Looks like Water on Mars to me!

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanMercury have ice is HUGE news.

It may have been huge, but it's old (from 1991). Do some Googling:

You make the assumption that everyone in here is aware of everything that has been discovered. Many do NOT know all this and its news to them. Many come to ATS so others like myself that have the time and skills to search for data can present it to them... in a topic area that has perked their curiosity.

To simply say "Its old news, do some googling..." is pretty arrogant in my opinion. To google properly you need to have the right question...

If someone never even considered the possibilty of water on Mercury until the thought was presented in a thread such as this, they would not think to look.

Your assumptions about Mercury are incorrect.

Prove it

[edit on 26-6-2007 by zorgon]

I didn't mean my comment to be offensive. I just meant that I had already provided one link about water ice on Mercury, and if he was interested, he could do some googling for more info. I was also pointing out that while HE may consider it huge news, it was not such for the scientific community.

If anyone is interested, a simple google for "water ice mercury" will turn up a lot.

Also, his assumptions about Mercury were incorrect in that it would be too hot for water ice to exist. Some of the articles found via Google will give you data on the temperature extremes found on Mercury. Yes, the equator is blistering, but at poles, where the angle of the Sun is extreme and glancing, there are very low temperatures. That there exist permanently-shaded areas in craters at the poles where ice can exist is proven by the radar imaging.

OK, so if i Google Mercury, i find that it is only 36% the distance from the Sun as us. I also find that the temperature is wildly erratic (supposedly...we have yet to be there to actually know).

I kept scanning and found some other interesting info:

Thin atmosphere. The planet actually does have a very thin atmosphere of atoms blasted off its surface by the solar wind. Because Mercury is so hot, the atoms quickly escape into space. In contrast to Earth and Venus where atmospheres are stable, Mercury's atmosphere is constantly being replenished.

www.spacetoday.org...


The solar wind is so strong is "blasts" atoms off the surface of the planet (that is quite a presumption, actually).


Doesn't it seem to you that an Iron planet that sits only 36mil miles from the Sun would retain ambient heat? It sits only 36 mil miles from a surface that is over 1 mil degrees.

If so much of the planet is made of iron, there should be much more ambient heat retained and radiated through its thin crust.

I just don't think ice should exist, unless the Plasma Cosmology theory is correct. In that case, it all makes sense.

There's no atmosphere in the space, so heat behaves differently than you may be expecting based on your experience here on Earth. Let's say you have a big piece of sheet metal. You take that metal at move it close to the sun. Say, as close as Mercury is. You orient it so the big flat side is directly facing the Sun. It would get very hot. But if you put a smaller piece of metal in the shadow of the larger piece, even though it is still close to the Sun, it would remain very cold... as cold as deep space. That's because there is no air to transfer the Sun's heat.

On Mercury, you have cold, cold space surrounding the planet. At the equator, where the Sun's rays hit at a 90 degree angle, it does get very hot. But as you move towards the poles, the amount of light that hits the surface is less and less, due to the increasing angle of the Sun. So even though the equator is hot, the poles are very cold. The heat doesn't transfer from the equator to the poles because there is no atmosphere to carry it. And it can't transfer through the ground because you have super cold space surrounding the planet and sucking all the heat out of it before it can make it to the poles.

Originally posted by Astyanax
You're wrong, I'm afraid. Intellectually speaking, life on other planets is nothing new.

And your probably right if we go back far enough but i wonder in what terms people 'believed' this. Do they believe in it the same way they believe in god(s) 'somewhere' in space ( just close enough to answer prayers and gain forgiveness&eternal life) or do they believe in life on other planets in objective ways?

Oh, and by the way-- while we're on the subject of speculation: it is pure speculation to assert that NASA was 'finding microbes on Mars in 1976'.

The LR test was the definitive pre-mission specification for finding 'life' on Mars and since that test was positive we , according to mission specifications, found life. You can argue with that all you like, as most people fight observed reality on daily basis, but it wont change the fact that even NASA said they found life before changing their mind for some as yet unexplained reason.

One of the Viking (I think it was) 'life tests' returned positive.

The one that mattered.

Maybe Mars even has life today. The evidence sent back from Mars by two Viking Landers in 1976 and 1977 was not clearcut (6). In fact, NASA's first press release about the Viking tests announced that the results were positive. The "Labelled Release" (LR) experiments had given positive results. But after lengthy discussions in which Carl Sagan participated, NASA reversed its position, mainly because another experiment detected no organics in the soil. Yet Gilbert V. Levin, the principal designer of the LR experiment, still believes the tests pointed to life on Mars (7). When the same two experiments were run on soil from Antarctica, the same conflicting results were obtained (LR - positive; organics - negative.) Soil from Antarctica definitely contains life. The test for organics was negative because it is far less sensitive than the LR experiment. The same problem could have caused the organics test on Mars to give a false negative.

www.panspermia.org...

Others didn't.

This would help explain why Viking's gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer detected no organic compounds on the surface of Mars. This result has also been questioned recently by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico, who reported that similar instruments and methodology are unable to detect organic compounds in places on Earth, such as Antarctic dry valleys, where we know soil microorganisms exist.

* The Labeled Release experiment, in which samples of Martian soil (and putative soil organisms) were exposed to water and a nutrient source including radiolabeled carbon, showed rapid production of radiolabeled CO2 which then leveled off. Schulze-Makuch said the initial increase could have been due to metabolism by hydrogen peroxide-containing organisms, and the leveling off could have been due to the organisms dying from exposure to the experimental conditions. He said that point has been argued for years by Gilbert Levin, who was a primary investigator on the original Viking team. The new hypothesis explains why the experimental conditions would have been fatal: microbes using a water-hydrogen peroxide mixture would either "drown" or burst due to water absorption, if suddenly exposed to liquid water.

* The possibility that the tests killed the organisms they were looking for is also consistent with the results of the Pyrolytic Release experiment, in which radiolabeled CO2 was converted to organic compounds by samples of Martian soil. Of the seven tests done, three showed significant production of organic substances and one showed much higher production. The variation could simply be due to patchy distribution of microbes, said Schulze-Makuch. Perhaps most interesting was that the sample with the lowest production -- lower even than the control -- had been treated with liquid water.

www.marstoday.com...

The consensus was that there wasn't enough evidence to be positive about it.

How often does the 'consensus' view in science prevail over observed reality and for how long? The consensus at first were that they found life , NASA had a press conference saying as much, and they only later changed their minds for reasons that they have never been able to duplicate in laboratory conditions. They have NEVER been able to mimick the Mars test so giving us a scientific reason to doubt the original findings.

In science, doubtful data are discounted.

In science data either supports a given or it does not but it can NEVER be discounted as it is very much the result of a given process; you can not deny observation and trying to do so is simply not scientific.

In conspiracy theorists' minds, the opposite happens: doubtful data are given preeminence over established fact.

There is nothing 'doubtful', at least not in the scientific use of the word, about the fact that we found life on Mars in 1976 and claiming as much just shows a ignorance of the established science record. You can call those who disagree with your defense of the establishment whatever you want but doing that never will change the facts of this matter.

Stellar

Nat, i don't have time to search it back out, but the general premise is that Mercury is a molten iron core that comprises the overwhelming majority of the planet. The "super cold" space is all that allows the "crust" to cool enough to not be molten. Therefore, i would expect ambient heat from the molten iron core to radiate outwards and at the very least prevent the formation of frost.

The original posted pic of water on mars is almost certainly fake.

for one beaming reason. (forgive me if someone has already pointed this out) there is a blue tinge to the photo yes? even in the high res... Mars doesn't have enough atmosphere for there to be blue skies, without blue skies the water would have no reflected blue...

the water wouldn't have any blue in it were it real.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Nat, i don't have time to search it back out, but the general premise is that Mercury is a molten iron core that comprises the overwhelming majority of the planet. The "super cold" space is all that allows the "crust" to cool enough to not be molten. Therefore, i would expect ambient heat from the molten iron core to radiate outwards and at the very least prevent the formation of frost.

The Earth has a liquid molten iron outer core, yet we get plenty of frost.

I don't think you get exactly how cold space is, either. It will suck all the heat out of the ground, easily making for very cold surface temperatures (when out of the sunlight).

OK, so i took a moment to search out a little snippet or two:

in order to be small and dense, Mercury must contain a very large, very heavy core of iron and nickel that spans 75% of its diameter.

Graphical representation of the difference in core size compared to body size:

Mercury:


Earth:



I know Earth's core is molten. But that molten core lies beneath miles of cool crust. Mercruy is not the same. The core lies right below the surface, so to speak. 75% of a body that small doesn't leave much crust to shield the surface from all that heat.

How does the core get molten, anyway? It doesn't spin very fast...where is it generating all that energy?

It's pressure. All that stuff sqeezed together by gravity heats it up.

Originally posted by Spec01
The original posted pic of water on mars is almost certainly fake.

Well it's not...

for one beaming reason. (forgive me if someone has already pointed this out) there is a blue tinge to the photo yes? even in the high res... Mars doesn't have enough atmosphere for there to be blue skies, without blue skies the water would have no reflected blue...

When people refuse to read or research...

If the Martian atmosphere were to be completely cleansed of dust, the daytime sky would appear blue, just as our own sky, because of Rayleigh scattering by the molecules (primarily carbon dioxide molecules) which make up the atmosphere. Pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope in the early 1990s suggested that the Martian atmosphere had much less dust loading than in the Viking years. So perhaps the Martian sky was closer to blue than in the Viking years(or perhaps the Hubble Space Telescope was inaccurate on this matter until repairs were completed in February 1997). However, Mars Pathfinder pictures in 1997 showed essentially the same sky color and dust loading as the Viking landers in 1976.

calspace.ucsd.edu...

The first color image (12A006/001) of the surface of Mars was taken July 21, 1976, at the Viking 1 site, one day after the landing. Immediately displayed on color monitors at JPL, as seen in Figure 1a, the landscape awed observers with its resemblance to that of Arizona. Typical desert colorations of soil and rock, ranging from umber sand to yellowish-brown and olivine-colored rocks stood out clearly under a blue sky. Two hours later, however, the official image was changed to the monotone of orange-red (NASA P-17164), Figure 1b, that, with few exceptions, has prevailed in NASA-published images of Mars ever since, as presented by Mutch et al.[1]. However, a spectral analysis of color images of the Viking 1 site reported[2] a broader palate. The paper made the first, and perhaps only, reported use of JPL’s Image Processing Laboratory to analyze digitally the red, green and blue color channels of the images taken by the Viking 1 lander camera. In addition to studying the color images, their RGB components were transformed into saturation, hue and intensity components to enhance subtle deviations. When these components were equally amplified to produce an equal average sensitivity over the spectral bandpass, the resulting “radiometric” (closest possible approach in appearance to a human observer) images very closely resembled the first color image (12A006/001). Among the range of colors, the paper reported that some of the rocks exhibited greenish patterns that apparently changed between images taken 301 sols apart. Radiometric images of lichen-bearing terrestrial rocks taken and processed through the same system as were the Viking images showed a close resemblance of the lichen colonies to the greenish patches on the Mars rocks. Inclusion in the analysis of three near-IR channels available on the Martian images enhanced the greenness of the patches that were, to the sensitivity of the method, virtually indistinguishable from the lichen colonies on the terrestrial rocks.

mars.spherix.com...

So when you stand on the surface of Mars the sky would in fact seem blue given there are no major dust storms.

the water wouldn't have any blue in it were it real.

Right and why can't we have the same colour water on Mars as on Earth given the same old blue skies?

sci.esa.int...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Stellar

Originally posted by Spec01Mars doesn't have enough atmosphere for there to be blue skies,

Spirit Rover Sunset during a dust storm...



Opportunity Rover



Twilight on a Cloudy Day... Pathfinder

Originally posted by StellarX
There is nothing 'doubtful', at least not in the scientific use of the word, about the fact that we found life on Mars in 1976.

The sources you quote in your last post make it very clear -- to an objective reader -- that there is plenty of doubt. Try reading what is on the page instead of reading into what is on the page.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The sources you quote in your last post make it very clear -- to an objective reader --

Are you counting yourself as one of those?

that there is plenty of doubt. Try reading what is on the page instead of reading into what is on the page.

I read just fine and unless you have specific evidence you wish to present, in defense of the now hopelessly outdated notion that there is no life on mars, i can will only judge you for your opinion and disregard it as completely as it deserves to be. When you reach the point where you can by implication understand what is disclosed in such articles we will have some ground to work on but there is not much to do while you accept their conclusions and ignore the contradictions in the evidence presented.

Stellar

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
How does the core get molten, anyway? It doesn't spin very fast...where is it generating all that energy?

I thought it was molten from the decay of Uranium... Good thing its not hot enough to go nuclear on us... Or we would have that "Earth shattering Kaboom" Marvin is always looking for

But it says here that the inner core is solid iron, surrounded by an outer molten core

Says so Right Here

Darn Scientists... just when you think you understand whats going on they go and mess things up



[edit on 26-7-2007 by zorgon]

That was pretty funny, Zorgon. "Says so right here".

I am suspicious of anything that is "inferred" (the actual word used for how science equates the presumed acoustic dynamics of the assumed materials within the Earth). Inferred (or Derivatory) science is too over reaching for me. I prefer direct measuremet before taking anything to the bank, and until then i just keep everything in the realm of probability (or, possibility for more far fetched concepts).

Mars Close-Up Casts Doubts on Signs of Recent Water

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Mars Close-Up Casts Doubts on Signs of Recent Water

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Wow, Ish....that article was actually in National Geographic?

Something seems fishy here. Either someone with an agenda pulled a fast one on the editor, or maybe i misread parts of it.

Nice find. You always provide lots of information from a very wide array of sources. You should set up shop more permanently here at ATS....be nice to have you around here, too.

Originally posted by promomag
HOLY SMOKES!

Here's a High Resolution Photo, I think it's the same picture!

THAT is most definitely WATER

www.flickr.com...

No doubt that water, but that water looks like its flowing. Last I checked "ponds" dont really flow.

What I wanna know is where is it flowing too, and where is it coming from?

Underground water supply? They said the rover made the discovery in a crater? Maybe the slope in the crater created a opportunity for the water to over flow onto the surface.

If the water was still it could of gotten there a number of different ways, but if its flowing, it could only mean there's more water hiding somewhere else on the red planet.

I wonder how many square miles NASA's rover explored so far?

Nope no doubbt at all about Water

This is from ESA A frozen lake of water ice



But this was always my favorite