"A Vast Oceanus Borealis May have Once Covered 1/3 of Mars"

Arken


We (publicly) know "nothing" about Mars or other planets in this solar system. The scientists' theories about what is real and what is not have the life of a butterfly.
Many of the bunch of the pseudo-skeptics/debunkers are firmly blocked on that volatile theories (not all, of course) and I understand their behavior. They need the official statements...

Till "Yesterday", There were some of the official theories
There is NO water on the Moon. (CONFIRMED)
There is NO water on Mars. (CONFIRMED)

What's NEXT?

I know, but I wait the official statement....

I take very seriously The ATS Motto DENY IGNORANCE

Why do you make statements like this without fact checking yourself first? As you said "Deny Ignorance"

Lunar Water

First evidence for water on the moon goes all the way back to Apollo 14.

Late 1978 the Soviets stated that their samples returned from their lunar probe contained water.

1994 Clementine used radar that suggested their might be larger amounts of water on the moon than previously thought.

1998 the Lunar Prospector probe showed the same thing.

Then starting in the 21st century, there have been several lunar probes, both from the US and the international community that have refined this and confirmed that their is water on the moon.

The question remains on how much, and if their are large amounts underground (which would be great for establishing a moon colony).

No one was hiding anything.

Mars.

Water theorized being on the red planet goes as far back as Percival Lowell in 1898 when he thought he was seeing canals through his telescope.

Water on Mars has been something people have imagine, theorized, talked about and investigated for a very long time.

When we started to get probes in orbit taking more detailed images, it became rather apparent that Mars had running water at some time in it's past. The questions were: How much in the past? Is there any of it left now?

The reason that the Mars Ocean Hypothesis is still debated among scientist is simple:

One problem with the conjectured 2 billion years old (2 Ga) shoreline is that it is not flat — i.e. does not follow a line of constant gravitational potential. This could be due to a change in distribution in Mars' mass, perhaps due to volcanic eruption or meteor impact; the Elysium volcanic province or the massive Utopia basin that is buried beneath the northern plains have been put forward as the most likely causes.

The best way to figure this out is to be there and do geology to determine. I tend to lean that there was an ocean there, and the land mass has changed over time.

So no one was trying to hide anything about water, and even the most skeptical scientist were not claiming that there was NO water on the moon or Mars.

It's always been a question of how much was there in the past, and how much is there today.

reply to post by eriktheawful

No one was hiding anything.

50 YEARS

Arken
reply to post by wildespace

 

Life on Mars might have never had a chance to evolve beyond simple microorganisms, or to evolve at all.

Hmmm, Why this opinion?

Because, judging by the evolutionary history on Earth, it takes billions of years for simple microbial life to evolve into plants and animals. On Earth, simple single-celled organisms appeared 3.6 billion years ago. It took them approximately 3 billion years to evolve into multicellar organisms, and another 0.5 billion years for land plants to appear.

Mars lost its magnetic field pretty soon in its history (estimated a 4 billion years ago), which started atmosphere depletion and water loss, leaving little time and chance for appearance and evolution of even simple single-celled organisms.

I'd image martian land looked like much of Afganistan: upload.wikimedia.org...

reply to post by wildespace


Soo martians were Taliban?

reply to post by Arken


Why get grumpy at science, because it's always learning something, and because theories and hypotheses are changing? Do you feel more comfortable with alternative/conspiracy/crank theories because they offer the ultimate truth, the absolute answer that is beyond questioning or testing? That is the way of religion and saying "God did it, so we're not gonna ask questions or investigate anything".

Science asks, questions, tests, investigates. That's why it's way better than religion or crank theories. Water on Mars has been proposed and suspected a long time ago, and throughout these years we've been getting more and more evidence for it's existence now (in frozen state) and in the past (in liquid state).

I just can't understand why would someone get angsty about it...
I also don't understand how this thread went from a valid research and scientific proposal, to accusations of debunking and bashing of science. You linked a scientist's research article in the first place, and we're very happy with that.

reply to post by Arken


Obviously there's a ton we dont know about the surface of Mars as yet and there's a lot of very interesting pics coming from Curiosity (the "Pharoah head" particularly), however some people are just lost in cloud la-la land with their speculation. This thread for example, someone speculating that it could be ancient alien mining. I would suggest checking closer to home with possible ideas as to what this may be, magnetic striping possibly?

Actually posted this reply in the thread above but feels it's probably worth posting here also

the leading theory for the water loss

Arken
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

No one was hiding anything.

50 YEARS

Of what?

Spit it out and say it. Have proof with links and cite sources. This is not Skunk Works.

Back up your claims.

I've already shown how water has been theorized and speculated about for longer than your "50 years"

Come on Arken. Let's see you actually prove something for once.

Arken
So, step by step and slowly new clues comes out of what Mars was some time ago... and it appear that it was right like our Earth...

Ancient oceans & lakes on Mars, a denser atmosphere in the remote past, geological processes a lot like those we know from Earth, subsurface water ice far away from the poles (even today) etc. etc. We're getting closer and closer to unravelling the secrets of what must have happened in martian history!

A planet-wide Ocean Borealis in the past certainly fits well into the bigger picture ... what's probably even more important is this: 'when' did the global cataclysms occur, which events were responsible (eg. massive meteorite impacts and/or multiple 'catastrophic' events), when did Mars loose its atmosphere and why? Did all that really take place 3.5 - 4 billion years ago?

Definitely an interesting thread & topic with lots of unanswered questions to discuss and argue about ... keep it up, Arken!

reply to post by wildespace

Mars lost its magnetic field pretty soon in its history

A butterfly theory that is not proven. Only speculation.

Rodinus
What a sad bunch of people the "Rock" and Arken debunkers are... (IMO)

Shame on some people for not having a more open minded approach...

I don't quite understand your stance in this post, Rodinus.

Most of the people on this thread (almost everyone) have agreed with Arken that mars probably once had a lot of liquid surface water -- even oceans and lakes. Most of the people on this thread also agree that life could have potentially formed on that wet mars.

I really don't understand your anger.



Back to the OP, the idea that mars was once very wet is not new at all. Scientist have considered this to be a possibility for decades now. Nobody has been hiding anything from us. Obviously, as we learn more about mars, the long-thought hypothesis that mars once had oceans gains more and more supporting evidence.

So, Arken, as scientists learn more, we will hear more about this hypothesis -- but this hypothesis is by no means new to science.

As for life, I agree with the others on this thread who say that water and organic compounds could have meant life may have formed, but going by the only example we have (Earth), it may take a while for that life to become complex. Life on earth is old -- maybe 3.7 billion years old, starting about 3/4 of a Billion years after the formation of earth...

...HOWEVER, complex life on earth is a much more recent thing. Complex life forms are thought to be only 800 Million years old. That means that SIMPLE life had been the ONLY form of life on earth throughout most of the history of the planet; simple life existed for almost 3 billion years before complex life formed.

Of course, maybe Mars was different, but there is no reason to believe that it necessarily was. The only evidence we have (life on earth) shows that complex life takes a while. We would need more evidence to show us that Earth is a "oddity", and that complex life could have formed more quickly elsewhere.


The Moon, also, had been hypothesized for 40+ years to have had some water on it. There had been evidence since the Apollo days of this, but science could not prove it until later. That's the way science works; some hypotheses are tested for years and years before enough evidence could be gathered to more positively support that hypothesis. That does not mean it was "secret" prior to being proven...it was simply "not yet proven". The "water on the Moon" hypothesis has been publicly known (not secret) for decades.

After we eventually locate some fossils beneath the surface of Mars, we will then finally be able to put away all the only micro-organisms existed nonsense. ~$heopleNation

SheopleNation
After we eventually locate some fossils beneath the surface of Mars, we will then finally be able to put away all the only micro-organisms existed nonsense. ~$heopleNation

True. That's the way science works.

Before we can say that complex life existed on Mars, we would need to find solid evidence of complex that life existed on Mars.

Soylent Green Is People
True. That's the way science works.

Before we can say that complex life existed on Mars, we would need to find solid evidence of complex that life existed on Mars.

Yep. Just as before we can say that complex life on Mars did not exist on Mars, we would need to find solid evidence that complex life did not exist on Mars.

See how that works? Anyway, I believe concrete evidence will eventually be found that will prove that complex life did exist on Mars. ~$heopleNation

SheopleNation

Soylent Green Is People
True. That's the way science works.

Before we can say that complex life existed on Mars, we would need to find solid evidence of complex that life existed on Mars.

Yep. Just as before we can say that complex life on Mars did not exist on Mars, we would need to find solid evidence that complex life did not exist on Mars.

See how that works? Anyway, I believe concrete evidence will eventually be found that will prove that complex life did exist on Mars. ~$heopleNation

Well, yeah. Like I said, that's the way science works.

Somewhere, a scientist (for example, let's say a NASA astrobiologist) may hypothesize that Mars actually had complex life. That astrologist would then try to collect evidence supporting that hypothesis, and then form a theory.

There are in fact NASA astrobiologists who hypothesize about complex life possibly existing on Mars, but those hypotheses do not yet have enough evidence to support them. However, the search for life on mars is still in its infancy, and evidence may yet be found someday to support these hypotheses.

Conversely, I doubt there are ANY (or very, very few) astrobiologists who would claim that it is NOT POSSIBLE that Mars once had complex life. There is not yet enough evidence to make that claim.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


So what do you think will be the result, complex life? ~$heopleNation

SheopleNation
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

So what do you think will be the result, complex life? ~$heopleNation

I have no idea.

The only example of complex life we know about is the life on earth, and it is a relatively recent thing on Earth -- i.e., it took a long time for complex life to form on Earth; simple life had been the ONLY form of life on Earth for most of Earth's existence. Mars may not have been habitable long enough for complex life to form (or any life, for that matter, but it seems simple life may have had a chance).

Earth may be an oddity, and complex life may be able to form more quickly, but more research would need to be done to determine that.

I'd love it if "Curiosity" could find a seashell or trilobite in the strata of Mt. Sharp (now known as "Aeolis Mons"), but I'm not holding my breath. I do think it more possible that they may find some evidence of stramatolite-like fossils, but I'm not betting that they will. Mars may have had a wet past, but I'm not sure that necessarily equals life.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


When you think about how hard it is to find fossils here on Earth, It's going to be very difficult to locate, and then excavate a certain hot spot.

I doubt any future rovers will be able to dig down deep enough, or that they will even have the ability to delicately remove the soil from a possible find. We probably will not know the truth until human beings have landed on Mars. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation


A question for you and Arken: why turn logic on its head? One minute you use scientific discoveries and proposals to support your view, the very next minute you disregard science as a "butterfly" thing, where everything is fleeting and nothing can be trusted. Where is logic in that?

Why do you call the proposition that only simple organisms could ever evolve on Mars "nonsense", while favouring the complex life proposal, if there's no direct evidence for either, and geological evidence shows Mars lost its magnetosphere billions of years ago?