How was Valles Marineris formed on Mars?

The consensus of most planetary scientists is that Valles Marineris is a large crack in the Martian crust. It is said to have been formed due to the rising Tharsis bulge as Mars cooled. As the eons passed it got larger due to erosion. It is 2,500 miles long and up to 120 miles wide.



It was discovered by the Mariner 9 orbiter, the first spacecraft to orbit another planet, in 1971.



It has also been said to have been formed by lava flowing from Pavonis Mons



By the eastern side of Valles Marineris, there are channels that seem to have been formed by a flowing liquid. Planetary scientists have had different theories over the years as to how Valles Marineris was formed and they keep changing. There are even fringe theories that it was formed by a giant arc of electricity.



I have always found Valles Marineris to be a strange feature of Mars and when I first saw it I had the impression that it was caused by a large body scraping across the surface of Mars. I am interested to hear how others think Valles Marineris may have been formed.

All Image credit goes to NASA/JPL

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Similar to the Nasa Scientist whom claimed to have identified non natural isotope's showing a massive nuclear war must have happened on mars there was another NASA scientist by the name of Tom Van Flandern, sadly he passed away some time ago of Cancer, his theory which he fought against the mainstream of which he had formerly been a part to prove as that MARS was once the moon of a much larger world, a world from which a few of the fragment's now formed the asteroid belt but which had once been much larger than the earth, something caused this planet to explode according to his theory and He was a believer also that MARS once had a civilization upon it which was destroyed by the explosion of it's orbital partner.

Sadly I can now no longer track down his site which was a non mainstream bulletin site called Metaphysic's but here is a wiki page on the guy, he was not a nut job.
en.wikipedia.org...

Regardless of if this could have caused the formation it is also possible that the Valles Marinares was formed by a crust shattering impact or explosion wave which shocked one half of the planet, the formation of the massive Olympus monse also may have been due to something disrupting the planetary core of mars perhaps on the opposite side of the planet from this massive bump on mars surface which in it's own way is as fascinating as the Valles Marinares, given that we do not know if mars had Tectonic's like the Earth and Venus do this has to be thought about and there are many of his opponent's whom now want his outspoken and non mainstream theory to simply vanish and be forgotten as it makes there claim's easier to assert as the only truth.
bazaarmodel.net...,69
www.hiltonratcliffe.com...
www.ufodigest.com...

Mainstream is not always correct, remember it was the mainstream that claimed the world was flat until they were proven wrong.

Neither Van Flanders, nor John Brandenburg (the guy who thought nuclear war had destroyed Mars) ever worked for NASA.

I'm going for erosional features, because that one actually makes sense.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
There are even fringe theories that it was formed by a giant arc of electricity.

I have always found the electric arc theory to be rather interesting. Of coarse an event of this magnitude is unprecedented so no one knows if it could actually happen on such a large scale.

Crater chains piqued my curiosity and lead me to spend time on this seemingly crazy theory. These odd formations are found on several planets and moons in our solar system.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

I have always found Valles Marineris to be a strange feature of Mars and when I first saw it I had the impression that it was caused by a large body scraping across the surface of Mars. I am interested to hear how others think Valles Marineris may have been formed.

I think its formation could have been related to plate tectonics (fracture zone), although a number of impactors obviously contributed to the outline we see today.



For comparison, there's an undersea fracture zone on Earth which bears some resemblance, it's located in extension of Mohns Ridge in the Greenland Sea:



Of course it's just a theory but not completely inconceivable, I guess...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

People that have never worked for NASA are far less suspect than Never A Straight Answer folks. Tom van Flandern was with the US Naval Observatory in DC. Here is what the Astronomy Book Club had to say about him on the back of his book Dark Matter Missing Planets & New Comets. "Tom Van Flandern is both an insider and an outsider. A professional astronomer for twenty-five years, he is well versed in the customs of mainstream science. On the other hand, after a long review of the assumptions underlying a large portion of received truth in astronomy and cosmology, he has come to a radical conclusion: much currently accepted theory is wrong...."

Van Flandern showed reason why the Martian gash was caused by the falling of a decayed satellite. Radio active isotopes tend to support that theory. There are good grounds for those suspicions in the actual physical data of Phobos which is in a strange orbit for a natural body. Its exterior belies the fact that it has interior voids of some magnitude.

The type and placement of the famous markings on its surface are not evidence of cracks in the body, but evidence that surface debris on the extremely low gravity surface has moved around and even off of the surface. Those evidences and others indicate that Phobos probably is/was a habitat and the clearly visible patterns of the surface markings are genuine "grooves." The formerly asteroid was artificially placed in its orbit and the grooves resulted from the rather rapid and forced maneuvering of the body to its near-present position.

NASA is not your friend, it is a government agency and if they've ever had any clue about ETs anywhere, you would never know about it until the proper state of preparedness was completed upon the public. BTW: They learned about the mysteries of Phobos way back in the late 1970s with the twin Viking probes.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Neither Van Flanders, nor John Brandenburg (the guy who thought nuclear war had destroyed Mars) ever worked for NASA.

I'm going for erosional features, because that one actually makes sense.

I do not believe erosion alone could have formed Valles Marineris.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Thank you for the links. I had heard of Tom Van Flandern and his theory. Questioning what is accepted as mainstream is one of the ways science advances.

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

I have always found Valles Marineris to be a strange feature of Mars and when I first saw it I had the impression that it was caused by a large body scraping across the surface of Mars. I am interested to hear how others think Valles Marineris may have been formed.

I think its formation could have been related to plate tectonics (fracture zone), although a number of impactors obviously contributed to the outline we see today.

For comparison, there's an undersea fracture zone on Earth which bears some resemblance, it's located in extension of Mohns Ridge in the Greenland Sea:



Of course it's just a theory but not completely inconceivable, I guess...

I think It is completely conceivable.

a reply to: Aliensun

I think Van Flandern's theory is completely conceivable also. Thats why I feel Valles Marineris is such a strange feature, no one can really be sure how it was formed.

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
There are even fringe theories that it was formed by a giant arc of electricity.

I have always found the electric arc theory to be rather interesting. Of coarse an event of this magnitude is unprecedented so no one knows if it could actually happen on such a large scale.

Crater chains piqued my curiosity and lead me to spend time on this seemingly crazy theory. These odd formations are found on several planets and moons in our solar system.

There are many valid points in the video. The fact that the "collapsed lava tubes" have no cave entry, no rubble from collapse and no outflow make it seem clear that they are not collapsed lava tubes.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Space lightning.

I can see why the big catastrophe theories have some plausibility given the scale of the feature. My impression (from the way the surface is eroded) is that it is poorly consolidated and prone to erode easily.

Then I remembered quick clay.

It's a metastable material - in other words it is fine most of the time, but sudden changes in the external forces acting on it (eg water content, an impact) renders the bonds between particles ineffective and it almost explodes apart in a sequence that can cover vast areas. It affects areas all over the world, but this event in Norway is famous:

My thoughts exactly. It does certainly look like a scrape, like the scar of another (probably much smaller) body, as if it hit and carmaboled off in another direction. One thing we can be sure of. It will take a while before we hear a plausable answer to this question, when a crew of colonizers/argeologists does some research on ground zero.a reply to: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Space lightning.

Very informative for a one minute video, thanks.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Wow, that Norway event is crazy! I can see that as one possible theory.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
Nice video! I would hate to be the farmer that started all of that, even though it seemed to be just a matter of time before it happened anyway.

A problem with Valles Marineris in this regard, I have read, is with the lack of delta deposits. Where did all of this material go?
There appears to be a similar problem with the Grand Canyon.
The Case of the Missing Delta
I believe conventional explanations for the Grand Canyon have to do in part with wind erosion and the fact that a lot of the material in the canyon is limestone so it would dissolve over time. I don't think we could say the same for Mars as limestone is sedimentary deposits made mostly from skeletal remains of marine creatures like coral.

Then there is the problem with Hebes Chasma which appears to have no outlet, i.e. no delta. It's almost as though the material was scooped out and somehow transported away.

I found a more plausible explanation for the creation of Hebes Chasma;
Modeling the collapse of Hebes Chasma, Valles Marineris, Mars
I only Had time to quickly read the introduction yet thought I should share it.

Maybe like this?

a reply to: Devino

There is actually quite a substantial deltaic deposit at the mouth of the Colorado. The thing with deltas is that they are mobile, and can collapse and reform many times. They tend to be made of coarser material first, then finer material further out. Most of the sediments from the Grand Canyon are probably out in the Pacific by now.

The Mid-Atlantic ridge between the continents in the Atlantic ocean is the longest mountain range on our planet.
It is spreading in both directions. Attributed to tectonic plate movements on Earth, it may not have the same effect on Mars, but certainly looks similar in appearance.