Mars - miscellaneous anomalies

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mars: Hi-Rez

Post by seasmith » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:54 pm

davesmith-au wrote:
Many planetary surface images play such tricks, or rather our brains do, and it takes a bit of persistence at times to work it out and tell the brain to interpret them properly
:)

For this image only:
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRA ... browse.jpg

Are you saying that the numerous cross-hatching markings (somewhat like seafloor-spreading cracks) are at the bottom of an arc-gouged (EDM) trench ? [ Note that the larger ones, as seen in the magnified image, are lit up opposite to your proposed "depression" ]

Is it typical of such such a linear "trenches' to have one side smoothly scalloped, and the other (right side) to be very roughly gouged ?

Isn't it possible that the smaller roundish "craters" have raised centers, that are illumed on their left flanks ?

Aren't the many small irregular shaped artifacts probably actual depressions, which are lighted on their right hand sides ?


If the major entity is a raised bead, then on the darker, rougher right side
there is a continuous linear depression present. That phenomenon is also very common to weld beads, especially if the plasma-arc current is directed at an angle to the surface, and is (a weld defect) called "undercut", for obvious reasons.

Just trying to consider all the evidence...

Cheers, s

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mars: Hi-Rez

Post by seasmith » Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:07 pm

~

I now believe that the many small, irregular shaped artifacts are in fact raised above the mean surface area, and that
the image Is sunlit from the right-hand side.

Happy New Year to All,

s

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mars: Hi-Rez

Post by seasmith » Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:11 pm


seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mars: Hi-Rez

Post by seasmith » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:10 pm

new
Seasonal Erosion and Restoration of Mars' Northern Polar Dunes

[with HiRISE images and explanations]

SCIENCE VOL 331 4 February 2011

http://www.zinio.com/my-library.jsp?_requestid=10428160

http://www.sciencemag.org

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Mars - miscellaneous anomalies

Post by nick c » Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:59 pm

This thread is a composite of the following threads:

Virgle to build colony on Mars....

newly released photos of Hebes Chasma

Mars: Clear Evidence of Lichtenberg at Meridiani Planum

NASA says carbon dioxide digs Martian gullies

Mars: Hi-Rez

HIRISE images

New Mars Images

Fulgurites & Mars Tubes

Mysterious Layered Hills in Northern Mars.

MARS MUD VOLCANOES

Periodic Layering in Becquerel Crater, Mars

User avatar
The Great Dog
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Mars - miscellaneous anomalies

Post by The Great Dog » Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:37 am

For this image only:
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRA ... browse.jpg

Are you saying that the numerous cross-hatching markings (somewhat like seafloor-spreading cracks) are at the bottom of an arc-gouged (EDM) trench ? [ Note that the larger ones, as seen in the magnified image, are lit up opposite to your proposed "depression" ]
It's definitely a trench with ripples on the bottom.
There are no other dogs but The Great Dog

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mars - miscellaneous anomalies

Post by seasmith » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:15 pm

Image

Science AAAS
Martian Mud Volcanoes
by Sid Perkins on 5 April 2011

Mars-orbiting probes have spied hundreds of mounds, some up to 500 meters across and dozens of meters tall, inside an ancient crater near the planet's equator. In the 15 April issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, researchers make the case that these enigmatic features (depicted in blue in the main image) are mud volcanoes. For one thing, the near-circular mounds weren't formed by molten-rock volcanoes because there are no deposits of volcanic ash or lava nearby. Instead, the mounds contain boulders and other chunks of material apparently stripped from underlying layers of sediments (depicted in yellow-green), which range from 200 to 500 meters thick. Also, most of the mounds inside the 90-kilometer-wide Firsoff crater (inset) are found on slopes inside the crater rim and were likely created when mud under high pressure—which likely formed during a warmer, wetter phase on the Red Planet—oozed to the surface through a network of cracks there. Other teams have claimed finding mud volcanoes elsewhere on Mars, but the researchers contend that the new finds are the first that definitively link material in the mounds to underlying sediments.
http://news.sciencemag.org/process/opti ... hp?src=img]//news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/assets/2011/03/04/sn-crater.jpg&[/img]cmd=part(196x100)


FWIW ...

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... .html?etoc

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mars - miscellaneous anomalies

Post by Lloyd » Tue May 17, 2011 4:41 pm

* Have these images been posted yet? I see now that Allyn posted the first one on page 6. But this is a closeup, so I'll leave it here too. The "trees" in the first 2 images resemble some of the thin vertical wall-like structures in Dave T's recent Lightning Scarred Mars video and the similar structures in Saturn's rings in a recent TPOD. The cyclone in the third image looks like cyclones on Earth. I'm surprised such a feature is possible in Mars' thin atmosphere.
http://forums.mycotopia.net/attachments ... he_big.jpg
Image
http://forums.mycotopia.net/attachments ... lanche.jpg
Image
http://ccrc.unh.edu/~stm/AS/Common/Mars_Cyclone.JPG
http://ccrc.unh.edu/~stm/AS/Weather_Too ... rimer.html
Image
Fig. 11. Martian migratory cyclone.
Recorded by one of the Viking orbiters in the mid-1970's, the rotation of this Martian cyclonic storm (approximately 250 kilometers across) is governed by the same physics as terrestrial cyclones. The spiraling clouds are composed of water and water-ice, just as the clouds in Earth cyclones. False colors have been used to enhance the storm's features.
(Source: NASA/JPL.)

User avatar
MattEU
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:00 am
Contact:

The evidence for rapid growth of Mars

Post by MattEU » Fri May 27, 2011 6:20 pm

Hf–W–Th evidence for rapid growth of Mars and its status as a planetary embryo

Terrestrial planets are thought to have formed through collisions between large planetary embryos1 of diameter ~1,000–5,000 km. For Earth, the last of these collisions involved an impact by a Mars-size embryo that formed the Moon 50–150 million years (Myr) after the birth of the Solar System2, 3. Although model simulations of the growth of terrestrial planets can reproduce the mass and dynamical parameters of the Earth and Venus, they fall short of explaining the small size of Mars4, 5. One possibility is that Mars was a planetary embryo that escaped collision and merging with other embryos1. To assess this idea, it is crucial to know Mars’ accretion timescale6, which can be investigated using the 182Hf–182W decay system in shergottite-nakhlite-chassignite meteorites6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Nevertheless, this timescale remains poorly constrained owing to a large uncertainty associated with the Hf/W ratio of the Martian mantle6 and as a result, contradicting timescales have been reported that range between 0 and 15 Myr (refs 6–10). Here we show that Mars accreted very rapidly and reached about half of its present size in only Myr or less, which is consistent with a stranded planetary embryo origin. We have found a well-defined correlation between the Th/Hf and 176Hf/177Hf ratios in chondrites that reflects remobilization of Lu and Th during parent-body processes. Using this relationship, we estimate the Hf/W ratio in Mars’ mantle to be 3.51 ± 0.45. This value is much more precise than previous estimates, which ranged between 2.6 and 5.0 (ref. 6), and lifts the large uncertainty that plagued previous estimates of the age of Mars. Our results also demonstrate that Mars grew before dissipation of the nebular gas when ~100-km planetesimals, such as the parent bodies of chondrites, were still being formed. Mars’ accretion occurred early enough to allow establishment of a magma ocean powered by decay of 26Al.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10077.html
Mars 'remains in embryonic state'

Mars formed in record time, growing to its present size in a mere three million years, much quicker than scientists previously thought.

Its rapid formation could explain why the Red Planet is about one tenth the mass of Earth.

The study supports a 20-year-old theory that Mars remained small because it avoided collisions with planetary building material.

The new finding is published in the journal Nature.

In our early Solar System, well before planets had formed, a frisbee-shaped cloud of gas and dust encircled the Sun.

Scientists believe that the planets grew from material pulled together by electrostatic charges - the same force that's behind the "dust bunnies" under your bed.

These proto-planetary dust balls grew and grew until they formed what scientists term "embryo" planets.

These rocky masses were large enough to exert a considerable gravitational force on surrounding material, including other nascent planets.

Nudging each other with their gravitational fields, the embryos were often thrown from their regular orbits, sometimes into the path of another large rocky mass.

If collisions occurred, these nascent planets were either expelled from the Solar System or shattered into pieces. These pieces were often combined to form a larger planet. In fact, the Earth's Moon is thought to be the result of an embryo planet colliding with our own planet.

By modelling this process, astro-physicists can determine the size of planets they expect to form at a given distance from the Sun. Mars is an outlier; it should have grown to around the size of the Earth, but remains about one-tenth its size.

Because of Mars' small size, many scientists have long suspected that the Red Planet avoided the collisions that allowed other neighbouring planets to increase their girth.

Red Runt

By studying the chemical composition of meteorites, geochemist Dr Nicholas Dauphas of the University of Chicago in Illinois and Dr Ali Pourmand of the University of Miami in Florida joined forces to try to confirm this.

By measuring the concentration of elements Thorium and Hafnium in 44 space-rocks Dr Pourmand and Dauphas have come up with the most precise estimate of the time it took Mars to form.

Between 2 and 3 million years they suspect; short compared to the Earth, which is thought to have taken tens of millions of years to grow to its current size.

"We were pleasantly surprised because now we have precise evidence in support of the idea… that Mars is a stranded planetary embryo", Dr Pourmand told BBC News.

He thinks that Mars was around more or less in its current size when the Earth was beginning to form.

Given this, Mars could not have experienced the same type of growth as the Earth and Venus, says Dr Pourmand.

It's likely that Mars remains small because it deftly avoided colliding with other planets.

"The fact that Mars appears to have been left unscathed could just be down to luck," says astrophysicist Dr Duncan Forgan of the University of Edinburgh, UK.

He explains that while it is unlikely that a planet could escape collisions for such long periods, statistically one expects it to happen from time to time.

When modelling planetary dynamics, researchers find it easier to predict what happens in general, he says, but it is much more difficult to determine what happens in specific solar systems, or in specific cases like Mars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13567381
althougth shocking how quick they think mars was formed, was it formed even quicker in an Electric Universe?

User avatar
The Great Dog
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: The evidence for rapid growth of Mars

Post by The Great Dog » Sun May 29, 2011 12:19 pm

"The fact that Mars appears to have been left unscathed could just be down to luck," says astrophysicist Dr Duncan Forgan of the University of Edinburgh, UK.
Huh-huh-huh.. He said "unscathed".

TGD
There are no other dogs but The Great Dog

User avatar
Jarvamundo
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: The evidence for rapid growth of Mars

Post by Jarvamundo » Sun May 29, 2011 4:00 pm

When modelling planetary dynamics, researchers find it easier to predict what happens in general, he says, but it is much more difficult to determine what happens in specific solar systems, or in specific cases like Mars.
It's really easy to model solar systems... ohh except our one..

ROFL :lol:

JW Doogie
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:41 pm

Re: The evidence for rapid growth of Mars

Post by JW Doogie » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:32 pm

These mainstream scientists might as well work for Disney or Hollywood, with all the scientific rigor they put into their fantasies. Their idea of "testing" their models is skewed.

By the same standards, Laura Croft is a computer simulation "tested" and "proven" model of human female capability.
On the other hand, I did enjoy watching Hollywood and Angela Jolie's attempts to make a Ms Croft seem plausible.

Carl Sagan is not nearly as compelling to watch as Angela Jolie, when being sold some fantasy.

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: The evidence for rapid growth of Mars

Post by jjohnson » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:13 pm

It's likely that Mars remains small because it deftly avoided colliding with other planets.
Scientists should be extremely careful when assigning skills to planets, particularly collision avoidance skills.
"The fact that Mars appears to have been left unscathed could just be down to luck," says astrophysicist Dr Duncan Forgan of the University of Edinburgh, UK.
Scientists should be particularly aware of of the danger of repudiating their earlier conclusions regarding deftness or skill of a planet by replacing it with "just...luck". "Luck" is one of those scientific shorthand code words for "we wish we really knew just WTF happened with Mars here."
By measuring the concentration of elements Thorium and Hafnium in 44 space-rocks Dr Pourmand and Dauphas have come up with the most precise estimate of the time it took Mars to form.
Between 2 and 3 million years they suspect...
We were pleasantly surprised because now we have precise evidence in support...
Hardly anyone is more surprised than I am. I suspect that the precision of their estimate, where the upper bound is 50% greater than the lower bound, is evidence that their "precision" is not quite what it could be, but what can you expect when all your evidence consists of "44 space rocks"? Even giving that they can tell from half-life decay roughly how old their 44 rocks are, and may be able to tie those rocks back to Mars somehow, is it really certain that they came from Mars, and not another rocky planet with a similar makeup to its crust? How do they know the complete history of those rocks, like maybe they fell onto Mars way back before Mars was deft enough to avoid them, maybe a hundred million years ago, and then, 97 million years later, Mars dodged the wrong way for a second unlucky time, and some big impactor hit it again and blasted the 44-rock family back out into space, where they fell on the not-so-deft-as-Mars Earth!

In making estimates, it is important for scientists to understand the subtle difference between precision and accuracy. Precision may mean throwing three darts at a target and they all land within 9 mm of each other, on the wall rather to the left of the target. Accuracy is getting all 3 darts in the bull, regardless of spacing differential and outliers.
;)

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: The evidence for rapid growth of Mars

Post by mharratsc » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:34 am

This is yet another proof that you need sweeping and grandiose statements written for < 5th graders to make it into a mainstream science article... :P
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mars - miscellaneous anomalies

Post by seasmith » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:57 pm

Geologic Enigma Is Target of Next Mars Rover
...decided to send the 900-kilogram Curiosity to land beside a 5-kilometer-high pile of layered sediments in Gale crater.
The catch is that Gale's geologic story is far less clear than its closest competitor, Eberswalde crater. Unlike Eberswalde, there are no definitive geologic signs that Gale ever held a lake. And no one can say how the layered mound formed—in a lake or not; by streams bringing in sediments; or by winds bringing in dust, volcanic ash, or impact debris. "I'm scratching my head as to what the heck it is," says planetary scientist John Mustard
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... 5d19157491

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests