All The Amenities with no frill accomidations
Posted on 04/11/2015 4:22:45 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Thanks BenLurkin. Angry Red Planet ping.
|
There is actually about a little over one degree celsius window where liquid can exist on the Martian surface.
interesting
Climate change!
Why do they airbrush out the floor of those craters?
Damn that Curiosity Rover SUV. . . putting out all that CO2
There is one serious problem with their theory of water flowing from beneath the surface because of solar heating of the surface warming it enough to melt sub-surface ice.
The surface is heated only by radiation from the sun according to their postulation. As Drew68 pointed out the temperature just a couple of meters above the surface will be freezing cold. That is because the atmosphere is transparent to the heating wavelengths of the sunlight and can only pickup infrared radiated heat from the surface. That will be very, very small.
Rock is a very good insulator. . . and rock dust is an even better insulator. Any one who has walked on a hot sand beach knows that while the surface may be blistering, just under the surface, it can be quite cool. The same will hold true just a few centimeters below the surface in the rock or dust. No radiation heat will reach lower. . . it has to be all conductive, which means it takes time.
The heat has to travel through the rock to reach the hypothetical ice, then it has to raise the hypothetical ice above the freezing point of 0º Centigrade within a very narrow time frame. . . a lot of ice which will require a lot of heat over a fairly long time! Then the melted ice water has to seep to the surface, cooling the surrounding rock. . . interrupting the conduction of heat into the rock toward the ice. Oops.
The methodology simply doesn't work. Nor could it work for such a wide-spread phenomenon.
The NASA scientists want to find water so much they are clutching at absurd straws.
I want to propose a more outré explanation.
What if it is a biological plant such as a lichen that can only thrive when conditions are just right? This may be the only time in which spoor bodies may be sprouted and propagated with any chance of survival in the harsh Martian climatary change conditions.
A rapid bloom of a rust colored biological over a wide-spread area that appears all at the same time explains the observed phenomenon far better than postulating water seepage from warming and melting unseen ice beneath the surface.
Ice on Mars: Mars has belts of glaciers consisting of frozen water
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ ^ | April 8, 2015 | University of Copenhagen - Niels Bohr Institute
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3277339/posts
Hmmmm. Could be. As they say, 'Velly intellesting".
The glassy tubes seen in Martian photographs are not geologically possible, so that begs the issue of a past intelligent life using Mars. If these lichens grow on land upwellings, then why not on the tubes also? Why does NASA airbrush so much out on the photos they release to the public? why did NASA not use the already paid for Apollo 18, 19 and 20 missions? NASA has a 'wing' which is strictly military. NEVER trust NASA for straight data.
i don't trust them as far as I could throw Mars. . . but it is the data we have to work with. As for explanations of what we can see on Mars, have you seen this:
Episode 2 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars (Full Documentary)
It is a full length documentary that offers an alternative explanation for the features we see on Mars' surface. Keep an open mind while watching it.
I was introduced to Wal Thornhill’s excellent ‘Electric Universe’ approximately two decades ago.
I am also convinced that that Moon was unhabited at the time the catastrophe happened. Some of the craters on our moon look like they may have been impacts from large masses of mostly frozen water which thawed on impact, leaving 'splash patterns'.
The only thing left for the Van Flandern theory is the 'wehn'. When the parent planet (Tiamat?) came apart it created an electric storm which scarred Mars as we see it. If you look at what lightening does to soil and other objects and what massive flooding (as in a dam breaking) does to land, it is a likely scenario.
I strongly disagree. There are no water patterns on Mars and no effluvial results of any of what you describe. No deltas, no mud flow areas. What you describe cannot explain the rock strewn surface lacking mud around the surfaces, the fine dust covering the moon, and the splash patterns that do not center on the craters. . . while the Electric thunderbolt theories are demonstrable in the plasma laboratories and in plasma simulations.
There is much more evidence that the Electric Universe thesis is correct than just the evidence on Mars and more and more are discovered everyday. The latest are being found on comet 67P and Ceres. . . and the mass to size anomalies.
Regarding “splash patterns”, there have been several postings here at FR regarding topics such as the Carolina Bays, and the possible boloid strike on North America around 13,000 years ago. My hypothesis is that the Carolina Bays were caused by massive chunks of northern glacier material being thrown up by the far north boloid strike(s). The fact that these ovals all have similar directionality is suggestive of this concept.
There are craters on the moon which show ‘directionality and a less than ‘solid object’ impact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
