APOD 15th May 06
APOD 15th May 06
At the very bottom of the picture is a small outcropping of what looks like a layered rock strata, from water perhaps? With old volcanic boulders lying on top - are there places on earth where this exists or does it present a unique situation?
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello Nick
re: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060515.html
If we did not know better, we could say this image came from earth.
Yes there are rocks similar to this on earth.
re: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060515.html
If we did not know better, we could say this image came from earth.
Yes there are rocks similar to this on earth.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
A couple of questions
I have seen locations where volcanic rocks overlay sedimentary rocks, so that is no real mystery. On seeing this, however, I have two questions.
First, where is the volcano that produced these rocks? Looking at the maps, I see no local volcano so it makes me wonder how they got deposited on top of lower sediments at all.
Second, how did these chunks get uphill? If Mars is (and has been) tectonically dead, then the ground level has remained constant for many billions of years. Therefore, the sediments were emplaced long before the eruption that produced these vesicular rocks. But if that is the case, there must have been quite a lava flow, yet most of that would be expected to be downhill.
This is contrary to what we see in the bedrock for Gusev - it is a conglomerate of salts and gravel. 40% of the bedrock is a salt matrix binding the gravel and fragments together, telling us it was deposited in a large briny body of water. To be honest, looking at the "bullseye" pattern in this rock and its shape, it look far more like a coral chunk from a reef.
It has the proper shape, structure, and even shows evidence of growth due to the ring. If you really ask yourself these questions based on the bedrock and the fact that it was deposited from what appears to be an ocean, then you must admit to the possibility that these are not volcanic rocks at all. Then you have a reasonable answer for how the rocks got uphill and how they formed. This appears to be an eroded coral bed.
First, where is the volcano that produced these rocks? Looking at the maps, I see no local volcano so it makes me wonder how they got deposited on top of lower sediments at all.
Second, how did these chunks get uphill? If Mars is (and has been) tectonically dead, then the ground level has remained constant for many billions of years. Therefore, the sediments were emplaced long before the eruption that produced these vesicular rocks. But if that is the case, there must have been quite a lava flow, yet most of that would be expected to be downhill.
This is contrary to what we see in the bedrock for Gusev - it is a conglomerate of salts and gravel. 40% of the bedrock is a salt matrix binding the gravel and fragments together, telling us it was deposited in a large briny body of water. To be honest, looking at the "bullseye" pattern in this rock and its shape, it look far more like a coral chunk from a reef.
It has the proper shape, structure, and even shows evidence of growth due to the ring. If you really ask yourself these questions based on the bedrock and the fact that it was deposited from what appears to be an ocean, then you must admit to the possibility that these are not volcanic rocks at all. Then you have a reasonable answer for how the rocks got uphill and how they formed. This appears to be an eroded coral bed.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Well, that IMG didn't work. Sorry about that. Here's a link...
http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/43cbfe80 ... EBY086aU86
http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/43cbfe80 ... EBY086aU86
image color correction
I don't know if it is legit to post a site here, so just google my name and go to the color page on my site for some information about that subject. The atmosphere is clearly transparent or we could not spot distant hills clearly.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
looks
looks like it has been processed by volcanic action and been sandblasted unmercifully. Pass the ice cold one, please 
Could it also be a meteorite that crumbled upon entry and ended up on top of the hill ?
Could it also be a meteorite that crumbled upon entry and ended up on top of the hill ?Wolf Kotenberg
The source for the volcanic activity could be from:
1) Large asteroid impacts, creating the Hellas basin.
2) As a result of and directly opposite this impact site, massive volcanic activity occurs on Olympus Mons.
3) The impact and subsequent eruption are so devistating that the water is evaporated into the atmosphere.
4) A nuclear winter scenerio ensues and the atmospheric water is settled at the poles while any remaining surface water is frozen.
5) Continued Olympus eruptions serve to build the mountain to tremendous heights with further eruptions causing atmospheric pressure to drop due to loss to space.
6) these very eruptions cause volcanic rocks to be blasted to such an altitude that they fall over the Gusev crater area and any place else within 1000 mile radius. (farther??? possibly)
1) Large asteroid impacts, creating the Hellas basin.
2) As a result of and directly opposite this impact site, massive volcanic activity occurs on Olympus Mons.
3) The impact and subsequent eruption are so devistating that the water is evaporated into the atmosphere.
4) A nuclear winter scenerio ensues and the atmospheric water is settled at the poles while any remaining surface water is frozen.
5) Continued Olympus eruptions serve to build the mountain to tremendous heights with further eruptions causing atmospheric pressure to drop due to loss to space.
6) these very eruptions cause volcanic rocks to be blasted to such an altitude that they fall over the Gusev crater area and any place else within 1000 mile radius. (farther??? possibly)
Typo in text: "Mar's northern hemisphere"
Try either Mars' or Mars's.
(Although I do know someone named Mar, commenting about the amount of sunlight reaching an individual's northern hemisphere is generally considered impolite...)
(Although I do know someone named Mar, commenting about the amount of sunlight reaching an individual's northern hemisphere is generally considered impolite...)
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
Response to aichip
I'm not a specialist in this field. In my opinion
The volcano may have been eroded over time. We mayhave to look at the volcanic activity study.
These rocks are not from larva flows but from volcanic explosions, this is explained by the rock structure having bubbles. Also through time, uplift could be a possible reason for the folds in the landscape pushing up some areas. I would like to see if these rocks are also found in flat areas.
This is contrary to what we see in the bedrock for Gusev - it is a
As for briny water, I'm not 100% on that, i need more info.
I do not think coral would grow in such climate. There is no evidence of life past or present.
Response to aichip
I'm not a specialist in this field. In my opinion
.First, where is the volcano that produced these rocks? Looking at the maps, I see no local volcano so it makes me wonder how they got deposited on top of lower sediments at all
The volcano may have been eroded over time. We mayhave to look at the volcanic activity study.
Second, how did these chunks get uphill? If Mars is (and has been) tectonically dead, then the ground level has remained constant for many billions of years. Therefore, the sediments were emplaced long before the eruption that produced these vesicular rocks. But if that is the case, there must have been quite a lava flow, yet most of that would be expected to be downhill.
These rocks are not from larva flows but from volcanic explosions, this is explained by the rock structure having bubbles. Also through time, uplift could be a possible reason for the folds in the landscape pushing up some areas. I would like to see if these rocks are also found in flat areas.
This is contrary to what we see in the bedrock for Gusev - it is a
conglomerate of salts and gravel. 40% of the bedrock is a salt matrix binding the gravel and fragments together, telling us it was deposited in a large briny body of water. To be honest, looking at the "bullseye" pattern in this rock and its shape, it look far more like a coral chunk from a reef.
As for briny water, I'm not 100% on that, i need more info.
I do not think coral would grow in such climate. There is no evidence of life past or present.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Harry,
Googling "Mars" and "Trilobite" gives this website
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsx.htm
The first image on the page is of "Bounce Rock" where Oppertunities lander struck on landing. It is a very good image of what appears to be a Trilobite.
(Smells like a fossil to me, If that is what it is)
Unless the JPL website was hacked at some point, the image is genuine at it also clearly appears in their image of Bounce Rock.
Googling "Mars" and "Trilobite" gives this website
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsx.htm
The first image on the page is of "Bounce Rock" where Oppertunities lander struck on landing. It is a very good image of what appears to be a Trilobite.
(Smells like a fossil to me, If that is what it is)
Unless the JPL website was hacked at some point, the image is genuine at it also clearly appears in their image of Bounce Rock.
BMAONE23 wrote:Harry,
Googling "Mars" and "Trilobite" gives this website
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsx.htm
(Follow the link and go to images from 04-09-04 and 04-14-04 to find Bounce images) http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA05731.jpg
The first image on the page is of "Bounce Rock" where Oppertunities lander struck on landing. It is a very good image of what appears to be a Trilobite.
(Smells like a fossil to me, If that is what it is)
Unless the JPL website was hacked at some point, the image is genuine at it also clearly appears in their image of Bounce Rock.
points to consider
Hello to Harry.
You raise some good and analytical points (unlike the frivolous dismissal that someone else gave).
There might have been a more local volcano, but we would expect that the same forces of erosion would have acted on this area as would have eroded the volcano down. That would be some serious erosive force (although not entirely unheard of).
We know that if these are in fact igneous vesicular rocks, the volcano had to erupt well after the sediments were in place because the rocks are on top of the sediments as well as the sand and other materials on top of the sediments. The vesicular rocks are latecomers, by any measure.
As for lava flows versus explosive emplacement, consider that almost all vesicular rocks result from a flow of very hot, very fluid rock that contains a fair amounts of water vapor (which creates the bubbles). Look at pumice for a good example of this.
Local uplift is pretty unlikely for the following reasons. First, the layers of sediment at both Gusev and Meridiani are nearly identical, as is their elevation. The level of water present for the formation of these sediments was virtually the same, which can be verified by any topographic map of Mars. If the levels had changed, then it would imply that one or the other was higher or lower in the past (maybe both) but then it might also imply two wet periods of sedimentation. It appears that the Martian seas girdled the planet and that both these sites were at the same elevations simultaneously; i.e., long before any possible eruption.
As for brine, the report by Steven Squyres et al in Nature and other publications made it clear that it was the official position of NASA that large bodies of brine had to exist on the planet and that the bedrock was up to 40% salts and that the soil wa up to 50% salts.
Any sort of oceanic organisms would have been different in part due to the presence of calcium sulfate rather than calcium carbonate, meaning that their shells or constructions would have likely been crystallized gypsum, not limestone as we know it. But this might also mean that their tolerance for colder climates might have been different (which is impossible to say at present).
Mars definitely had salt oceans, plenty of water for geologic periods, and a thicker atmosphere in the past. NASA is clear on that. As for climate, well, that is entirely speculative. We cannot get a clear consensus on that yet as they still argue about many other things that are dependent on each other. Much is yet to be resolved there.
I appreciate your considered thoughts on this.
You raise some good and analytical points (unlike the frivolous dismissal that someone else gave).
There might have been a more local volcano, but we would expect that the same forces of erosion would have acted on this area as would have eroded the volcano down. That would be some serious erosive force (although not entirely unheard of).
We know that if these are in fact igneous vesicular rocks, the volcano had to erupt well after the sediments were in place because the rocks are on top of the sediments as well as the sand and other materials on top of the sediments. The vesicular rocks are latecomers, by any measure.
As for lava flows versus explosive emplacement, consider that almost all vesicular rocks result from a flow of very hot, very fluid rock that contains a fair amounts of water vapor (which creates the bubbles). Look at pumice for a good example of this.
Local uplift is pretty unlikely for the following reasons. First, the layers of sediment at both Gusev and Meridiani are nearly identical, as is their elevation. The level of water present for the formation of these sediments was virtually the same, which can be verified by any topographic map of Mars. If the levels had changed, then it would imply that one or the other was higher or lower in the past (maybe both) but then it might also imply two wet periods of sedimentation. It appears that the Martian seas girdled the planet and that both these sites were at the same elevations simultaneously; i.e., long before any possible eruption.
As for brine, the report by Steven Squyres et al in Nature and other publications made it clear that it was the official position of NASA that large bodies of brine had to exist on the planet and that the bedrock was up to 40% salts and that the soil wa up to 50% salts.
Any sort of oceanic organisms would have been different in part due to the presence of calcium sulfate rather than calcium carbonate, meaning that their shells or constructions would have likely been crystallized gypsum, not limestone as we know it. But this might also mean that their tolerance for colder climates might have been different (which is impossible to say at present).
Mars definitely had salt oceans, plenty of water for geologic periods, and a thicker atmosphere in the past. NASA is clear on that. As for climate, well, that is entirely speculative. We cannot get a clear consensus on that yet as they still argue about many other things that are dependent on each other. Much is yet to be resolved there.
I appreciate your considered thoughts on this.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
A quote from that xenotechresearch site:
I don't mean to crash the party, but this is a nonsense article with unreasonale claims and assumptions left right and centre, no doubt the product of thousands of hours of self-perpetuated obsession with the subject.
I think the chances of life once existing on mars are good, I think the chances of finding evidence to support this in the form of fossils is good. I do not think that one low quality image of the 'fossil' justifies these ridiculous claims. I encourage the author to return to the realm of sanity.
What an absurd interpretation. I ask, what are the chances of finding a fossil of exactly the same species on Mars as once existed on Earth, what are the chances that what we are actually looking at is a fossil, what are the chances that finding a pattern - thats right, a pattern which maybe resembles a fossil, implies the existence of 'identical sorts of life form' as on Earth.What can be said? This is clearly a fossil of a trilobite, organisms that lived from about half a billion years ago to 210 million years ago on the Earth. Mars evolved identical sorts of life forms and this trilobite is proof of that. If this rock is on Mars, then so were trilobites, squids, sea urchins, sharks, sand dollars, and all sorts of aquatic organisms.
I don't mean to crash the party, but this is a nonsense article with unreasonale claims and assumptions left right and centre, no doubt the product of thousands of hours of self-perpetuated obsession with the subject.
I think the chances of life once existing on mars are good, I think the chances of finding evidence to support this in the form of fossils is good. I do not think that one low quality image of the 'fossil' justifies these ridiculous claims. I encourage the author to return to the realm of sanity.
off the topic, but okay
I was hoping for some discussion on the features in the May 15 image, but this warrants a reply.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgal2.htm
There are dozens of examples that are quite clear. Given the weight of evidence shown (and the fact that the images are all linked back to the original source, NASA/JPL) it becomes difficult to argue against.
So if you have one picture, no matter how good it is, then you suspect what seems to be an outrageous claim. That is good thinking. When you have two, three, four pictures, and they support the supposedly outrageous claim, then you have to consider that either what you know is wrong or what you are seeing is a hoax. When the source of the data is known to be reliable and unaltered, then you have even stronger support for the supposedly outrageous claim, and it is time to rethink your position.
Now, back to the topic at hand (the vesicular rocks in the image), I would like to see if anyone can find fault with the picture I have produced. The whole concept is to present evidence and theory and see how well they fit. I am of the opinion, based on experience, that erosion severe enough to wear down a local volcano would also have worn down these volcanic rocks. Therefore, there is no local volcano. Just an idea, but one that I feel merits a little thought.
Nowhere does it say that this is exactly the same species as anything - only that it looks identical to terrestrial species. L3p3r has made an assumption there.I ask, what are the chances of finding a fossil of exactly the same species on Mars as once existed on Earth
A good question. If you found many such examples, then the chances of being correct would strongly improve based simply on statistics, and the fact that Mars was known to have oceans long enough to create sedimentary bedrock full of salts.what are the chances that what we are actually looking at is a fossil
Once more, if you found many such patterns and they were all in the same context - marine or aquatic organisms - then you would have to consider that you were on to something. A single example would be useless inmaking such a determination, but dozens or hundreds would strongly support the theory. Being able to repeat your findings is one of the strongest supporting points for a theory.what are the chances that finding a pattern - thats right, a pattern which maybe resembles a fossil, implies the existence of 'identical sorts of life form' as on Earth
Absolutely correct. You may want to look at this link:I do not think that one low quality image of the 'fossil' justifies these ridiculous claims.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgal2.htm
There are dozens of examples that are quite clear. Given the weight of evidence shown (and the fact that the images are all linked back to the original source, NASA/JPL) it becomes difficult to argue against.
So if you have one picture, no matter how good it is, then you suspect what seems to be an outrageous claim. That is good thinking. When you have two, three, four pictures, and they support the supposedly outrageous claim, then you have to consider that either what you know is wrong or what you are seeing is a hoax. When the source of the data is known to be reliable and unaltered, then you have even stronger support for the supposedly outrageous claim, and it is time to rethink your position.
Now, back to the topic at hand (the vesicular rocks in the image), I would like to see if anyone can find fault with the picture I have produced. The whole concept is to present evidence and theory and see how well they fit. I am of the opinion, based on experience, that erosion severe enough to wear down a local volcano would also have worn down these volcanic rocks. Therefore, there is no local volcano. Just an idea, but one that I feel merits a little thought.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Is it unreasonable to think that the processes involved in the establishment of and evolution of life in any given planetary ecosystem could progress along the similar lines and in similar directions producing similar creatures if the elements involved are in fact similar. (Oxygen Nitrogen atmosphere, carbon, hydrogen, sodium, phosphorous etc. to create DNA) Why couldn't evolution take similar/parallel paths if that is the path that leads to the formation of life?
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
I have looked at both links
Before I put further opinion of life on Mars. I need to see more evidence.
It is very interesting. Imagine fining life on Mars. Thats out of this world, so to speak.
I will come back to this,,,,,,,,,,,,sorry have to go and pick up the kids
I have looked at both links
Before I put further opinion of life on Mars. I need to see more evidence.
It is very interesting. Imagine fining life on Mars. Thats out of this world, so to speak.
I will come back to this,,,,,,,,,,,,sorry have to go and pick up the kids
Harry : Smile and live another day.
To answer some earlier questions. Olympus Mons located on mars is the largest volcano in the entire solar system. Take in account, the lower gravity of mars / the explosive power of such a gigantic volcano and one does not have to wander too far to imagine a massive explosion from Olympus Mons could spread debris across most if not all of the planet. 
Olympus Mons and low gravity
This is a possible method of dispersing this rock, so let's look at the brass tacks a bit.
The lava in such an explosion would be hurled from the point of explosion in (probably) all directions. Looking at the caldera of Olympus Mons, there is no preferred direction of ejection. It is very broad and has little "containment" ability, unlike the narrow throast of a volcano that can eject material at very high speeds.
In layman's terms, a broad throat means low ejection speed. A narrow throat means high ejection speed. This principle is used in rifles, pistols, and cannons as well as other devices. The relationship is due to the confinement of the gas or other material that propels the bullet (or lava in this case).
Olympus Mons does not seem like a suitable ejection site for this and other reasons.
The lava in such an explosion would be hurled from the point of explosion in (probably) all directions. Looking at the caldera of Olympus Mons, there is no preferred direction of ejection. It is very broad and has little "containment" ability, unlike the narrow throast of a volcano that can eject material at very high speeds.
In layman's terms, a broad throat means low ejection speed. A narrow throat means high ejection speed. This principle is used in rifles, pistols, and cannons as well as other devices. The relationship is due to the confinement of the gas or other material that propels the bullet (or lava in this case).
Olympus Mons does not seem like a suitable ejection site for this and other reasons.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
More Martian volcano thoughts
Another point I meant to make- the bulk of what is ejected from volcanoes is water. It provide the explosive power, and it is the propulsion for the materials such as rock and ash. Heat drives it, of course, but water is the main course. Some 70% to 90% of what comes out of volcanoes is water, so such an event would have provided a significant amount of water to the Martian environment.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello aichip
Like I said I do not know much, just taking part in this discussion.
You said
If there is water coming out, the gravity would not be able to hold it, particularly when it comes out super hot.
Much of the water came with each planet and some from icy comets. But science tells us that Mars is unable to hold water except for the poles where you have CO2 caps.
As for the water we may have to look at the evolution and origin of the solar system.
Like I said I do not know much, just taking part in this discussion.
You said
Where did you get the info that the bulk of ejected material is water.Another point I meant to make- the bulk of what is ejected from volcanoes is water. It provide the explosive power, and it is the propulsion for the materials such as rock and ash. Heat drives it, of course, but water is the main course. Some 70% to 90% of what comes out of volcanoes is water, so such an event would have provided a significant amount of water to the Martian environment.
If there is water coming out, the gravity would not be able to hold it, particularly when it comes out super hot.
Much of the water came with each planet and some from icy comets. But science tells us that Mars is unable to hold water except for the poles where you have CO2 caps.
As for the water we may have to look at the evolution and origin of the solar system.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Water from volcanic activity
Do a quick google for water and volcano and you will see the monitoring data over the years for various volcanoes. They keep track of the solids and volatiles and water is far and away the largest component.
It appears that any water or ice that has as little as a covering of dust on it to prevent exposure to solar UV can remain for millions of years. Check out the information on the frozen sea that was found on Mars' equator. Here is one such link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4285119.stm
Actually, recent studies indicate that up to 98% of the mass of the polar caps on Mars is actually water ice. Water has no problem sticking around on Mars, but ultraviolet from sunlight breaks some of it down and allows the hydrogen to be lost to space. This is apparently where a lot of the water goes, if it is not underground and shielded from the sunlight.But science tells us that Mars is unable to hold water except for the poles where you have CO2 caps.
It appears that any water or ice that has as little as a covering of dust on it to prevent exposure to solar UV can remain for millions of years. Check out the information on the frozen sea that was found on Mars' equator. Here is one such link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4285119.stm
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Sir Charles W. Shults III
thanks aichip
i get to slap myself for not doing my research
I think it is the unprofessional, arrogant writing style of the author which threw me the most, but now I see so many of these images of familiar patterns my suspicions are aroused. I vote for a lander to return rock samples from mars to earth with the intent of looking for fossils.
That said, if you start obsessing over anything, you start to see that thing everwhere. I don't doubt this has been a factor during this research.
Does JPL/NASA have a team for doing the same work as this? maybe some second opinions on the images posted on this site?
i get to slap myself for not doing my research
I think it is the unprofessional, arrogant writing style of the author which threw me the most, but now I see so many of these images of familiar patterns my suspicions are aroused. I vote for a lander to return rock samples from mars to earth with the intent of looking for fossils.
That said, if you start obsessing over anything, you start to see that thing everwhere. I don't doubt this has been a factor during this research.
Does JPL/NASA have a team for doing the same work as this? maybe some second opinions on the images posted on this site?