Do Martians View A Red Earth?

Originally posted by ewokdisco
Just imagine some young martian fellow being told about poor old red Earth. how it once may have sustained life.

There is one scenario I have thought of.....in the early solar system.

Mars is much smaller than Earth so it would have cooled from a molten rock state more quickly, while the earth was still molten rock, or lava, as we see it, which looks red right? So the Earth could have been red (probably was) from the molten rock before the molten rock cooled down. The impact that formed Earth's moon also probably made the Earth a red planet again, heating up the rock until it's molten from the energy from the impact.

So back then I've wondered if the Earth might have been seen as a red planet from Mars which might have been the blue planet since it obviously had liquid water at one point. I think possibly so.

The giant impact hypothesis

The impact (thought to have formed the moon) had some important consequences for the young Earth. It released an enormous amount of energy, causing both the Earth and Moon to be completely molten. Immediately after the impact, the Earth's mantle was vigorously convecting, the surface was a large magma ocean.

That would have made the Earth appear red, would it not?

Now the Earth is the blue planet and Mars is the red planet, but red not because of hot molten lava but because of the natural color of iron-rich rock.

Originally posted by ewokdisco
thank you for the pictures,aplha. there is blue on Mars. how about that. is it a genuine picture etc?

They are false-color images.

NASA scientists often artificially assign the color blue to certain intensities of light (corresponding to certain materials) on mars, because the blue contrasts well with the yellow-browns found on Mars. Using this contrasting color, they can see some materials and features more clearly.

The "blue ripply" material in those pictures that look like water ripples are actually yellowish-brown sand dunes (ripples in sand).


The images in this post (below) by cmdrkeenkid exemplifies this. As you can see in the two images, the one with the "false-color" of blue being assigned to certain wavelengths of light makes the different materials on Mars easier to distinguish from each other. This makes it easir for the scientists who are studying Mars

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
reply to post by ewokdisco

 

Again, those are false color images. Take a look at these images of the Intrepid crater on Mars. The first is in true color, the second is in false color.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by ewokdisco
thank you for the pictures,aplha. there is blue on Mars. how about that. is it a genuine picture etc?

They are false-color images.

NASA scientists often artificially assign the color blue to certain intensities of light (corresponding to certain materials) on mars, because the blue contrasts well with the yellow-browns found on Mars. Using this contrasting color, they can see some materials and features more clearly.

right on.
and for starters, water on liquid form is colorless, when frozen, its white snow...

so as you stated, Nasa is really doing us a favor on this end...

i do suspect that Mars with a vast area thats is arid, rivers could run unnoticed from space since what would be flowing is very much mud colored....natural camouflage...

"Mars enjoys summer and winter season and stormy seasons,and in summer they dried out, and floods in spring."


sechaiya

But my main points are those ragged banks, which is an indication of soil erosion and scouring, carved by a body of running water...

and those blue hues are indicative of depth...

just like here on earth's oceans, the bluer the deeper...

edit on 4-12-2010 by alphaMegas because: text missing

edit on 4-12-2010 by alphaMegas because: typo

reply to post by ewokdisco


Martians, if they exist, probably see a blueish Earth, while we see a reddish Mars.

Earth and Moon "seen" from Mars' orbit by HiRISE.


And by Mars Express


I don't know about Earth seen from Mars (I don't have any news from amateur astronomers on Mars), but thousands of people on Earth have their own telescopes and the colours are the same we see in satellite photos of Mars, as you can see in Vandalour's post.

A "tinted atmosphere" affects more the ones "looking up" than the ones "looking down", when seen from Earth Mars' atmosphere is too thin to be noticeable, although dust storms are visible, but a dust storm is not an atmosphere.

And it should not be a surprise to any one that there are blues on Mars, they are also visible from Earth, like in Vandalour's photo. They have always been there, but, apparently, people do not see them.

reply to post by cmdrkeenkid


I don't know if you noticed, but both photos were made with the same filters (752, 535 and 432 nm), and the first photo is an "approximately true color" image.

The difference is that the "approximately true color" image was made with the radiometrically-corrected images (accounting for the ambient light and other things like the different reflectivity at different wavelengths, giving us an approximation of how things really looked on Mars), while the second, "false color" image doesn't account for that and shows the objects closer to what they are, as you can see in the two images below, from Opportunity's Sol 500.

do people not understand mars is NOT in the goldilocks zone?

Originally posted by alphaMegas
....But my main points are those ragged banks, which is an indication of soil erosion and scouring, carved by a body of running water...

By what means have you discounted the possibility of wind/sand erosion?

reply to post by ewokdisco

here's some more crispy views from mars...

cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/61a6aba55baf.jpg[/atsimg]

happy sunday viewing

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


i did take that into account but didnt include it cause wind action will indicate some kind of build up of materials such as sand dunes or mounds but obviously there is none in the immediate area...maybe in the higher regions...

"immediate area" means right along the banks

Originally posted by alphaMegas
hope these images will help other members realize how "red" is the martian planet..

Not much, posting the original images would be much better than a photo of a screen showing Google Mars.

yes there are rivers and lakes in mars and they are in abundance...

Not in the thousands of photos I have seen.

Not one lake, not one river.

and that means water and when there is water then there is life, which btw, is also in abundance. and when i said life that means "people"...humans or otherwise, dunno...

Wrong, a lake and/or a river do not mean water, they mean "liquid".

Those blue areas on Mars are dust and "blueberries", not water.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by alphaMegas
hope these images will help other members realize how "red" is the martian planet..

Not much, posting the original images would be much better than a photo of a screen showing Google Mars.

howdy armap...
i do really envy you guys for having access to original images. me, google mars is the best i have and was able to download it for free.Now for the photo screen showing, one of these days, maybe i can upgrade my pc to be able to take "inhouse shots". but for the moment please bear with me.
but isnt google taking in images from usgs/nasa/jpl/ua photometry?

yes there are rivers and lakes in mars and they are in abundance...

Not in the thousands of photos I have seen.

Not one lake, not one river.

maybe your right, if all the pictures you've seen came from nasa official release...

and that means water and when there is water then there is life, which btw, is also in abundance. and when i said life that means "people"...humans or otherwise, dunno...

Wrong, a lake and/or a river do not mean water, they mean "liquid".



Those blue areas on Mars are dust and "blueberries", not water.

ok blue areas are dust and blueberries, no issue on that, but lake and/or river doesnt mean water but liquid?
now thats something i have to retrieve from my 2nd grade level memory which is a long retracing process.

Originally posted by alphaMegas
i do really envy you guys for having access to original images.

Anyone can have access to those images, as free as Goggle.

For example:
HiRISE (Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter)
HRSC (Mars Express)

You may need some special software to see some of the images (many are IMG files), but there are free viewers for those images too.

Now for the photo screen showing, one of these days, maybe i can upgrade my pc to be able to take "inhouse shots". but for the moment please bear with me.

Doesn't your computer have a "Print Screen" or "Prt Scr" key on the keyboard? You just need to press that key, go to Paint or any other image manipulation program and paste the image that was captured to the clipboard.

but isnt google taking in images from usgs/nasa/jpl/ua photometry?

Yes, but they compress them further to make them download faster, and it's hard to understand at which point we are looking at a resized image or if it's at full zoom or even bigger, which also reduces quality.

maybe your right, if all the pictures you've seen came from nasa official release...

If you could point me to colour photos from Mars that are not from ESA or NASA I would appreciate it, even if there isn't supposed to be any other source.

ok blue areas are dust and blueberries, no issue on that, but lake and/or river doesnt mean water but liquid?
now thats something i have to retrieve from my 2nd grade level memory which is a long retracing process.

Although the most common (by far) are the water lakes and rivers, we also have temporary lava rivers and some natural oil lakes, for example, so even if we see a river or a lake in another planet it means only that's a liquid (at the local temperature and pressure), not necessarily water.

reply to post by ArMaP



thanks for the tip on print screen now i can send you some very interesting pix...dircect from google apps...
if the full images cant fit the monitor box you may view them in my ats photo album media.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a451e9cf8f22.jpg[/atsimg]
hope the image will fit on the ats screens.
Taken from a viewing distance of 13 meter, this guy is huge....


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa76fabb9506.jpg[/atsimg]

these group thrive on top of the famous "face on Mars" mount.
could be that the viewing distance @ 5 meters is too close...you can do the adjustments for sharper definition..

and they are all over,and if these are hoaxes, then somebody from mars must have done it...

the face is one sure way to communicate, isnt it.
well, im sold. but the goldilocks question is interesting.

reply to post by alphaMegas


There's really no such thing as "viewing distance" on Google Earth (Moon or Mars), but if you go to that photo's page, here, you can see the full photo. I suggest you download IAS Viewer from this page, it's the best way of seeing those photos.

This is how it looks at 100% zoom, in which each pixel represents 0.25 metres, which means that the whole image below is only 149.25 metres wide.



For you second image, this is how it looks at 100% zoom, 25 cm per pixel.


At this resolution the rock you show in the centre of your image is some 3 or 4 metres wide.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by alphaMegas

 

There's really no such thing as "viewing distance" (where the pixels dont blow up yet nor compressed)
i know. i coined it myself. since i started this "research" i have to establish my own benchmarks by taking into consideration the elevation and eye altitude data to have some ideas on the scale of the images im looking.

For your second image, this is how it looks at 100% zoom, 25 cm per pixel.

yes, ive seen that too.but you can still swoop and zoom in to a "viewing distance"

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by alphaMegas

 

There's really no such thing as "viewing distance" (where the pixels dont blow up yet nor compressed)
i know. i coined it myself. since i started this "research" i have to establish my own benchmarks by taking into consideration the elevation and eye altitude data to have some ideas on the scale of the images im looking.

For your second image, this is how it looks at 100% zoom, 25 cm per pixel.

yes, ive seen that too.but you can still swoop and zoom in to a "viewing distance"

do people not understand mars is NOT in the goldilocks zone?

There's a LOT more to factor than just the distance of a planet to it's star.

For example, there is very likely a liquid water ocean under the ice of Europa, one of Jupiter's moons. It too, is far out of the goldilocks zone, yet as we've seen here on Earth, life can exist even in deep sea vents, in conditions of boiling water, and in places we haven't even dreamed of finding life.

While known for about a couple decades that there are bacteria that can live off of arsenic, NASA recently announced that not only do they live off it, but that their DNA is MADE OF IT! These kinds of discoveries VASTLY expand the parameters for life.

I'm betting the Universe (even our own Solar System) is likely teeming with life...probably much moreso of the bacterial, etc. variety, but I'll bet we find it in many places we don't expect to....