Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
More Water Found On Mars!
#41
John L Wrote:
sunsettommy Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:
Armadillo Wrote:There is a nebula heading toward our solar system. This nebula may contain stellar cores which will disrupt our orbits.

Shh...

do not tell Al Gore!

Why not?

He would not know what a nebula is anyway since he too busily proposes nebulus crap here on old mother earth.

8)

I am curious, which nebula are you all referring? Is there really one headed out way, and if so, do you have a link? And is it related to this story? Inquiring minds, ie my own, would like to know.

I am not sure about a COMING nebula.But I know we are currently inside of one called Gemiga.
Reply
#42
John L Wrote:I am curious, which nebula are you all referring? Is there really one headed out way, and if so, do you have a link?
I have a book that tells about it. I'll look it up when I get home.
Different eyes see different things. Different hearts beat on different strings.
But there are times for you and me when all such things agree.
-Geddy Lee, Rush.
Reply
#43
Ok, look, we need to put this information on another thread, The political issue of oil. It is important that we don't get all this mixed up here, because we need to be able to refer to previous comments and articles. On this thread, we are discussing water on Mars, not abotic oil. Further, Pepe will most likely not read this. He is our resident geologost, and Fossil Fuel True Believer, who is most critical of my beliefs here.

Soooooo, let's move this over to the other thread, ok?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#44
John L Wrote:Ok, look, we need to put this information on another thread, The political issue of oil. It is important that we don't get all this mixed up here, because we need to be able to refer to previous comments and articles. On this thread, we are discussing water on Mars, not abotic oil. Further, Pepe will most likely not read this. He is our resident geologost, and Fossil Fuel True Believer, who is most critical of my beliefs here.

Soooooo, let's move this over to the other thread, ok?

No problem boss!

8)
Reply
#45
Armadillo Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:You sure humans could survive on a distant planet? If it can carry life, it carries life. Their microorganisms would probably wipe out humans without adapted immune system within hours.
Alien microbes are probably based on such different biology than ours that they would not effect us.

Quote:Big asteroids come down every 100 million years or so, you can neglect the risk within the next 100 years, and if humans go on and destroy the environment for the sake of profits for a few, there is no need for an asteroid to do the job. So, if the survival of the species is on stake, is it not better to preserve the planet we have? And develope some big nuke to shoot such a bloody thing down if it dares to approach.
Yes we can nuke an asteroid if we find it soon enough. If it comes from the direction of the Sun we would never see it coming.
There are other risks as well that we can do nothing about, except get out of the way. A near by super nova (within 100 light years) or x-ray burst would distroy life on Earth. A CME from the Sun toward the Earth would distroy our civilaztion.
A brown dwarf star or rogue planet can pass through our solar system and disrupt the orbits.
There is a nebula heading toward our solar system. This nebula may contain stellar cores which will disrupt our orbits.
Yeah yeah. And in 3 bln years, our galaxy gonna collide with Andromeda. Looking forward...
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#46
sunsettommy Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:
Armadillo Wrote:Besides, if Mars once had life it might have oil.

Whoa!

*makes note to invest in pipeline manufacturing*
---------------------------------
Yes.

And if it did not have life, it might still have oil if you believe in the abiotic oil theory like John L. et al.

/track_snake

You sure you are neutral on this? Wink1

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science

By Online Monday, July 14, 2008


by Peter J. Morgan

EXCERPT:

We all grew up believing that oil is a fossil fuel, and just about every day this ‘fact’ is mentioned in newspapers and on TV. However, let us not forget what Lenin said – “A lie told often enough becomes truth.” It was in 1757 that the great Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil might originate from biological detritus. The scientists who first rejected Lomonsov’s hypothesis, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were the famous German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt and the French chemist and thermodynamicist Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, who together enunciated the proposition that oil is a primordial material erupted from great depth, and is unconnected with any biological matter near the surface of the Earth.

With the development of chemistry during the nineteenth century, and following particularly the enunciation of the second law of thermodynamics by Clausius in 1850, Lomonosov’s biological hypothesis came inevitably under attack. In science, a hypothesis is merely somebody’s attempt to explain something. It is merely that – an attempt. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is also an open invitation for somebody else to discredit it by using physical evidence to demonstrate that the hypothesis is flawed, or incorrect – that is how scientific knowledge is advanced. Einstein is reputed to have remarked that just one fact was all that was needed to invalidate his theory of relativity.

The great French chemist Marcellin Berthelot particularly scorned the hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum. Berthelot first carried out experiments involving, among others, a series of what are now referred to as Kolbe reactions and demonstrated the generation of petroleum by dissolving steel in strong acid. He produced the suite of n-alkanes and made it plain that such were generated in total absence of any “biological” molecule or process. Berthelot’s investigations were later extended and refined by other scientists, including Biasson and Sokolov, all of whom observed similar phenomena and likewise concluded that petroleum was unconnected to biological matter.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952

:lol:
-----------------
Yes.

I am 100% neutral on this.

Besides, it is me who decides what is neutral and what is not...

As for abiotic oil, I agree that there is formation of abiotic oil. But the majority of oil is formed by biological processes involving dead plants and animals.

/track_snake
Reply
#47
NASA says Mars craft "touched and tasted" water
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#48
and more.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#49
It is odd that the article did not tell us how deeply the ice was buried. I wonder how warm the surface gets over these underground glaciers.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#50
jt Wrote:It is odd that the article did not tell us how deeply the ice was buried. I wonder how warm the surface gets over these underground glaciers.

My guess is that the inner planetary crust is loaded with water. Since it no longer has moving plates, but definately a hot inner core, due to uranium, there will be many lava tubes, cracks, crevices, etc, filled with water,..................and most probably Life!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#51
jt Wrote:It is odd that the article did not tell us how deeply the ice was buried. I wonder how warm the surface gets over these underground glaciers.

On the first question, I wonder if it is technically possible to determine remotely.

On the second, it is probably known and will be on the web somewhere. It is crucial; if it gets above the freezing point for sufficiently long time, one can have pretty advanced life forms. I'm thinking about something like an annual killie: this fish lives in small streams that dry up totally once a year. Of course, all the adults die (this is why "annual"), but they deposit eggs that hatch once there is water.
One can imagine a life form that has sufficiently hardy eggs to survive freezing....
Sanders 2020

Reply
#52
Ground penetrating radar will not penetrate very far.
This Wiki article says 15m (in dry sand or rock) and a few cm (in wet highly conductive ground).
It also depends on the power of the radar signal, which cannot be great from a satellite.

That would put the ice reasonably near the surface.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#53
Yep, but where is this estimate coming from:

Quote:Head said they can be about half a mile thick.

? Simply an analogy with Antarctica where there is a lot drilling data?
Sanders 2020

Reply
#54
mv Wrote:On the first question, I wonder if it is technically possible to determine remotely.

On the second, it is probably known and will be on the web somewhere. It is crucial; if it gets above the freezing point for sufficiently long time, one can have pretty advanced life forms. I'm thinking about something like an annual killie: this fish lives in small streams that dry up totally once a year. Of course, all the adults die (this is why "annual"), but they deposit eggs that hatch once there is water.
One can imagine a life form that has sufficiently hardy eggs to survive freezing....

i was watching the TV show called "The Universe" and it had an episode about Mars. one of the things scientists were preparing to do was to evaluate what life would be like on Mars. they drilled a deep deep hole into one of the ice chunks in the North Pole, geographical, not magnetic, and dove into it with a cmaera. life exists at the bottom of the ocean underneath how many thousands of tons of ice with NO sunshine. i'm not talking about the sea worms near volcanic vents, i'm talking about an entire community at the bottom of freezing cold water. it was amazing. they said that there is a good possibility of lakes of water underneath the surface of Mars.

if we found life on Mars, would anyone be suprised if it shared common characteristics of life on Earth? same DNA or whatever? i think it would blow my mind...
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#55
Glaciers found with Ground Penetrating RADAR:

LA Times Wrote:In a discovery that partly answers the question of where all the water went on Mars, scientists have found vast, debris-covered glaciers much nearer the equatorial region than anyone had expected, according to a report Friday in the journal Science.

The glaciers, estimated to contain at least as much water as Lake Huron and possibly as much as the entire Great Lakes, were found by ground-penetrating radar on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft.
[Image: 43529127.jpg]

Quote:It is still unclear, however, whether the water is accessible from the surface. Holt said the radar measurements indicated that it could be covered by as much as 30 feet of debris.

"If you could get a backhoe in there, you could get at it," said Jeffrey Plaut, a geologist at JPL. "You'd have to figure out how to get a backhoe to Mars."

send a redneck up there! they'd have it out in a matter of hours!
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#56
And now, possible life feeding on that water and farting methane.
Quote:Scientists have discovered large plumes of methane gas in the Martian atmosphere, a key marker for biological processes on Earth but not convincing proof that rudimentary life-forms exist on Mars.
....
The source of the methane is still a mystery, the scientists said in a briefing at NASA headquarters in Washington. But its existence proves that Mars is not the dead desert planet that many scientists thought it was.
"Mars is active," said Michael Meyer, head of NASA's Mars program. "Whether it's geology or biology, we don't yet know."
On Earth, the natural gas that heats our homes is mostly methane. About 90% of the methane released into our atmosphere is produced by biological processes, the largest contributors being bacteria in wetlands and the burping of cattle. The methane is released as a waste product by microbes reacting to hydrogen.
....
Although they cautioned that more work is needed, the scientists said the absence of other gases that would be expected if volcanic activity was producing the methane is one indicator that organisms could be at work.
....
According to Pratt, the Martians that humans have imagined for centuries may wind up being nothing more than a thin film of bacteria clinging to life in some underground caverns where there is just enough heat from the planet's core to melt the surrounding ice.
....
If the methane is being produced by living organisms, there should be evidence of other complex organic molecules in the atmosphere, Pratt said.
Mumma said research was continuing, using the adaptive optics technology at the European Southern Observatory, to get a better fix on Mars' chemistry.
LA Times.com.
Different eyes see different things. Different hearts beat on different strings.
But there are times for you and me when all such things agree.
-Geddy Lee, Rush.
Reply
#57
Whatever you do, Mars'attraction is to low to keep a viable atmosphere. Water evaporates and escape in the space with other gas.
That's where all the water went.

Maybe there is life underground in a bacterial form. That would be a fantastic discovery. But as it's confined in the earth it can't evoluate into more advanced species.
Reply
#58
Fredledingue Wrote:Whatever you do, Mars'attraction is to low to keep a viable atmosphere. Water evaporates and escape in the space with other gas.
That's where all the water went.

I challenge your last sentence. Granted Mars sends water vavour, and some gasses out of the atmosphere. But like our planet, Mars is constantly being bombarded with water that enters it's atmosphere, just as you can see on the moon, if you look close enough.

I am willing to say that Mars is not losing any water in a 'net' amount at all. All of mar's water, or 99.99% of it is under the surface of the planet, and deep within it's mass. Since Mars has cooled down and does not have any plate tectonics, water has a good deal deeper to go than here on earth. I wil bet you that mars is simply LOADED with water.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#59
Not sure, I guess Mars also has to oblige to some physical laws such as gravitation, what means water should be at the top. Like on Earth, water's up because it's lighter than rock. Well, it can trickle down of course, but Mars should be rather warm on the inside, too, and come up again.
I'd care about that methane cloud if I were you. Can be produced by life, and also abiotic. Probably interesting for you in both cases.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#60
JohnL, once upon a time there was enough water to dig canyon that makes your Grand canyon looks like a joke.
It's very unlikely that all this water foudn itself a way underground through infiltration or caveats.
If 99.9% of Mars water is in its ground, it's because it cannot stay on the surface where it evaporate in the interplanetary space. So it's more like 0.01% of what was water on Mars is still there, underground.

Mars is not bombarded enough by snowballs to counter its loss of water due to its feable gravitation. Earth get as much as Mars (I think), proportionaly to its size (more gravitation on Earth) and the surface of the ocean didn't change much since the Jurassic.
The second reason is that almost all of water meteors are pulverizised before they hit the ground. All this water reach Mars atmosphere in a shape of gas already and is easily taken away by the solar wind and other astronomical events.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)