You are not logged in.
And again you post... with no explanation for the lack of geologic surface features caused by the presence/destruction of a Martian megamoon. Where is your explanation? I'm waiting...
That is because there doesn't have to be one if the impact came from the right direction.
Rings will form around any gravitational body when you have alot of finely crushed debries in orbit, which would result from a large moon being utterly pulverized by a titanic collision needed to erase a Martian moon. There is none, therefore, there was no collision. Since there is no evidence of a large Martian moon, and no evidence of collision (the only plausable explanation for removal of a moon), then... *drumroll*
It doesn't have to be a collision for the moon to be pulverized it could be torn apart from gravity like the rings of Saturn, and Jupiter.
Offline
If you hit a big piece of rock (moon) with another one with enough force to dislodge it from orbit entirely, then there would be substantial ejection of material. This material would be traveling in many different directions at different velocities, and not all of it would have the energy to escape Martian gravity. So, it would either form a ring or it would come down on the Martian surface.
Since there is neither, there was no collision.
And Mars does not have the gravity of the outter planets; it does not have enough to crush/pulverize/etc other bodies. And if it were, then the gravity would be strong enough to hold the material close to the planet as rings, or pull it down entirely.
So that ain't it either.
You are out of clever ticks, you theory is debunked, time to move on Errorist.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
In Errorist's theory, the Devil's Advocate might consider that we dont necessarily have to be talking about rocky debris as the source of the moon impactor, cometary bodies composed mostly of water and other volatile compounds would suffice and wouldnt necessarily leave much evidence, and there should have been lots of them around at the time these events occurred... this type of process probably happened to all the planets and moons, although usually a planet's moon wasnt destroyed. An outside planetary body having just the right size, impact angle and speed, explains why Earth even has a moon at all, and which is composed of its own mantle crust. By taking crust from the Earths surface and putting it overhead as the moon, this freed up the Earths crust to float in continents that move around more readily and is one explanation of why plate tectonics is so active on Earth and isnt locked up like on venus or dead like on Mars. Thus we have land life on Earth because plate techtonics can keep building landmasses as fast as erosion takes them away, otherwise the Earth would be a waterworld swept by massive perennial globe-girdling storms that would destroy any reef building systems. Hotspot volcanoes dont last long enough to build islands that can last long enough to allow land evolution to progress very long. intelligence might develop in the oceans but you need things like trees, stable dry climates and hands to develop tools, but i digress, it seems unlikely that Mars would even have a sizeable moon at all, unless the same unlikely thing happened and also happeneed to get destryoed by an equally unlikely scenario.
Errorist's theory has some comparisons with Haogland's [http://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.php]Mars Tidal Model, which puts forth an explanation for the disparity between the Martian highlands and lowlands and the current oblique equatorial orientation of these features. Its a highly detailed and thought provoking theory, but leaves as much unexplained as it tries to explain, especially the exploding planetary body which conveniently is "explained" by his hyperdimensional physics stuff.
Regardless, isnt it a heck of a lot much more likely that the mountains were formed by volcanism or plate tectonics (as short-lived as they were) anyway??? There shoudl have been some geysers, and i hope we find some evidence of them but they arent necessary to explain the mountains, do these mountains have certain features that defy other explantions? a mark of a good theory is that it explains what other theories cannot while at the same time doesnt leave open any holes that others theories fill...
"I think it would be a good idea". - [url=http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Mahatma_Gandhi/]Mahatma Gandhi[/url], when asked what he thought of Western civilization.
Offline
A mars crossing object from the Ort cloud Like planet X could have done the trick. There are probably many of them that venture inwards to the inner planets every ten thousand years or so. Even though we have not found any yet doesn't mean they don't exist.
Offline
No, even if it were a comet or ice meteor, there would still be some mark from it... a ring of ice, craters on the surface, etc. And there is still no planetary crust damage from such a huge body.
Hyperspace physics? Oh boy...
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Lack of rings is not really conclusive proof because rings tend to disintegrate within a few million years due to gravitational interactions within the rings.
That said, GNCRevenger is probably right. There is no evidence that ERRORIST's hypothetical moon ever existed. There is a principle in science called Occam’s Razor. It states that if there are two possible explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one (with fewer assumptions) is to be preferred. GNCRevenger's explanation is clearly simpler, and therefore we should work on the assumption that it is true unless we find evidence to the contrary.
Offline
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Occam's famous rule is a principle of science, it is more of a handy rule of thumb... just because a mechamism is complicated does not mean it isn't correct.
The big issues against geyser formed moutains on Mars:
~Lack of evidence of water genesis, no gullies or flows, etc of the required size and location
~Similarities between Earthly lava-born shield volcanos and the ones on Mars
~Lack of spectrogaphic evidence of water-deposited minerals on the moutains
~Lack of similar structures created by geysers on Earth of the required magnetude
~Lack of a giant moon to negate gravity to permit large structures
~Lack of rings or impact debries or crust damage on Mars as evidence of removal of such a past mega-moon
...I can go on if you'd like. Occam isn't nessesarry here.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Found an interesting picture that may have to do with volcanic activity or geysers (besides the more noticeable areas which is anyones guess as to what they are). Within the upper third of this image are black marks on the lighter background. Many of the marks appear somewhat V-shaped, set at an angle. If the more verticle streak is imagined to be a plume of smoke, then the other, fainter streak connected to it, quite easily appears to be the plume's shadow. Also, at the very bottom of the pic. The angle of the plumes shifts due to the reference of the camera. ??? Just an observation. follow this link --
[http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07 … 800063.gif]http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07 … 800063.gif
Couldn't find the image on the Malin website where it appeared originally.
Curiosity is the cure for Ignorance. There is no cure for Curiosity!
Offline
It's always hard to figure out what stuff is from an orbital prcitre but I've seen similar looking things at the beach where wind is blowing on the sand. You tend to get those big V's behind things like rocks and stuff.
I wouldn't be too suprised if there were some occasional geysers somewhere on Mars. It's just the idea that the big mountains like Olympus Mons were made by geyser activity that we're objecting to.
Offline
Mars InSight finds no ice to a depth of 300 meters below the surface
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mar … 20598.html
Design Study for a Mars Geyser Hopper
PDF
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 004260.pdf
The mission was projected to cost US$350 million and to meet a cost cap of no more than US$425 million, not including the launch cost.
Offline
