SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A numerical model indicates that some of -- and possibly all -- the gullies found on Mars were not caused by flowing liquid water. According to a paper published December 21 in Nature Geoscience (DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2619), Martian gullies can result from geologic dry ice processes that have no terrestrial analogues and do not require liquid water. Such dry ice processes may have helped shape the evolution of landforms elsewhere on the martian surface. The areas around the gullies probably do not provide potential habitable environments for life in Mars's recent past, as has been widely speculated. NASA's evidence also indicates the gullies were formed by dry ice rather than liquid water.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Martian Gullies May Not be Water-Related
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 18 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without
the supervision of a licensed engineer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @07:24PM
Nah, it's probably caused by Electrical Discharge. Same as with the same features seen on Comets. For some fucked up reason NASA and other space agencies refuse to believe the electrical hypothesis no matter how much evidence we throw at them, including their own Deep Impact probe imagery, results, and what not. The theory that comets are made of dirty snowballs is bogus, as evidenced by the solid rock comets we actually land on and slam shit into. And yet, we still persist with the "there's ice underneath it" (except: no vents are found, dummies).
Neither the CO2 or Water cycle explains the giant things like that huge fucking scar or Olympus Mons. The Electrical Hypothesis does, but everyone turns a blind eye to it, no matter how much evidence drop in their lap to support it. Only one hypothesis so far properly explains the scalloped edges of gullies and spidery lines of "tributaries" (which don't run according to topographic height differences, so they're not water or CO2 tributaries) -- but that hypothesis is off the table.
The staunch adherence to stupid and disproved theories and outright ignoring of evidence is so fucking common in space "sciences" that I call them Space Religions. The sad thing is, most science is actually more like a religion today. However, when anyone points this out they are attacked as "anti-science nut jobs" by the punditry who worships at the altars of the acronymed agencies (where the real nut jobs and hypocrites work).
The canyons are formed by electrical discharge, this led to the creation of many of the asteroids and comets we see, and explains their strange shapes resembling big rocks "fused" together.
Would you like to know more? [youtube.com] Nope, you actually don't, you just think you do. [youtube.com] You will probably continue to believe all the other lies "Accepted Scientific Consensus" tells instead of questioning everything and doing independent research like a true scientist would... why? Because the consensus is repeated in the media.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @07:31PM
Here's a hint: If you've got scalloped edges along a boxed canyon... where the fuck did the material actually go? It's not on the canyon floor... so...
DERP! SHUT UP! IT COULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO SPACE! IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN EXPLOSIVE DISCHARGE. IF YOU DON'T IGNORE THE FIELDS OF SHARP SHATTERED ROCKS STREWN ABOUT MARTIAN SURFACE THEN YOU ARE A HERETIC.
BURN THIS WITCH!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 28 2015, @09:39PM
If you've got scalloped edges along a boxed canyon... where the fuck did the material actually go? It's not on the canyon floor... so...
The material is on the canyon floor. Just because you say otherwise, doesn't make it so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @02:14AM
This is completely wrong. Show me the evidence of your claim. There is an interesting boxed canyon to the north of Valles Marineris, part of that structure, it's very deep and isolated and has no outflows nor the magnitude of debris in the basin that would be required of erosion. This is characteristic of that entire structure, if you would only just look. All I've asked is you consider a view that opposes your belief. Go ahead and watch that first video, it answers your questions. There is not the amount of material in the bottom of the craters to support the claims of erosion. There is some dust and other particulates, but it is no where near the amount required. Where did it go? Perhaps it was blasted out of the hole by a bolt of plasma. If you investigate this hypothesis you soon realize it explains most of the unexplained surface features of Mars.
Seriously, if you care about the subject, watch that first video I linked. It shows you the geography of Mars in high detail, and compares this to experimental evidence from plasma laboratories which recreate the characteristic features seen on Mars.
What could cause the crater within a crater, the "Bull's Eye Craters". NASA said that a meteor fell in an existing crater. This happens all over the place though. There are even two side by side. The odds themselves dispute the hypothesis of two meteorites falling into the same spot with such great frequency. However, this is the signature of plasma discharge. Lightning strikes, blows a crater, and then the subsequent smaller pulses along the same pathway create the crater within the crater. This is seen in the lab and in nature.
You really do owe it to yourself to just watch those videos. You may ignore the parts where they hypothesize that accounts of ancient astronomers may be validated by the electrical hypothesis; That's admittedly disputable, however, the deposition characteristics of electrical machining are plainly evident. Neither NASA nor the mainstream press are going to highlight where the accepted erosional theory fails. They're not true scientists if they don't try to debunk their own claims.
Why then is no one else doing the experiment? Show me some experiment with hematite and dry ice or water erosion to create the same shapes we see on Mars. Where are the dirty ice balls in a laboratory vacuum and a heat lamp upon them to create the "jets" of comets? When you start realizing that some of these experiments have been done, but they don't support the "accepted narrative" and thus they're been ignored -- just like the experiments which validate the alternate electrical hypothesis, then you realize that you're not seeing science but religion! Why do the proponents of the erosion hypothesis refuse to Refute the null hypothesis? It's very strange, isn't it? But then you realize that Einstein also faced much ignorance and anti-science too.
Evidence of plasma discharge can be seen in our missions to comets in the placement of regions of over saturated pixels.
Perhaps they are trying to keep the public from panicking. Whatever caused those giant blasts of electricity is an unknown, and it could happen again.... Perhaps to Earth. I propose it is dissimilar charged bodies crossing in close proximity which creates the large discharges. Perhaps large asteroids or comets or dwarf planets, etc. Perhaps even that the orbits of our planets were not the same now as they once were.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @02:34AM
Perhaps they are trying to keep the public from panicking. Whatever caused those giant blasts of electricity is an unknown, and it could happen again.... Perhaps to Earth. I propose it is dissimilar charged bodies crossing in close proximity which creates the large discharges. Perhaps large asteroids or comets or dwarf planets, etc
Or, it could be fairies. Or Wizards. Or a rift in the space-time continuum. And you forgot aliens.
Einstein also faced much ignorance and anti-science too.
Wow, did not see this coming! What are the odds that a crazy bizarre theory mad scientist would compare his self to Einstein? They must be so low as to cause a gigantic build up of opposite charges, enough to create a massive plasma discharge! Or, not.
Proposal rejected.
Can we get back to actual science now? Or do we have to discuss magnets, first? ("Telluridic impluses, you traitor! Zieg Heil!" "NO! Stop it! Not in front of the straights!" "Please ignore that small outburst, Gentlemen, and let me propose that we use deep underground mine shafts to preserve the higher levels of government, and business elites, of course.")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:12PM
Ooooh, the science is weak with this one.
I don't care how relatively strong the electromagnetic force is compared to gravity - planets and comets are made almost entirely of atoms, and atoms are electrically neutral.
Plasma beams? We'd are able to detect those, and their sources, from the opposite side of the galaxy and beyond - there's no way that we couldn't detect such a source right on our doorstep (and also, it wouldn't be a boring little planet).
My woo-woo-ometer has broken, it seems the needle is bent. Probably I shouldn't even have replied to such nonsense.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 29 2015, @06:04PM
There is an interesting boxed canyon to the north of Valles Marineris, part of that structure, it's very deep and isolated and has no outflows nor the magnitude of debris in the basin that would be required of erosion.
Unless, of course, it does. There's no point to god of the gap arguments especially when they rely on a single canyon on Mars. Why isn't there electric discharge on Earth or Moon to the requisite order of magnitude?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 30 2015, @06:19PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday December 28 2015, @09:38PM
Nah, it's probably caused by Electrical Discharge.
The obvious rebuttal is that we have spacecraft there. If there were abnormal electric fields anywhere in the inner Solar System, including the surface of Mars, we would have directly observed them by now.
Neither the CO2 or Water cycle explains the giant things like that huge fucking scar or Olympus Mons.
So what? They don't explain your appendix either. The "scar" and Olympus Mons can be explained by geology like what we observe on Earth and Moon, particularly with respect to asteroid impacts and the Moon's similarly asymmetric mass distribution.
Meanwhile, why would there only be a few scars and mounds in an Electric Discharge universe? Wouldn't Mars look really peculiar with most of the surface scarred by discharges rather than a few mounds and pits?
The staunch adherence to stupid and disproved theories and outright ignoring of evidence is so fucking common in space "sciences" that I call them Space Religions.
What annoys me about this sort of argument is it commits the very sin it complains about. There are plenty of electric fields in the Solar System. And we've directly observed these fields with spacecraft. But they are many, many orders of magnitude too small to explain the effects that the Electric Discharge theory tries to explain. Your theory had a chance, but observation doesn't back it. Your theory has been falsified. Time to let it go or come up with something better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:01AM
They LAUGHED when I told them that comets were the result of HUGE ELECTRICAL EXPLOSIONS on Mars! They laughed even louder when I proved it to them! And then the kicked me out the of the conference, and out of the Royal Academy of Astrophysics! The fools! And finally, the ultimate insult, is this "dry ice did it" theory. But they will be sorry! I have constructed a Martian Electro-explosive device to scale, on EARTH! Now, unless the world pays me ONE MILLION DOLLARS, I will detonate the device and make more comets that might collide with the earth, or at at the very least create canyons with no material in the bottom of them. Who is laughing now, monkeyboies?
(Hell hath no crazy like a mad scientist scorned. Hi, Mikhail!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:10AM
The obvious rebuttal is that we have spacecraft there. If there were abnormal electric fields anywhere in the inner Solar System, including the surface of Mars, we would have directly observed them by now.
Watch that second video I linked. It shows clear evidence you seek. Stop being so reactionary and actually look before your leap to conclusions. Your conclusion is that NASA is unbiased on this regard and that evidence doesn't exist. Both of which are proven wrong by what's linked in the very post you replied to.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 29 2015, @06:07PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:22AM
So what? They don't explain your appendix either.
So, you say: Hey! If there was an electrical event it would sill be electrified! As if when you go to the doctor after sticking a fork in a light socket, he would pull out a volt meter, measure the burn mark, and say, "This was not an electrical burn, so I'm not treating your wound." It's idiocy at its finest, but then you throw the appendix at me... which is funny, considering you haven't even watched the videos I linked to answer your questions. I know how this works. It's more time to investigate the claim than to just shout it down. So you shout it down and needlessly worship at the alter of the false gods of Science. The paper TFA links is bogus because ANY erosion would have to have an outflow, but there isn't one. The erosional hypothesis is refuted by the basic facts of gravity and erosion.
The "scar" and Olympus Mons can be explained by geology like what we observe on Earth and Moon, particularly with respect to asteroid impacts and the Moon's similarly asymmetric mass distribution.
No. The truth is that the geography of Mars with its stuttered chains of craters looks nothing like the moon, and has features not seen on Earth like Razorbacks. You're just plainly ignorant, even though I've given you the information you request already. Why are you arguing first without watching the videos? Are you just trying to look like a damned fool?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @05:06AM
Dr. Scott, I presume?