Cosmic Catastrophe

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Mars didn't freeze geologically, that's obsolete science. The Mars geologic mission is only takes seismic data from its 1 location and it's identified a mantle, core and an over all stunning level of activity.

1) Martian core radioisotopes were spent @ 2-billion years
2) There was no longer an internal heat source remaining to drive volcanism
3) Martian volcanism ceased @ 2-billion years
4) At 2-billion years, volcanoes stopped releasing greenhouse gases into Mar's atmosphere.
5) All atmospheric water vapor escaped to space, cooling the planet
6) Most carbon dioxide escaped to space, cooling the planet
7) The cold, feeble atmosphere leftover, supports wind storms as Mar's only 'weather'
8) Any remaining water exists within permafrost
9) NASA's MAVEN spacecraft operates remote sensing of Mars.
10) The European Space Agency's Trace Gas Orbiter was to operate remote sensing of Mars
11) NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter proved that geologic features below Mar's surface are associated with liquid water. All Martian 'slope' features involve liquid water
12) Any extant, internal Martian heat is of too low a thermal content to drive volcanism
13) There's no atmosphere capable of producing lightning
14) If the Interplanetary Magnetic Field caused lighting erosion on Mar's, one might expect it to drive lightning erosion on Earth, as it is 48.6-million miles closer to the 'source' than Mars
15) Earth, which is still active with lightning, demonstrates zero lightning-related geologic features on its surface
16) Sunlight driving thunderstorms on Mars would be only 43.1% as strong as on Earth.
17) Mar's magnetic field, one-eight-hundredths the strength of Earth's.

[freebeard]

Every time I fly to Reno, Nevada and back I get to see these from the aircraft. And the water down inside them, and at their terminus, a clue as to their formation.

The bottom fills with water? That doesn't explain the shape, the higher elevation in the middle and the lack of debris downstream. Where was the source of water at the end of each 'finger'.

[oil pan 4]

1 there's no way to know that and if earth and Mars are made if the same stuff then why did the radio isotopes decay faster on mars? That's not at all how nuclear decay works.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The bottom fills with water? That doesn't explain the shape, the higher elevation in the middle and the lack of debris downstream. Where was the source of water at the end of each 'finger'.

* when there's a rain event, they'll be wet until it either soaks in or runs off downgrade.
* between rain they're arroyos mostly upstream. Our Clear Creek, next to my home is almost an arroyo right now. Some years you can walk across the lakes.
* Your 'L' formation needs topographical elevation lines from the time of formation. It's right next door to what were active volcanoes, and whatever the underlying magma chamber did at the time of formation, would have had an impact on 'drainage' due to crustal inflation/ deflation.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

1 there's no way to know that and if earth and Mars are made if the same stuff then why did the radio isotopes decay faster on mars? That's not at all how nuclear decay works.

1) We know what was present in the solar system's accretion disc at the time of each planets creation.
2) We know from orbital mechanics the mass of Mars.
3) We know what Mars is made of from it's mass and from pieces of Mars that have come to Earth as meteorites.
4) Space probes have been going to Mars and broadcasting data since 1972.
5) Mars is now surrounded be remote-sensing satellites.
6) Geologists know what the concentration and composition of radioactive elements were at the time of Mar's creation, and from their half-lives, how long they would have provided ample heat to maintain volcanism.
7) Earth is the only remaining planet in our solar system with enough radioactive heat generation in it's core to support magmatic volcanism.

[Piotrsko]

3) Umm: we "know" what the rocks are made from. It is presumed the martian make up is similar and mostly confirmed by the rovers, but does not preclude anything. They could be impact ejecta which may or not be "Star stuff" or actual martian rock.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

3) Umm: we "know" what the rocks are made from. It is presumed the martian make up is similar and mostly confirmed by the rovers, but does not preclude anything. They could be impact ejecta which may or not be "Star stuff" or actual martian rock.

* Everything in the solar system came from stars which no longer exist. Stardust.
* Everything on the periodic table, excepting stuff from the linear accelerators is what's in our solar system.
* Everything's been verified by radio telescopes.
* There's nothing on or in Mars which isn't known.
* Orbital mechanics, defines Mars' mass.
* Physics will narrow down the possibilities of Mars' internal mass distribution, centroid, any precession, natural frequencies, harmonics, etc..
* Seismology allows a 'look' inside the planet, it's magmas, the thickness of its crust, mantle, and core(s), core-mantle boundaries, acoustic velocities, densities, density discontinuities, buoyancies, convection, subduction,...
* Geology will determine what minerals can explain the particular physics of the planet.
* Rover soil and rock sample chemical analysis allows more precise analysis.
* Synthetic aperture radar altimeter geodesy examines eccentricity, heterogeneities in the surface which will have limited explanations, leading to additional insights into Mars interior, tidal disruption by it's two moons, etc..
* The weak magnetic field gives us information.( 1/800 of Earth's )
* It's weak gravitational constant. ( 38% of Earth's )
* It's weak sunlight . ( 43% of Earth's )
* Get two-dozen experts together, from two-dozen different scientific disciplines, and they can figure out quite a bit about any planet, without going there.

[freebeard]

* There's nothing on or in Mars which isn't known.
* Orbital mechanics, defines Mars' mass.

Ah, but what about what's inside Phobos? Orbital mechanics say it's hollow and radar from flybys suggest two or three major voids.

I find Phobos with it's obelisk and rectangular ports more interesting than Mars itself

Deimos is a gateway to the outer Solar system.
_________________

And water erosion can't produce the lateral branches. It concentrates to the center instead of radiating outward.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Ah, but what about what's inside Phobos? Orbital mechanics say it's hollow and radar from flybys suggest two or three major voids.

I find Phobos with it's obelisk and rectangular ports more interesting than Mars itself

Deimos is a gateway to the outer Solar system.
_________________

And water erosion can't produce the lateral branches. It concentrates to the center instead of radiating outward.

Mar's two moons were either part of the accretion disc from which Mars formed, or were captured by Mars after Jupiter's gravity pulled them out of the asteroid belt, between Mars and Jupiter. I don't have that data.
Wherever they came from, dynamicists will be able to learn their masses from the celestial mechanics of their particular orbits around the planet.
From their sizes, their density and mass can be reverse-engineered. ( the existence of the moon of Pluto, Charon, was predicted from orbital mechanics in 1978. In 1985, a cryogenically-cooled, charge-coupled-device behind a 1.5-meter telescope at Mount Palomar Observatory detected both eclipses and occultations in the Pluto/Chiron system, 'proving' the 1978 'discovery' of Chiron, simply from the mathematics [ same used for dark matter ]
Such is the precision with which NASA-JPL, etc. can operate at.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presently, on PBS WorldChanel.com, they have a series entitled ' LIFE FROM ABOVE', which includes imagery from NASA's 'Mission to Planet Earth.'
In the series images from space-based instruments, in every episode, you can see features on Earth, exactly as S-O's image from Mars. They are all products of water erosion. And they all have these lateral features.
In order to understand their origins, one must know the exact topography around these features, and for the exact time in which they formed.
Mars used to be tectonically, and volcanically active, but no more, and for a long time.
The Martian crust is cold and thick. Thick enough to support mountains with elevations of 87,000-feet ( 26.6-km )
Between normal rocky and metallic meteorites and the shergottite, nakhlite, Chassigny ( SNC) meteorites and lunar meteorites found on Antarctica; we know the elemental and mineral composition of Mars and it' atmosphere ( from gases trapped inside shock-formed diaplectic glass formed in impactor events, in addition to space probe fly-bys and Martian rover laboratory experiments.
Mars used to have four seasons, rain, snow, ice, snow melt, floods, erupting volcanoes, and magma oceans, uplifts, subduction, rifts, ridges, subsidence, wind erosion ( still does ).
Earth experiences 1,576,800,000 lightning strikes a year. None of them are associated in any way with terra-forming.

[freebeard]

Wherever they came from, dynamicists will be able to learn their masses from the celestial mechanics of their particular orbits around the planet.
From their sizes, their density and mass can be reverse-engineered.

What I'm saying is that's been done. DDG:

Mars Moon Phobos 'Artificial' - Says European Space Agency
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/m...e_phobos14.htm
The concurrence of all three of these independent Mars Express experiments- "imaging," "internal mass distribution," (tracking) and "internal radar imaging"- now agreed that "the interior of Phobos is 'partially hollow with internal, geometric "voids" inside it.'" Meaning that Phobos is artificial."