New Research Suggests That's Dust, Not Water on Mars
 Now, a somewhat unpopular idea suggests the gullies are the result of nothing but wind and dry sand and silt.
The theory was proposed just over a month before NASA and European space agencies plan to launch probes to Mars that will investigate minerals on the
planet and seek possible signs of life — life that most believe would depend on the presence of liquid water.
Full Story: abcnews.go.com...
|
Dang I thought you were going to post something about a actual "water fight".
so they are speculating that the "cannals" are dust?!
Ok, lets wait and see what they say the cannals really are.
|
Its not a particularly popular theory as you might imagine. Im not sure that he is saying that the canyons and such werent carved by water, its recent
observations by the Observer that are being called into question, that liquid water exists right under the surface and seems to periodically come to
the surface for short periods.
I would not be surprised if the truth is that we are seeing a combination of different effects, from water, carbon dioxide as well as dust. Although
sand can carve a landscape, like in the US south west, I find it hard to believe it can carve a gullie, or create a feature like a canyon.
I would think that wind patterns are too chaotic for it....
|
Even if the wind is chaotic, wouldn't the wind still have main currents like here on earth? We have our north and tropical currents, they seem to
stay on a pretty good route. Could be simular on Mars after all.
|
I don't care what those NASA bitches say, it sound more like disinformation to the public. I bet $100 bucks theirs water on mars. every dam planet
should have it. Rings on Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter are all Ice rings. Vapor from Murcury and Venus are suspected to have water.
I don't believe a word a NASA official says!!! They're so unreliable.
|
I have a bit of knowledge concerning transport of sediments by both wind and water carriers. (I will also preface this by saying that I have not done
an extensive amount of research specifically on Mars, so am not an expert on it).
However, considering that a large number of very knowledgeable geologists have examined these structures not just from telescopes but from closer
orbital photographs and deemed that they are water erosive structures, and have maintained this for the better part of 30 years, I would stick with
that consensus.
I agree with WOS, wind erosive structures do make some very interesting and surprisingly geometeric structures, they are totally different and much
more chaotic than water erosive structures.
Combine with this the fact that everyone seems to forget about Mars atmospheric pressure: 1/100 earth atmospheric pressure. Even considering the
approximate 1/6 gravity of Mars, due to very low pressure, the wind cannot pick up near the density of sediment for extended transport that happens on
earth. Considering that most wind erosion occurs due to impact from wind blown debris, I find extreme wind erosion to be unlikely on Mars.
I also agree with FoxStriker, that this is likely at least in part disinformation: It is my knowledge that manned missions have at least been
attempted to Mars.... there is something there that the general public is not meant to know.
|
I think water did form the landscape on Mars, wind most likely contributed too. My thought on water being under the surface but not on top is that it
would boil off too quickly to form large bodies of water. Considering the atmospheric pressure being 100 times less, wouldnt the boiling temp be
significantly lower than here on earth? Its like a giant vacuum compared to what we are accustomed to. I for one believe there is water under the
surface, only problem is if it comes out and its warm enough it would all boil off. Since Mars doesnt have much an atmosphere, this water vapor would
most likely escape into space. Just my thoughts...
|
