Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see what you're talking about, but it's hard to guess. My opinion is that I doubt it's water spouting out from the side of the crater. Most of the tell-tale images suggesting evidence of the action of liquid water tend to be shown as dark streaks as seen from orbiters, would be little more than mud - water mixing with dusty soil creating what are called "recurring slope lineae". Over several passes by the orbiters, these dark streaks seem to come from the walls of some craters and get longer, then eventually diminish and disappear. If you were on the surface reasonable close, I'd guess you might actually see the water flowing out higher up, but as it gets farther from the source, while the water is still moving, it's being absorbed by the soil like a sponge. You can't directly see the flowing water anymore - just the temporary wet darkening mud.
I have seen the dark streaks also, however there is no reason why there should not be other areas where there is nothing dark in the liquid. There are some places on Earth where oil rises to the surface, peat bogs have brackish water in them due to the water/peat mixture.
We do not know if there are whole lakes underground filled with algae or other primitive plant/animal life which do not need sunlight to survive. We dont know if it might be clear liquid when it comes out and turns dark when it gets exposed to the environment outside. Maybe the turning dark is a protectional system in the normally-clear organisms that live in the underground water? Of course, there are many unknowns and we can only speculate, however there are some similarities with Earth and it is possible that since we have seen liquid in other areas, more liquid exists in this area.
If you look carefully at the original linked image (not the one I posted) it is easier to see the point where the light part of the image joins the darker part and it appears as if there is a point source for each of the three streams. That would suggest some kind of a hole or opening which is the exit for the stream.
I would like to point out that these three lighter lines are in the area which should be in the shadow of the cliff, yet THEY ARE IN THE SUNLIGHT, particularly the left-hand one, which means they are a physical feature which is not on the surface but above it.
There are some other areas to the right of these streaks which could be as you suggest - they could be lighter sand in gullies, but due to the streaks not being in cliff shadow, I think there is a physical forceful ejection of some liquid.
I have seen the dark streaks also, however there is no reason why there should not be other areas where there is nothing dark in the liquid. There are some places on Earth where oil rises to the surface, peat bogs have brackish water in them due to the water/peat mixture.
I didn't mean the water itself has anything dark in it. The darkening is the dry dust and soil outside that's been soaked after water flows downward. The dust would soak up water like a sponge leaving the soil colored dark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
We do not know if there are whole lakes underground filled with algae or other primitive plant/animal life which do not need sunlight to survive. We dont know if it might be clear liquid when it comes out and turns dark when it gets exposed to the environment outside. Maybe the turning dark is a protectional system in the normally-clear organisms that live in the underground water? Of course, there are many unknowns and we can only speculate, however there are some similarities with Earth and it is possible that since we have seen liquid in other areas, more liquid exists in this area.
It's possible there might be some large aquifers underground. That there could be a possibility of life, living or extinct, below the surface. That is one of the reasons such areas should be avoided, so as not to contaminate any watery areas with bacteria from Earth. To me, that seems not all that important considering Earthly bacteria are already on Mars that hitched a ride on the spacecrafts, rovers, landers, etc. In addition, if people are ever to go to Mars, and if underground water is available reasonably near the habitats, that water is going to have to be pumped out, filtered and used. The well pipes would carry some bacteria with them and into the underground water. But I think the main reason for the prohibiting equipment near areas that could be potentially wet, is that microorganisms could have been brought out with the water and in the RSL mud. If a purpose for missions is to search for signs of life, that would be a prime location to look. Regardless, we have no idea if there is any microbial life on Mars or not. It can only be suggested that's it's possible. It's also possible that microbial organisms might exist in potential warm thermal pockets underground. That scenario was raised after finding traces of methane coming from certain areas for a very brief time, although the location source was never pinpointed. It's also been suggested that the methane could have been caused by geological activity. In any case, we don't know.
True, there are some similarities between Mars and Earth, and there are also plenty of dissimilarities. We have never directly seen any liquid water on the surface of Mars or from the RSL's. All the RSL's have shown is that they may be evidence that there is some liquid water on Mars. Orbiters have shown there appears to be some pretty large reservoirs deep underground that is water either in the form of liquid or ice. And the Phoenix Lander near the North Polar Ice Cap, dug up what appeared to be bits of ice. Mars Express showed a crater, near the North Pole of Mars, with what looks like a patch of residual water ice in the crater. Water ice in crater at Martian north pole / Mars Express / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
If you look carefully at the original linked image (not the one I posted) it is easier to see the point where the light part of the image joins the darker part and it appears as if there is a point source for each of the three streams. That would suggest some kind of a hole or opening which is the exit for the stream.
I see what you're talking about, but frankly, the images are just not clear enough to tell exactly what we're seeing, apart from speculation. The crater is located in the Noachis Terra region. Maybe they are streams, but I'd certainly have no idea if it is or not. So is that what you think the "hole" in the rock in your original post is? A stream exit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I would like to point out that these three lighter lines are in the area which should be in the shadow of the cliff, yet THEY ARE IN THE SUNLIGHT, particularly the left-hand one, which means they are a physical feature which is not on the surface but above it.
There are some other areas to the right of these streaks which could be as you suggest - they could be lighter sand in gullies, but due to the streaks not being in cliff shadow, I think there is a physical forceful ejection of some liquid.
It may not matter if an RSL is directly exposed to the Sun or not. The overall equatorial region is what seasonally warms up most - during the peak of the Martian Summer. The craters there could warm up enough to produce an RSL, even if the RSL originates from a shaded area like a cliff shadow. The overall soil area of the main surface, as well as with the crater, can warm up, perhaps enough to produce the RSL's. It's possible high temperatures in mid-Summer on Mars' equator can reach about 70F degrees. Since Olympus mons is in the Noachis Terra region, there might be some geothermal warming on Mars.
Of the magnified images you posted, do you know what time of year the image of the crater was originally captured?
So is that what you think the "hole" in the rock in your original post is? A stream exit?
No, I dont think the original image was a stream exit. You think it could be, do you?
Quote:
Of the magnified images you posted, do you know what time of year the image of the crater was originally captured?
I only have the links I posted under the image.
Quote:
It may not matter if an RSL is directly exposed to the Sun or not. The overall equatorial region is what seasonally warms up most - during the peak of the Martian Summer. The craters there could warm up enough to produce an RSL, even if the RSL originates from a shaded area like a cliff shadow. The overall soil area of the main surface, as well as with the crater, can warm up, perhaps enough to produce the RSL's. It's possible high temperatures in mid-Summer on Mars' equator can reach about 70F degrees. Since Olympus mons is in the Noachis Terra region, there might be some geothermal warming on Mars.
The point I was making is this: You suggested these 'streams' might be sand in gullies. I pointed out they appear to be ABOVE the surface because they are showing sunlight on them. If they were sand in gullies, then they would be in shadow.
So now, what do you think these 'streams' are or could be? Does my argument, that they are some kind of liquid coming out of the cliff face, hold any weight?
No, I dont think the original image was a stream exit. You think it could be, do you?
I have no idea what it is, nor any idea that it's necessarily a hole. The reason I asked is because in your first post, you described it as a "hole", and wondered what would cause it. Then in the Maunder Crater images, you spoke about what appears to be water from from near the top of the crater. Thus, my question whether you thought the first image you posted might be a hole from which water poured out at one time. It clearly appears if it was, it isn't any longer because it's just a single rock formation not part of anything. No, I don't think it's any kind of exit hole that water may have poured out through at one time. It's not even certain that it's actually a hole in the rock. My guess is that it is likely it's a shallow depression shaded on the rock. It's also unknown as to the size of the rock. It also looks like the rock is cracked. The rock doesn't resemble most of the other rock features around it. Maybe its a meteorite or part of one, and the "hole" is from an impact in space. You mentioned that it appears to be a manufactured opening. Meaning what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I only have the links I posted under the image.
That's okay. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
The point I was making is this: You suggested these 'streams' might be sand in gullies. I pointed out they appear to be ABOVE the surface because they are showing sunlight on them. If they were sand in gullies, then they would be in shadow.
So now, what do you think these 'streams' are or could be? Does my argument, that they are some kind of liquid coming out of the cliff face, hold any weight?
I took a look at other images of Maunder Crater. It's a pretty good sized crater. There are several RSLs in the crater. What I mean about the gullies is not that the gullies are still depressed, but rather that they could be filled up with sand. If they're filled up with enough sand or pebbles, at or slightly above the high edges of a gully, the debris wouldn't necessarily be shadowed at all. It does look like Maunder Crater has a shelf around the lip of the crater, which could be shadowed, even with the sun shining on it. Most likely such a shelf could be formed by erosion over long periods of time. Maunder Crater is said to be very old and worn. Wear is caused by erosion, including wind erosion. It's also possible that Maunder Crater was filled with water in the past, much like Gale Crater, and the water gradually evaporated away. It's thought that Mars, in its past had a warmer wet climate and that it had relatively shallow seas. All those things could contribute to erosion and undercutting the lip of Maunder Crater creating what we see now as a shadowed shelf extending out.
In addition, there are other RSLs around the crater indicting that water does pour out from sources near the main upper surface of the planet. So yes, it's quite possible that water is coming out of the cliff face. What is unknown is how forceful the water is when it comes out. If these 3 "streams" as shown is indeed water, then it would appear to be a truly massive amount of water flowing out. It is likely? I don't know, but there are other possible explanations which leave room for doubt as to what these 3 features are. My gut hunch is that most RSLs are not especially forceful, although enough water can flow out to gradually create gullies by erosion of wind and water, especially if the water seasonally flows out from the same general location. That could seasonally be over perhaps tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of years.
To understand the scale of things, I look up more information about Maunder Crater. It's pretty big. Wiki suggests about 66.79 miles in diameter. Universe Today estimates it to be about 56 miles in diameter. Either way, considering the scale, any water bursting out from the wall and curving curving down would be a staggeringly massive burst of water. Most of the year on Mars, surface temperatures are very cold, cold enough to freeze water. To thaw out enough ice to create such a massive eruption. That would be a LOT of ice to thaw for a typical seasonal RSL to appear, not to mention 3 incredibly massive outbursts. One might be tempted to consider if there is geothermal activity below the surface, enough to warm up the water that might do it. The problem that idea is that such geothermal activity would thaw the underground all the time, not just seasonally. Another possibility is that the water contains a high level of salts. That could prevent water from freezing, but at the very least, we should see the RSLs in the form of ice or frost along the crater walls from the spray or even gradual drainage. But we don't seem to be seeing anything like that. Another possibility is related to geothermal activity. If there's enough heat, water could burst out like periodic geysers. Geysers tend to break through the easiest path to the surface, and in this case, perhaps if close to the walls, a massive RSL burst could pass through openings along the side of the wall, but closer to the main upper surface which might not be as compacted as much lower layers. Typically, the soil at the surface could warm up enough to allow a thin layer of liquid water to form which would seep off from the walls with just enough water to wet the soil and cause it (the soil) to darken, which is what we generally see from the RSLs.
The only way to know for sure is to have a much closer actual look. Unless shown to be water bursting out, I'd still be inclined to think what were seeing of the 3 objects are a bit more mundane than a massive outburst of liquid water. In the meantime, it's just wild guessing.
Regarding the photo of the rocks, there's no way to tell the scale of the photo. Those rocks could either be as big as houses or smaller than your fist. As for why there's an irregular cavity in the rock that you brought up, I can see other cavities in the other rocks from the larger photo. IMO, it's just a trick of the lighting, not evidence of a smooth tunnel.
Regarding water spouts on Mars, I really doubt it. Earth atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi and Martian atmospheric pressure is about 0.01 psi. Water doesn't exist in liquid form at such a low temperature and at low temperatures, both of which are the case on the surface of Mars. Instead, water ice goes straight to water vapor.
Regarding the photo of the rocks, there's no way to tell the scale of the photo. Those rocks could either be as big as houses or smaller than your fist. As for why there's an irregular cavity in the rock that you brought up, I can see other cavities in the other rocks from the larger photo. IMO, it's just a trick of the lighting, not evidence of a smooth tunnel.
Regarding water spouts on Mars, I really doubt it. Earth atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi and Martian atmospheric pressure is about 0.01 psi. Water doesn't exist in liquid form at such a low temperature and at low temperatures, both of which are the case on the surface of Mars. Instead, water ice goes straight to water vapor.
I agree, it's hard to tell the size of the rocks. At a guess, I'd say the dark area of the rock in question is probably just a depression deep enough in the rock to cast a dark shadow.
As for water on Mars, the seasonal recurring slope lineae (RSL) suggest that they're caused by liquid water when equatorial temperatures are warmer. Liquid water can be possible with the presence of hydrated salts in the water allowing it to emerge and flow downhill. There are mysteries about the phenomena though. However, the RSLs don't last long and disappear, possibly from the water evaporating from a liquid state to a gas state. In my opinion, I suspect such water is "flowing" just beneath the sand and dust which soaks it up like a sponge giving the appearance of dark mud. I certainly don't think we're seeing gigantic spouts of liquid water bursting out from the crater walls though.
Size of the rocks really is not an issue. Why should it be? It does not make it more or less likely what others have suggested it true on another planet. In a foreign world, where there is no human input into the dataset, then we cannot put limits (like size) on what we perceive.
For example, on Earth, there are limits to how large something can grow and still be able to drag its body around or support itself, but in different environments these same limits do not apply. We also equate size with intelligence, so ants have small brains, we consider they are not as intelligent as we are with large brains. In a different environment with different biology, that may not be so.
As armchair scientists, we should remember that our Earthly restrictions do not apply. If any of you are real scientists with a day job in science, I hope your training would have taught you this. We need to be open to new discoveries and NOT close down suggestions (or hypotheses, if you want to call them that) by saying it is unknown, or unlikely, or stupid.
We should think of how we present space travel and space exploration to our children. Are we going to follow the accepted norms or are we going to encourage free thinking such as that done by the truly great scientists of the past. Tesla, Einstien, etc. They might not have always got it right but they have advanced science of the day by presenting new ideas and challenging beliefs.
Before you say it, I do not mean we should consider outlandish fairy tales as truth, but I do mean we should consider the circumstances and what we actually know, not necessarily what some expert thinks. Often our 'knowledge' is built apon opinions which is not science. Experts are human too and are subject to all the normal human traits. Egos get inflated, money get offered, status gets endowed and often it gets more difficult to be wrong or mistaken when you are well-respected.
Size of the rocks really is not an issue. Why should it be? It does not make it more or less likely what others have suggested it true on another planet. In a foreign world, where there is no human input into the dataset, then we cannot put limits (like size) on what we perceive.
But size does matter. It comes down to the amount of energy required to make the cavity in the rock. The larger the cavity, the more material removed, the more energy required to remove the material.
Quote:
For example, on Earth, there are limits to how large something can grow and still be able to drag its body around or support itself, but in different environments these same limits do not apply. We also equate size with intelligence, so ants have small brains, we consider they are not as intelligent as we are with large brains. In a different environment with different biology, that may not be so.
But the item in question is a rock, not some living entity. In this particular case, I don't believe that it's pertinent to consider how large a rock could grow and still be able to drag itself about, or whether the brain of a rock is proportional to its intelligence.
Quote:
As armchair scientists, we should remember that our Earthly restrictions do not apply. If any of you are real scientists with a day job in science, I hope your training would have taught you this. We need to be open to new discoveries and NOT close down suggestions (or hypotheses, if you want to call them that) by saying it is unknown, or unlikely, or stupid.
We should think of how we present space travel and space exploration to our children. Are we going to follow the accepted norms or are we going to encourage free thinking such as that done by the truly great scientists of the past. Tesla, Einstien, etc. They might not have always got it right but they have advanced science of the day by presenting new ideas and challenging beliefs.
Before you say it, I do not mean we should consider outlandish fairy tales as truth, but I do mean we should consider the circumstances and what we actually know, not necessarily what some expert thinks. Often our 'knowledge' is built apon opinions which is not science. Experts are human too and are subject to all the normal human traits. Egos get inflated, money get offered, status gets endowed and often it gets more difficult to be wrong or mistaken when you are well-respected.
Back two or three years ago, we had an actual scientist posting on this forum, BenInFla. I believe that he was an astrophysicist. He started a great thread where people could pose questions about physics and Ben would answer them in terms that a layman could grasp.
Ben was finally driven away by some crank who had his own theory of the universe and constantly badgered Ben until the scientist simply gave up and went away.
The problem with this sub-forum is that it attracts people who seek validation for their own unscientific notions, and become annoying/abusive when the validation they seek is not provided.
But size does matter. It comes down to the amount of energy required to make the cavity in the rock. The larger the cavity, the more material removed, the more energy required to remove the material.
I do not deny that a larger hole needs more energy. However, the current conditions on Mars have been the same for millions of years, more than enough time to weather away a rock - if it was going to be done. As I am sure you know, wind and erosion on Mars is very light and is not enough to make a deep hole in a rock like we see here, so I feel that your explanation for this feature is stretching belief a little.
Quote:
The problem with this sub-forum is that it attracts people who seek validation for their own unscientific notions, and become annoying/abusive when the validation they seek is not provided.
Holding this kind of attitude yourself is no better than the ones you are complaining about. You may pretend it is not a criticism due to the way it has been worded, but the intent cannot be hidden. This forum probably reflects the general population and is not a haven for science types as there are all kinds of ideas out there and not just the ones which science endorses. It is a problem of educational level and that is driven by many societal factors.
It is obvious there are still some who feel science is "king" and anyone who does not go along with its beliefs are not worthy. Thinking this way is arrogant and exclusive but I am sure there are very few actual scientists who think this way. For them, they are just another bloke who happens to be a scientist. For the few who do think that way, it gives the profession a bad name.
Quote:
Back two or three years ago, we had an actual scientist posting on this forum, BenInFla. I believe that he was an astrophysicist. He started a great thread where people could pose questions about physics and Ben would answer them in terms that a layman could grasp.
Wow! An actual scientist? Posting here? He would probably make a good teacher if he can express complicated ideas in simple ways. That is an unusual and valuable skill.
Quote:
Ben was finally driven away by some crank who had his own theory of the universe and constantly badgered Ben until the scientist simply gave up and went away.
Unfortunately, there are many pople who feel strongly about their cause as can be seen by all the shootings and bombings we have at the moment. Why should you think they will avoid places like this?
Folks who are motivated and passionate about what they see as a problem are the ones likely to find the solution to it because they have the reason to continue searching. There are numerous citizen scientists beavering away in their garages, doing good work towards a solution to many of life's problems. They are valuable to society too even if they do not have qualifications to call themselves 'a scientist'.
As much as Ben was a welcome visitor to this forum, he was also subject to the same pressures as everyone else is on here. Why should Ben be given special privilages whereby he is treated differently? As the saying goes, "If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"
I do not deny that a larger hole needs more energy. However, the current conditions on Mars have been the same for millions of years, more than enough time to weather away a rock - if it was going to be done. As I am sure you know, wind and erosion on Mars is very light and is not enough to make a deep hole in a rock like we see here, so I feel that your explanation for this feature is stretching belief a little.
But that's just the thing, my comments don't validate your belief, do they?
Mars also experiences meteor strikes and marsquakes. Either action could have caused the rocks in the picture to move, perhaps violently, and caused them to strike against each other. And with a time scale of millions or even billions of years, it's the simplest explanation, and one that doesn't demand the existence of an intelligent being acting in a purposeful manner. Occam's Razor, and all that.
Quote:
Holding this kind of attitude yourself is no better than the ones you are complaining about. You may pretend it is not a criticism due to the way it has been worded, but the intent cannot be hidden. This forum probably reflects the general population and is not a haven for science types as there are all kinds of ideas out there and not just the ones which science endorses. It is a problem of educational level and that is driven by many societal factors.
You should probably look up the postings of the CD member, manygeese. IIRC, he had a really out there hypothesis. It's "interesting" - and completely unscientific.
Quote:
It is obvious there are still some who feel science is "king" and anyone who does not go along with its beliefs are not worthy. Thinking this way is arrogant and exclusive but I am sure there are very few actual scientists who think this way. For them, they are just another bloke who happens to be a scientist. For the few who do think that way, it gives the profession a bad name.
Science is "king"? I get the notion that you don't really understand science. The thing about science is that it's revolutionary. Accepted ideas get overthrown by new and substantiated theories. The catch is that to overthrow an accepted theory, one must actually prove their new theories, in a demonstrable and repeatable way.
Quote:
Wow! An actual scientist? Posting here? He would probably make a good teacher if he can express complicated ideas in simple ways. That is an unusual and valuable skill.
Unfortunately, there are many pople who feel strongly about their cause as can be seen by all the shootings and bombings we have at the moment. Why should you think they will avoid places like this?
Folks who are motivated and passionate about what they see as a problem are the ones likely to find the solution to it because they have the reason to continue searching. There are numerous citizen scientists beavering away in their garages, doing good work towards a solution to many of life's problems. They are valuable to society too even if they do not have qualifications to call themselves 'a scientist'.
As much as Ben was a welcome visitor to this forum, he was also subject to the same pressures as everyone else is on here. Why should Ben be given special privilages whereby he is treated differently? As the saying goes, "If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"
Actually, I looked up beninfl and found his thread.
Can't help but notice that you were one of the posters who "interacted" with him just before he dropped out of the forum. Some dispute over a NASA photo of some rocks, I believe....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
