. While we've had many orbital probes that have taken very high resolution pictures of the surface of Mars, the fact remains that the MERs have only scratched a very small amount of the surface.

And...? What is the point you make please?

The fact remains that the majority of the surface of Mars does not have enough atmospheric pressure for liquid water. Water is present on Mars in the air and as frost/ice on the ground. It's theorized that there may be large amounts of liquid water underground where it can't sublimate into the thin atmosphere. The only place on the surface of Mars where liquid water has a chance of existing for any length of time is at the bottom of Valles Marineris because it is so deep and the pressure is greater there. That and if the water has a high salt content.

So you keep on saying, but the fact also remains that you have not given me or anyone else reading this thread ANY pictorial evidence of a buildup of wind blown blueberries.

Please do that before we continue.

I can't help that you want to believe that a photo that you see of the surface of Mars makes you think that there is standing water there, even though it's been shown many times that it can't be because of how conditions are there, and the very fact that most of what you say is water, is in fact on a slope and defying gravity.

I have already said that I could be wrong about it being water. Yes, it LOOKS LIKE water and others have also thought so too. However it may be other liquid and it may not be liquid at all.

If you want to continue to believe that you're seeing standing water, that is just fine, as you made your mind up about it the moment you saw the photograph. I'm not going to try and change your mind, especially when you've obviously decided ahead of time that everyone else that says otherwise is wrong, seem to not understand how erosion works, or want to believe that you're being lied to.

Not ahead of time, no. Some people have said that it is wind-blown dust particles, and THAT is how we are now discuusing the wind and whether it is possible for that to be what is shown in this image. I am saying that I do not see any evidence in the MER photos of the wind blowing much about - particularly tiny blueberries. You have not addressed this issue yet and so, until you do, I have to assume there is no evidence for the wind. Your 'scientific' arguments about the thin atmosphere and low pressure do not convince me that the wind is too weak to blow tiny blueberries about into piles.

Yes, make me out as the one who is wrong when the visual evidence (NOT necessarily in this thread, I might add) does not support your scientific viewpoint - however many times you repeat it.

However, I will continue to post for those lurkers and readers that are on the fence, or are wanting to understand Mars better (in a non- paranoid, non-conspiracy type of way).

You mean those people who want to believe the scientists word.

Paranoid? Asking questions and requiring answers backed up by MER images is NOT paranoid. It is sensible and using common sense. What you are asking gullible people to do, is to suspend disbelief, swallow what science tells them, and not to use their own powers of observation and common logic.

Originally posted by qmantoo

You are trying to compare erosion and weathering here on Earth to that on Mars. A common mistake and understandable.

Common? Really? Understandable? Really? I do not think it is a mistake either since we all live on Earth, and this is all we have experience of. What experience do you have which is NOT from Earth?

Visually, scientists are supposed to draw conclusions from the images taken on Mars, the Moon, etc. Of course they have instruments too, to back up their observations. However, in this case the images do not agree with the instrumental data.

You are demonstrating that right now. You are saying that, because we have not been on another planet, that there is no way to understand or know how processes on another planet works. That certain scientific facts that can be verified here on Earth do not apply on other planets at all.

You are also assuming that you are correct that what you think you see in your picture is water, and that others should see it too, when it's been explained to you many times that it's possible for something to look that way and not be water.
So what we have is: A photo that you think has water in it, with data that says otherwise, and you feel that scientist that look at that photo should just ignore that data and conditions and agree that it is standing water, instead of keeping the data on the conditions in mind and not look for a reason why it looks like standing water.

For example, you expect that the amount of dust being moved around on Mars by it's winds will be the same as here on Earth, and happen with the same speed and frequency. That's wrong. It does not.

Putting words into my mouth which I have not said. A common tactic. I am afraid this is an erroneous assumption on your part.
I have not said that I expect the winds on Mars to be as powerful as the winds here on Earth. In fact you have explained this already that due to the reported lower pressure, and thinner atmosphere there is nothing like the same amount of force behind the winds on Mars. I do not see evidence for much wind at all in Mars pictures.

So which is it? "A common tactic." or "erroneous assumption"? You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
And no, I'm not putting words in your mouth, you have repeatedly argued that the erosion we see is from water and is current, that there is no way it could be the wind because of what you think you should see based on your experience from Earth. You do it again in this post.

You've also just discounted the weathering and erosion effects of Ice (which IS water, just in solid form), which you should not do.

NO, what I said is that you have gone off on a tangent about ice weathering.

You are continuing to try to bring this into the discussion, but we are NOT discussing the breakdown of rocks due to ice weathering.

I'm not taking anything off on a tangent. You CAN NOT IGNORE weathering that happens due to ice. Period. It is part of the process that happens on the surface of Mars.

I am well aware of the time scale of 1,000 million years (a billion). However you are failing to realize that given a material's hardness factor (called "Mohs" by the way when talking about rocks and minerals), or frequency when the wind does blow and contains that material. Even given a billion years, the same rock will not have a constant stream of very soft material blowing on it 24/7.

And you fail to realise that if you blow small dust particles on a rock over a billion years, that rock will be worn away - however soft and small the particles. What is it you dont understand about that?

You are still failing to realize that the dust is not blasting the rocks 24/7. We even have rocks here on Earth that date back to 4 billion years, and we do have much, much more weathering here on Earth:

Oldest Dated Rocks

One point.

The wind-blown blueberries - where are they?

Originally posted by qmantoo
One point.

The wind-blown blueberries - where are they?

The Martian Spherules are all over the place. You can even google images for them:

Martian Blueberries Image Search

You say you are looking for "wind swept" blueberries. What looks "wind swept" to you, and what does not? Here's a great side by side example of them here on Earth and on Mars:

that is interesting to say the least, but i mean where did this photo even come from?

I've had the same discussion on another topic.
I don't see water, just some fine dust.
But i see a lot of other stuff, colorized some of it on this picture:
skydrive.live.com...

It does sort of look like water, at a first glance, although I believe it is pale grey soil, possibly eroded from the rocks and thus located below them.

Interesting discussion by scientists and scientist-types on wind, wind direction, wind speed, wind strength also some good points about wind erosion and dust deposition on unmannedspaceflight.com. I think there are some people who work for USGS and NASA on that forum too so there are some fairly knowledgable people. (needless to say, that I am not welcome there !!)
Thread here

Blueberries
blueberries 1
blueberries 2
blueberries 3
In the last one there are blueberries above the dune top and below it which suggests that wind does not sweep them off the dune top (further back) to the dune bottom and they are reasonably well dispersed over the area (apart from the dune top).


More images of well dispersed blueberries at thelivingmoon site
blueberries


This abstract suggests that concretions of hematite blueberries is caused by water not by wind as the wind is often not strong enough. (as I understand it anyway)

Activation of Meridiani Planum coarse-grained ripples requires a wind velocity of 70 m/s (at a reference elevation of 1 m above the bed). From images by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) of reversing dust streaks, we estimate that modern surface winds reach a velocity of at least 40 m/s and hence may occasionally activate these ripples. The presence of hematite at Meridiani Planum is ultimately related to formation of concretions during aqueous diagenesis in groundwater environments

(my bolded text)

more bits and pieces

from here

Along with taking images of the rocks thrown out by this eons-old meteorite impact, Spirit's cameras are scanning the skies to do “dust devil fishing": seeking time-lapse images of Martian mini-tornadoes. When captured by cameras on probes orbiting Mars, these mini-tornadoes show up as tall, thin white clouds, casting a shadow and leaving a dark trace on the ground as they move. In Spirit’s cameras, nothing has shown up so far but the odds are that persistence will pay off.

However, the prime limiting factor on vehicle lifetime was originally thought to be a gradual decay of electrical power generation from the solar arrays, as Martian dust built up on their surfaces. But while there has been "some degradation,” Squyres said, “it is flattening out.” One possibility, others have speculated, is that the rovers' bumpy progress is shaking some of the dust loose.

yeah... right. Must be a lot of bumpy ground at that speed of movement. Images of the solar panels look extremely clean.

============================
pinobot - your link does not lead to an image but to the login screen. Any possibility of sorting this out for us please?

reply to post by qmantoo
I believe this is correct. I too noticed this and posted it on tweeter 16 December. Shadow's seem Reflected under this- Layered Martian Outcrop 'Shaler' in 'Glenelg.'

Posted on Twitpic 16 December 2012

Zelong.
EDIT: Twitpic HTML didn't work

Zelong, yes, I dont claim I was the first to discover this, although I did not see your post on Twitpic. Personally, I dont think the Universe ever gives its ideas to only one person. It would not make sense from a creation point-of-view, so I guess that there are many people who have parts of the jigsaw and each can spark new ideas or add something to the others.

This taken from Wikipedia on this page

The shapes by themselves don't reveal the particles' origin with certainty. "A number of straightforward geological processes can yield round shapes," said Dr. Hap McSween, an Opportunity science team member from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. They include accretion under water, but apparent pores in the particles make alternative possibilities of meteor impacts or volcanic eruptions more likely origins, he said.
Mosaic shows some spherules partly embedded, spread over the (smaller) soil grains.

...

"We see these strange round objects we're calling "spherules" embedded in the outcrop, like blueberries in a muffin. The outcrop erodes away as it gets sandblasted, and the spherules (which seem to resist erosion better than the rest of the outcrop does) fall out and roll down the hill. Weird." said Dr. Steve Squyres. The spheres may have formed when molten rock was sprayed into the air by a volcano or a meteor impact. Or, they may be concretions, or accumulated material, formed by minerals coming out of solution as water diffused through rock, he said on a February 9 press conference.

(my bolded text)

Sandblasted by what? The wind? So... if the blueberries are embedded in the rock to start with, then they get sandblasted out, then I think maybe we are talking about serious erosion potential here. Don't you think?

Well, Steve Squyers should know I guess. I wish they would make up their minds whether the wind DOES blow or DOES NOT blow.

Not a lot more to say about the wind I suppose when even NASA dont know how to explain it. Just one more anomaly about Mars to keep us guessing until they are ready to reveal all.

It think it is not strange how scientists like to sit on the fence until they have proof and sitting on the fence for them, seems to mean suggesting that both sides of the argument are possible depending on which organisation is running the show.

Wind/No wind

Water/No water

Methane/No methane.

Life/No life

Anyway, for me, there is not enough investigation of the curious things we have already found such as the bright shiny objects which are littered across the landscape. They cannot all be parts dropped off the rover, or can they?

I don't see any water in the Shaler outcrop. I see rocks, dust, and shadows. Also consider that there are hardly any flat surfaces in the picture, and a body of water would stay perfectly horizontal. Also consider that the existence of small puddles of liquid water on Mars would imply the existence of larger lakes and rivers, rain clouds, etc. Those would be visible from space and even from Earth through a telescope.

I don't believe there is no liquid water on Mars because someone told me so over and over again. I believe there is no liquid water there because we know that Mars has very thin atmosphere, not enough to keep water liquid. Mars is also very cold, and if there were lots of water there, we would see lots of ice. The only ice we see is frozen CO2 (dry ice) in the polar regions.

I think yours is the case of wanting to believe, regardless of all scientific data available. If you don't trust the mainstream scientific knowledge, how about you build your own space probe and send it to Mars to study its environment?

Originally posted by qmantoo
Unfortunately we only have NASA's word that things are like they are.

No we don't. Mars has been studied by space agenciens of several countries.

Originally posted by qmantoo
There are people on here who can see what I see, but there are also people like you guys who have learned that according to what you have been taught, these things cannot exist.

It's not just that, we really can't see any liquid water there.

Originally posted by qmantoo
All I can say is that I have seen probably hundreds and possibly thousands of NASA, JAXA and ESA photos which I consider to be poor quality - even for 1.3M pixel phone camera shots and I do not expect NASA to be spending their/our money on mass-produced phone camera chips. If scientists will be using the same images for science, then I expect they will be taking some high quality pictures of these foreign worlds. This is what my common sense says. What it all boils down to is that I just dont believe that much science can be done looking at those released photos.

You haven't seen the HiRISE images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter? They are so large and hi-res, your computer will be struggling to display them. hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

Besides, a lot of science is done using other kinds of instruments than a camera.

Originally posted by qmantoo
If your livelihood and your families continued income required you to swallow the mainstream understanding, then you would probably want to do that for those you love. There are a lot of people working on secret projects and how often do we hear about them..... not often.

Scientists' livelihoods do not depend on maintaining that Mars is bone-dry. They would love to discover liquid water on Mars, because a) it would be a groundbreaking discovery and advance our knowledge, and b) I imagine their funding would increase a lot.

C'mon now, don't let all the scientific knowledge you learned in school leak out of your ears. You know that with the atmospheric pressure of Mars, that no body of water could ever stand very long. It would look just like the effect of dropping dry ice (carbon dioxide) in water on Earth. Over in minutes.

What I do believe, is that they are going to find remnants of marine life in Mars past. Fossil shells, perhaps more, but my money is on the fact that Mars had oceans probably teeming with life, far, far in the past. We need to figure out what took away it's atmosphere.

What I do believe, is that they are going to find remnants of marine life in Mars past. Fossil shells, perhaps more, but my money is on the fact that Mars had oceans probably teeming with life, far, far in the past. We need to figure out what took away it's atmosphere.

And when we find a fossil, NASA destroys if with the RAT - just in case there is any evidence left behind. I have a feeling that you will be searching for a long time for evidence of that teeming life millions of years ago. It is obviously easier to believe that there is the possibility of life in some past era. Science has accepted that there was likely to have been water on Mars in the past and so it is safe for everyone to believe that some time in the future, it will be confirmed. Then it will be party time.

C'mon now, don't let all the scientific knowledge you learned in school leak out of your ears. You know that with the atmospheric pressure of Mars, that no body of water could ever stand very long. It would look just like the effect of dropping dry ice (carbon dioxide) in water on Earth. Over in minutes.

Yes, how stupid of me.... Of course. What I learned at school is definitely what I should be trotting out now. Oh well, I will have to remain stupid then, because my experience has taught me that not everything I was taught at school is correct. Science has moved on. Current thinking is not what it was then.

However, I should listen to all the learned scientists and believe what they say over what I see with my eyes and think with my stupid mind.

You are quite right. Thank you for putting me back on track. I will put my blinkers back on and keep following the person in front. Baaa

You haven't seen the HiRISE images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter? They are so large and hi-res, your computer will be struggling to display them. hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

Smoke and mirrors. Actually, I do not think we are talking about satellite images here but rover images taken on the surface of Mars. Those MER IMG photos are not even worth the space they take up on the PDS.

However, if you want to discuss satellite images then a challenge. Show me (with a link) one of these images - however large you like - which can be enlarged down to pixel level (where the pixels just start to show).

The larger the image, the fewer people will bother to download it due to the length of time it takes to download. Planetry Scientists are not going to question anomalous structures or spend time on something not in their area of study.

reply to post by qmantoo


I see what you're looking at. It seems like the tiny pebbles reach a point where they are gone, and this seems to be uniform along the entire edge of the "water". And the reflections/shadows are interesting if you imagine it's water. Interesting. I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if I'm stating things already discussed.

Yes, it is interesting because according to science it cannot be fluid of any kind, but is caused by particles blown by the wind and being deposited in the lee area of rocks. Unfortunately, my problem is believing what we are told about the conditions on Mars because I do not see the same signs as I would here on Earth. However, I know that the temperature id colder, the atmosphere is thinner, wind lighter, no rain, water, very little oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, etc

Maybe it is to be expected on a different planet where the conditions are so different to ours, but I see so many things in Mars images which raise questions about all this that I want to try and find out why scientists have not investigated these things too.

Not only that but I am convinced (for whatever reason) there MUST be better photos than we are seeing, and I wonder why that would be?

Humans wanting to see what they believe, and thinking they see some familiar objects only explain things up to a point. After that I believe there has to be a rational and logical answer which is not tied into our belief system.