New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#26 2004-04-08 21:44:56

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

How large does that make the ones on Mars with its gravity being less than Earth?

Offline

#27 2004-04-08 22:17:48

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Certainly not more than hundreds, maybe a thousand feet, hardly a moutain at all.

You know why the MER rovers were sent to the sites they were? Because the Mars orbiting spacecraft used their spectrometers to detect rocks that are usually formed in water.

Guess what? The moutains in question do not show any such signature.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#28 2004-04-09 03:17:47

atomoid
Member
From: Santa Cruz, CA
Registered: 2004-02-13
Posts: 252

Re: Geysers not volcanos

From the article:
"The travertine deposits at Mammoth Hot Springs are approximately 8,000 years old, 73 meters thick and cover more than 4 square kilometers."

... i wonder how high a Travertine hill could get on Mars if the Geyser operated for millions of years and not just a mere 8000 years.

I guess its not out of the question to call a volcano a "Lava Geyser" and Olympus Mons is pretty high and must have been pretty long-lived, i'd call it a mountain, i wonder if well find some  very ancient water geyser "foothills" around it, obfuscated from remote sensing by dust..


"I think it would be a good idea". - [url=http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Mahatma_Gandhi/]Mahatma Gandhi[/url], when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

Offline

#29 2004-04-09 08:34:01

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

atomoid,
I am sure many of them are geysers. The Spirit rover has already found evidence of ground water interaction in the lavas.

Offline

#30 2004-04-09 08:45:49

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

You think they are geysers ey? Why?

And Spirit finding water interaction with the soil? That hardly requires a geyser.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#31 2004-04-09 09:01:06

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Extinct Geysers. Caused by the tidal forces of a much larger moon that was destroyed by an asteroid or comet. It broke the moon into the now present moons of Mars. These are just fragments of the huge moon.

Offline

#32 2004-04-09 09:10:28

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Really... why do you think they are geysers?

Tidal forces caused by a moon would also not cause such an effect. Our Moon is pretty large compared to the Earth, and all it can do is raise the seas a few feet. Gravitational tidal forces are far, far too weak on little planets and little moons to induce geysers or other large geologic activity.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#33 2004-04-09 09:12:25

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Geysers not volcanos

ERRORIST:  "a much larger moon that was destroyed by an asteroid or comet..."

*Proof?

ERRORIST:  "It broke the moon into the now present moons of Mars. These are just fragments of the huge moon."

*Proof?

Phobos and Deimos are likely asteroids which ventured too closely to Mars and were captured by its gravity (according to science articles I've read).

--Cindy


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#34 2004-04-09 10:26:58

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Yea but there is no proof of that either!!!

Offline

#35 2004-04-09 10:50:19

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Yea but there is no proof of that either!!!

*ERRORIST, you seem to imply certain knowledge in your statments, as if they are undisputed fact

The theories I related regarding Phobos and Deimos (from science articles) are just that -- theories. 

Until we know -for certain-, it's more intellectually honest to speak in terms of *theory* rather than in terms of undisputed fact.

If you claim to KNOW something for certain, the burden of proof is on you (not anyone else).

--Cindy


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#36 2004-04-09 11:20:04

SBird
Banned
Registered: 2004-03-10
Posts: 490

Re: Geysers not volcanos

ERRORIST - if Mars did have a giant moon, where is the rest of it?  Phobos and Deimos are tiny.  If what you say is true, there sould still be a huge debris belt around Mars like the rings of Saturn.

Offline

#37 2004-04-09 14:11:30

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Perhaps, that is what the asteroid belt is???

Offline

#38 2004-04-09 14:38:33

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Nope, its in a solar orbit. If there were a large moon that was obliterated in martian orbit, there would be more than two medium sized chunks... Nor does the Martian surface have sufficent number or size of impact craters along a specific area to indicate an explosion.

In any event, only a moon of very large size could produce geologicly signifigant tidal forces, and if there were one at one time, then the Martian surface would be practicly pulverized and shatterd by it, which it is not.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#39 2004-04-09 14:57:32

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

More recent impacts could be hiding the evidence. I bet if you added up all the asteroids in the asteroid belt it would equal a moon sized object. It could have been in ordit around Mars at one time, and was knocked into a solar orbit, and left the two present moons behind. Yes????????

Offline

#40 2004-04-09 20:51:36

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

No,

If you take a big planetary body and smash it with another, there will be a distribution of debries pieces, some bigger than cities and some as small as dust... If there were a megamoon around Mars, a binary planet system really, there would be alot of this debries left in a Martian orbit.

There is none. Two pieces of uniform size. No smaller chunks or dust at all...

And on the Martian surface, if this were a sudden impact, there would be some sort of debries field or crater system, and I know of no such structure that would be of the required magnetude... one impact, like the Hellas basin, would not do it; there would be more craters.

And lastly, the amount of energy required to put somthing in SOLAR orbit of that magnetude would be vast indeed. Too vast... it wouldn't happen.

And again, I reiterate that the Martian surface would be much less uniform and more distrubed if there were a megamoon able to negate most of the Martian gravity... infact, Mars the planet might even be egg-shaped were it that massive.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#41 2004-04-09 22:12:14

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Very possible with all the massive moons floating around the solar system.

Offline

#42 2004-04-09 22:23:57

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Nooo, not really, large moons are rare in the inner solar system... only one, and its not that big.

And you are still ignoring the fact if there were a huge moon orbiting Mars, there would be signifigant geological and orbital debries evidence today, which there is not.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#43 2004-04-09 23:07:36

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

The debris is what is left now.

Offline

#44 2004-04-10 08:29:04

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

No;

Some of the material would remain in Martian orbit, which is not there, and some of the material would reenter and create a crater/debries field, which is also not there, and the exsistance of a megamoon of that size would cause severe geologic upheval to the crust, which is not there.

This is not a plausable explanation. Try again.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#45 2004-04-10 09:04:59

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

This is a plausable explanation. The impactor could have come from such an angle that the debris went out into space instead of towards the planet except for the moons that now exist.So you are correct some of the material did remain.

Offline

#46 2004-04-10 09:36:35

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Nooo... Have you ever hit a piece of rock with a hammer? The only impact angle would have to be from Mars to get rid of ALL the debries, and that obviously didn't happen. And even if it did, the leftover material in orbit would still be a distribution of sizes like the rings of Saturn, and not just two uniform asteroid sized chunks with irregular orbits.

This is still not a plausable explanation

Again, you also completly ignore the lack of crustal upheval that would accompany the tidal forces of such a huge moon, you must address this fact too.

Your idea makes no sense, it is obviously completly and irreperably wrong, so I expect you will be wanting to retract your rather absurd statements.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#47 2004-04-10 09:40:12

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Negative it is possible. You should extract you absurd statements.Earths moon has been hit many times by huge asteroids, and comets. Where are the rings around Earth and the debris field? Your statements are absurd.

Offline

#48 2004-04-10 10:15:19

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

And hey, guess what? Our moon is still here. Objects with sufficent size and energy to knock such a mass out of orbit and/or knock pieces off it are rare, perhaps even impossible, so such an occurance to a giant Martian moon is unlikly. The planet Jupiter and to a lesser extent Saturn act as natural "gravity sinks" for such objects.

Plus you have refused to address the issue that such a large moon would cause planet-wide geologic effects on Mars that would be plainly visible. The planet itself might even be egg-shaped from somthing of that mass.

Nor have you mentioned why Mars doesn't have rings, since not all the material would be ejected from the Martian orbit even if it were struck by somthing like that.

Finally, some of this material would reenter, and there would be evidence of such an impact field, which there is none. There would be a large system of craters in a small region, and there is no such thing on Mars of the required magnetude.

No, there is no plausable explanation for the moutains of Mars to be made from material carried by geysers, even one so outlandish as gravity reduction by large orbiting body.

In science, if there is even one major contradictory piece of evidence to a theory, then the theory is discredited and incorrect. Your theory is therefore discredited and incorrect, hence you must either change it to fit the evidence or abandon it. Since I see no way for your theory to be modified to work, I expect you will take the only course of action available to you and do the latter.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

#49 2004-04-10 10:47:27

ERRORIST
Member
From: OXFORD ALABAMA
Registered: 2004-01-28
Posts: 1,182

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Negative it is possible. So where is the ring around the Earth? The moon has been hit by huge impactors. The rings around Saturn, and Jupiter were formed by the gavitational forces tearing the impactors apart as they became trapped in orbit. Proof of that happened when comet Shoemaker was pulled into Jupiter, and it was torn apart before it even hit. However, it was on a course to hit the red giant, and did not get trapped in orbit.

Offline

#50 2004-04-10 10:57:39

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Geysers not volcanos

Because the Earth's moon was never hit by an object of the magnetude needed to destroy a mega Martian moon... seriously, you are being quite thick-headed.

And again you post... with no explanation for the lack of geologic surface features caused by the presence/destruction of a Martian megamoon. Where is your explanation? I'm waiting...

Rings will form around any gravitational body when you have alot of finely crushed debries in orbit, which would result from a large moon being utterly pulverized by a titanic collision needed to erase a Martian moon. There is none, therefore, there was no collision. Since there is no evidence of a large Martian moon, and no evidence of collision (the only plausable explanation for removal of a moon), then... *drumroll*

There never was any moon!

And with no megamoon, the Martian gravity would be powerful enough to limit the height of any geyser-formed hills, and they would never reach the heights of the Martian moutains... You need to learn not to cling to crazy theories, that is a mark of an unscientific attitude.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB