Mars Dry as a Dead Dingo

[CraigS]

Well .. ya go away for a week … and it all seems to revert back to those boring old conformist mainstream ideas … so here we go … yet another scientist seeing Mars for what it is … and what it may have always been … dry !
Martian water vs. the volcanoes (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-martian-volcanoes.html)

Yep … well whilst some of the flows we see on Mars may have originated from lava, some may have been carved by ablating CO2 also .. but the noteworthy item here is the realisation that the past "big" water on Mars, is now being referred to as a hypothesis:

… Ok .. so finally we see some truth coming out in the media … all this business about the overwhelming geological evidence for big water flows in Mars' past is now devolving into mere hypothesis ! And the follow-on impact of this is that there may have never been any major planetary-wide environmental catastrophe resulting in the disappearance of any major water (it may never have been there to start with !) … like what we've all been led to believe for yonks !

Cute .. :)

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thank goodness your back Craig it feels empty here without your neat posts.

I thought the canyons on Mars (and all places) were due to electrical activity as they expect in an EU Universe:rolleyes:

I think politics may influence the desire that water is somewhere to be found on Mars because water hints at life and looking for life is easier to sell than mere research for the sake of science.

Thanks for the link:thumbsup:.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

I agree, Alex … the mighty lighting bolts of the Gods wreaked its terrible and awesome power upon the surface of the planet and went and rusted it all, too !

As it is now politically correct to openly suggest that NASA exploration funding was only ever granted to those bids who had some kind of empirical exo-life support behind them (ie: presence of liquid water), we can now discuss this openly in this forum ! :lol:

(… It being politically correct because it is now not really possible for NASA to be able to send humans into space to look for exo-life anyway … and probes are unlikely to recognise it … even if they did happen to stumble over it !! )

:P :)
Cheers

[xelasnave]

I have spent some time reading the progress of the hunt for water on Mars and it is interesting to cram into an hour or so the ideas on the matter publised in support of Mars having water.
If you wish hard enough approach flavour about some of it.
alex:):):)

[renormalised]

There's only one way to solve this once and for all........go there and look for ourselves. Simple as that. I'm a geologist....I'll go there if they like and do the research. What about all the other geologists, hydrologists etc etc etc. Instead of sitting off 35-240 million miles away and pontificating about what is or isn't there, and instead of peering down from hundreds of miles up with various orbiting satellites, why not get Mark 1 eyeball and brain down there to take a look and do the necessary ground truthing and study. You can't tell what's in a rock outcrop by staring at it with binoculars from 10 mile away. You have to go there and sit on the rock and look at what's there. There's far more to geology than staring at the results of remotely sensed data.

[CraigS]

Oh no !!
.. I wouldn't send a geologist .. especially when I could look at some good ol' tiger stripes (spectrographic data) !!
:P :)
Cheers

[leon]

You all sound so surprised that Mars is just a big dry rock. !!!!.

Leon

[renormalised]

You're not even looking at that....just electron counts in a gamma ray detector. And with satellites that have vis-IR cameras, you're looking at the reflectance/absorbance properties of the minerals within the rocks you're looking at. However, you can use various types of spectrometers to identify the minerals, in conjunction with the other detectors.

But, they won't tell you everything that's going on. Far from it.

[renormalised]

No, not really. However, there is water there. That they do know. It's what form the water's in or was in that's the big question.

[DJDD]

there' an an article about water on mars in the latest AS&T, p.18. suggestion that there IS water flowing on mars...

[CraigS]

Nah … there's no questions at all, if there never was any big water there !

Cheers

[CraigS]

Just to balance it up .. this one appeared just the other day … (notice it was NASA spinning the optimistic story .. again .. )

NASA research offers new prospect of water on Mars (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-nasa-prospect-mars.html)



.. all invented to explain why the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) spacecraft's spectrographic camera can't detect more carbonates than expected.

Notice that they're modelling it all on the conditions in the Mojave Desert (on Earth !). The gist is that they're imagining that 'missing' carbonates on Mars, which would be indicative of the presence of 'big' liquid water in the past, might be buried under a 'varnish of iron oxide 'skin'.

Invoking some kind of condition, which may exist somewhere exotic on Earth, to me, is the problem with a lot of this type of speculation. Its vastly different from basing hypotheses on pure physics or chemistry. The formation of geology is subject to Complexity (a flow-on from Chaos Theory). As such, determinism is not the logical outcome of such processes.

They're all caught up with trying to continue the story about previous 'vast oceans' of water … which then forces them into having to invoke some kind of mysterious, catastrophic disappearance phenomenon.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Proof will only come (either way) in the exploration by geologist on the ground. Simple as that and already pointed out:)

[CraigS]

Perhaps.

The point I'm getting from this is that I have never seen it openly admitted that the "Big water on Mars" story is just that … a hypothesis !!
In the past, it has been that this is the only explanation.

Clearly, it is now OK to speak of other explanations.

Y'know .. lightning bolts and 'stuff' !! :P :P
:)
Cheers

[renormalised]

That's all they have to go on....what they can see and comparison with Earth analogues. You take what you can see and know and then extrapolate from that into areas you don't know but find similarities between the two. Unless the laws of physics and chemistry are totally different on Mars as they are on Earth, if similar processes have appeared on both planets, then their outcomes will generally be similar. For instance, the weathering of granites via aqueous solution produces clays...both of which are abundant of both planets. Therefore, the processes and chemistry which occurs in the formation of clays will be similar on both planets. There's nothing wrong in speculating that the carbonates on Mars maybe covered by an iron oxide crust, like here in the Mohave Desert. Both the Mars areas and those areas in the Mohave return the same spectral signatures. That would point to a similarity in both areas. Now, all the have to do is ground truth it...and how many times have I said that??.

It's quite obvious you've never studied geology, because you're invoking Complexity in the determination of the processes occurring. You've got this bug under your bonnet about Chaos/Complexity and you see it in everything. As a matter of fact, you see it as the be all and end all of what is occurring. It's not. There's a lot more to geology, physics or any other subject/process etc, than chaos or complexity. Far more. That's not to say it's not important but you really need to be aware of the level at which it is important and to be aware of where determinism arises from any underlying chaos/complexity. Chaos and complexity do not function in a vacuum, so to speak. Neither does geology, or chemistry, or physics etc.

[renormalised]

Not perhaps, Craig. It's a fact and a certainty. You can't really solely on remote sensing (either in orbit or on the ground) to tell you what's going on. You have to be there, sit on the rock, smell it, taste it, touch it, break it up and look at it through a hand lens or microscope, do all the tests needed to determine what's going on, map the rocks etc etc, to figure out what's going on. I can show you from plenty of 1st hand experience where remote sensing has misled people looking at the geology of a locality. It's only a tool and it's only as good as those who make the interpretations. and all those depend on the accuracy and the function of the detectors being used.

It's always been a hypothesis....to the scientists. This is another case of media beat up. However, the scientists can also be blamed for some of the beat up as well. So what if some of them want "big water" to be true. Surely they're entitled to some belief in something, or a feeling about the possibilities. It's no different from any other theory that ever been posited. Including SR/GR or QED, QCD, LCG, String Theory or anything else. It just waits to be either confirmed or refuted.

Lightning bolts.....yeah and my grandmother was Davy Crockett:):P:P:P

[CraigS]

Nah … I'm not invoking it … nature does that for itself.

Yep … all self-similar patterns formed in nature have chaotic processes causing them. Great stuff, eh ?

No … but the mathematical models developed in science used to describe the macro-level processes leading to self-similar structures, (like river beds/branching, galaxies, planets, biological structures etc), lead to a much deeper understandings of the physics involved, through interactions with other systems. Without the macro models, these interacting behavioural influences will remain unexplained, as will the impact on those external systems.

We all need to understand the scale and sensitivity over which chaotic behaviours can result in non-deterministic outcomes. Chaotic behaviour arises from non-linear influences acting upon deterministic processes. In geology, physics and chemistry form the basis of the deterministic components. The resulting macro-level structures formed in geology are the outcomes of deterministic chaos resulting from the interacting macro-scale non-linear systems (eg: weather patterns, fluid dynamics, etc).
Complexity resulting from a large number of interacting dynamical systems, can result in the formation of simple behavioural patterns. These patterns can then be modelled to determine the influence they have over other interacting systems.

The studies of Chaos and Complexity lead to deeper understandings through modelling. Modelling is a relatively recent concept and has emerged alongside of computing technologies. The days of a simple deterministic formulae being sought to explain clearly complex behaviours, has been superseded by the combination of technology and the clever application of mathematical principles.

The 'new physics' you so often call for, is actually emerging from computational modelling. What the human brain cannot intuitively explain or predict, is the very output replicated by computer models which actually make use of the principles of the deterministic components of Physics and Chemistry, 'modulated' by the non-linear macro-scale process behaviours evident in nature.

This is the exact stomping ground of Chaos and Complexity Theory. A dedicated astrophysicist (or geologist), cannot ignore the benefits of mathematical modelling.

It is a crucial component of all future understandings of nature.

Cheers

[renormalised]

I'm not denying the benefits of mathematical modelling for any science, but in order to show that chaos theory/complexity has any benefit or application towards any science, you have to show that it applies to the theories and processes that those sciences already espouse. In any case, there's more to mathematical modelling than chaos or complexity theory.

If you can show that chaos has any application to fossilisation, sedimentation processes, ore forming processes, orogenesis, coal and oil formation, remote sensing, structural geology etc etc etc, then you might have some chance of having geologists take it onboard. I've used plenty of mathematical models in geology but not once have I ever had to use chaos theory or complexity to model rather complex geological systems.

Like any theory, it's just a tool that can be applied in some situations, but not all.

[Ray?]

Sorry, dead dingos are found in central Australia and the only way that a dead dingo could have gotten there is if it had once been a live dingo, and live dingos require water.:)

Cheers

Ray

[renormalised]

Not only that, a dead dingo still has some water in its tissues, even if it has been desiccated for quite some time:):P

[CraigS]

Fractals are the hallmarks of a Chaotic process. Fractals are found in everywhere nature especially in geological structures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal#In_nature):


Take a look at the list of random and natural fractals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fractals_by_Hausdorff_dimen sion#Random_and_natural_fractals) by Hausdorff dimension (the means for confirming a fractal)… one is called the 'Wiener' Process, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process) or 'Brownian motion' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion) .. the random drifting of particles suspended in a fluid, (a liquid or a gas), or the mathematical model used to describe such random movements, which is often called a particle theory.
Brownian motion is the basis for all known sedimentary formation and mineral deposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion-limited_aggregation), as well as the basis for countless other geological processes.

The distribution of galaxy clusters is another fractal with a measured (SDSS data) dimension approximately equal to 2. The surface of the human brain is also fractal. The surface of the human lung has been formed by a naturally occurring chaotic process of dimension approximately 3. Biology follows chaotic processes and leaves the evidence in the form of fractals. Life most probably emerged from chaotic processes .. the evidence remains in these very organ structures and cellular processes.

The same applies in geological structures. The evidence is there in fractal patterns. Geologists need to come out of the past, and start paying attention to modern techniques and the macro-scale evidence.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

mmm the Fractal Universe eh Craig:).
Very interesting stuff I thought this math was only used for neck tie designs in the 70,s. and far out art work, now even mother nature is into it.
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I checked and there is...
http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=2
alex

[renormalised]

Yes, they are. But because they appear in geological structures doesn't mean all geological structures come from fractals.



Prove it. Only during the the actual deposition of the sediments does brownian motion even come into it. And as for mineral deposition....only in hydrological situations will you get mineral deposition and concentration via brownian motion. Even there, brownian motion is only applicable in certain energy regimes. As far as other instances of mineral deposition are concerned, brownian motion only plays a very small part in mineral deposition. DLA can be seen in mineral deposits, but only in the growth of some crystals structures, not in the mechanisms of ore formation themselves.

You need to take some courses in geology and hydrogeology.




Yes, I agree with what you have said here. Chaos theory has been applied in biology, physics, astronomy and various other fields. But not in geology and not because it's not been applied before, but because it's not overly applicable to the field.




Not all geological structures are fractal patterns....the drainage patterns along mountain ranges might be fractal, but the mountains themselves are hardly fractal. There is no self similarity between the internal rock structures/mineralogy etc, within the mountains themselves and the large scale processes/structure of the mountains. The same with sedimentary sequences...no self similarity. Nor with the formation of ore deposits. Nor with the motion and formation of the plates and their internal structures and physical processes that occur within them.

Geologist are very much at the forefront of mathematical modelling, modern techniques and are very aware of chaos theory. They also deal with evidence from the micro to the macro scale, it's part of their job description. If the felt that chaos theory was applicable to their overall line of study, they'd use it.

Chaos is only applicable where you have those regimes where the maths may apply, such as in magmatic fluid flow, some diffusion processes, fault generation etc. Basically, geophysics.

[xelasnave]

The site I linked is a worry .. he starts...

The Big Bang theory is a failure. It has failed because the wrong guesses were made by Einstein and Friedman. Their equations ignored electricity’s dominant role in the universe

Its hard to read on when they attack folk... and EU folk would like this chap. He has an electrifying solution to most things:rolleyes: I openned a new thread as I thought fractals deserved a special new thread.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

He probably is an EU advocate (and possibly an T'bolts member). These guys have got electricity on the brain. Yet, not one of them is a bright spark:P They have no proof at all of their ideas. What alerts you to this is their emphatic statements about the failures of this and that theory and their dogmatic insistence of the veracity of their own.

[xelasnave]

I think that having been guilty personaly of similar behaviour when I was deeply into the push gravity concept I am very critical of such behaviour in others...the reformed smoker syndrom...
BUt it turned me off certainly.
It takes me all my net time just to cover legitimate information of which I can only glean a small fraction so no time to read much other really...
I find the time I spend here very rewarding following the thread re relativity I learnt things from everyones input ... and that is the case with most threads I follow here.
Dont ever leave Carl because folk upset you I find your input excellent.
alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Here's an interesting article (http://www.physorg.com/news71914225.html) which clearly demonstrates an example of where chaos theory and fractal geometry has been used successfully in a geological field of study. The study topic was growth of rock features at Angel Terrace, Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park.



Clearly, this is a case where looking for the fractality in the landscape advanced the study dramatically. The study went on to develop the understanding of how living organisms are effected by the changing environment.

Horse for courses ? Of course .. I have no problems with that.

Here's another one (http://www.physorg.com/news190641517.html) where the CSIRO figured out a way to improve the in-situ leaching process to extract ore deposits:

My point is simply that wherever chaos thinking and fractal geometry perspectives are included in the study of natural phenomena (including geology/geophysics, etc), large advances in understanding are reported. Deterministic predictions may, (or may not) be possible at certain scales, but this is not the only goal of adopting a broadened outlook, which different perspectives offer.

When comparing the invocation of planet-wide catastrophes, (which should be the last alternative), versus simply confronting the possibility of unpredictability offered by chaos thinking, the evidence is in such cases, that greater advances in understanding can be achieved by adopting the chaos perspectives, and this is commonplace within mainstream scientific models.

There are many, many other such case examples from the geological sciences.

Cheers

[renormalised]

So what. That's one example of where chaos theory is applicable and one that I've already mentioned....fluid dynamics. That still doesn't make chaos theory applicable to every facet of the subject. The study still hasn't taken into account the growth of the crystals, thermal and chemical processes driving precipitation etc. Also, the role of biological organisms in mineral deposition. All it has done is model a broad scale process that helps sculpt the morphology of the deposits.

In the final analysis it's no big deal at all. Nothing that hasn't already been considered.



That is about ore recovery, not about ore deposit formation. It's not a study of the natural phenomena that generate ore deposits. Just a study of how fluid dynamics used in a certain way can make presently uneconomic ore deposits viable.

As I have repeatedly said, chaos theory and fractals are only applicable where the possibilities for non linear interactions occur. That by no stretch of the imagination includes all of geology, or any other subject for that matter. It may help in the greater understanding of processes within fluid dynamics, stress analysis and such, but that's about all.



Why should anything be the last alternative....in science you formulate a hypothesis and then try to falsify it to test its veracity. No idea should be left out until either one of two things have occurred.....it's found to be false or previous studies have shown it's not applicable in the first place.

Chaos theory and unpredictability is no more or less a viable explanation than planet wide catastrophism or any other explanation....so long as there is evidence to support these explanations. Their applicability all depends on the evidence. All the computer modelling and simulations mean jack unless you have the physical evidence present in the real world to show that their application is the most logical case. Even then, it doesn't rule out the other explanations if the evidence also points equally towards those conclusions.

You have a seemingly irrational aversion to catastrophism. If it explains why something happened without having to resort to more esoteric, simulations based explanations, then why not use it. In any case, catastrophism is chaotic in nature itself. It's the result of non linear processes. Deterministic chaos may be one of the mechanisms behind the causes of what happens in natural systems but it is not, in general, the decisive agent of what drives any change. It's a cog in a much greater machine.

Don't get overly excited about simulations and mathematical modelling. It might look good but it's not always applicable to the real world.




Where are they..........list 100 of them.

[CraigS]

Self-organization of sandpile models (http://www.physorg.com/news126186301.html)...

:)

[CraigS]

Another one where researchers are actually 'truing up' the fractal algorithm originally assumed …
UQ researchers break the law -- of physics (http://www.physorg.com/news166077673.html)

Whilst perhaps not entirely related to geology, the diffusion of particles in complex environments is.

The point of this article is that pondering of fractals and chaos has led to the development of a new law in physics.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Where can it be applied to movements within the Earth's crust??. Has it been applied at all or is this, like all the mentions of what chaos is applicable to, just a suggestion. In any case, what would a mathematician know about geology. Very little in most cases. They may think that it's applicable but these models have to be shown to be applicable...not just in the models themselves, but to real world situations. The evidence has to be there in the rocks themselves. If it's not, then the model is a false model in this particular case.

That wasn't a good enough article. You still have 100 to go.

[CraigS]

Rills and gully formation … (http://www.physorg.com/news174577312.html)



:)

[renormalised]

Only in certain situations. You still haven't adequately answered the question....where are they.

[renormalised]

That's geomorphology, not geology. I have no arguments in this case, but you still haven't answered the question in pertinence to geology.

[renormalised]

If you want to see where chaos and fractals have anything to do with geology, buy yourself this textbook...

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Fractals-and-Chaos-Geology-and-Geophysics-Donald-L-Turcotte/9780521567336?cf=3&rid=1791944146&i=1&keywords=Fractals+and+Chaos+in+Geol ogy+and+geophysics

It's about the only one you're going to find.

[renormalised]

In any case, this is going way off topic. Let's get back to the dead dingo:P