Real Science Friday: New Island, Old Look

[Stripe]

Good grief there's alot of impact craters on Mars.
No wonder nobody lives there.

Only on the front. All the people live on the back :chuckle:

 

[fool]

OK. I see your point. My post to Jukia was based on an attempt to challenge the idea presented that data from Mars was scarce as opposed to data from Earth.

Can we clean the slate, please?

Cleaned.

 

[fool]

Only on the front. All the people live on the back :chuckle:

Them Martians is clever

 

[aharvey]

OK. I see your point. My post to Jukia was based on an attempt to challenge the idea presented that data from Mars was scarce as opposed to data from Earth.

Can we clean the slate, please?

If you were responding to me, then consider it cleaned. But I'm a bit puzzled: your post preceded any discussion of the relative amounts of available data. And I'm also confused by your wording: was the "attempt" to which you refer (bolded above) made by you or Jukia? I don't remember Jukia challenging this idea, and I do remember your agreeing with it later.

 

[Stripe]

If you were responding to me, then consider it cleaned. But I'm a bit puzzled: your post preceded any discussion of the relative amounts of available data. And I'm also confused by your wording: was the "attempt" to which you refer (bolded above) made by you or Jukia? I don't remember Jukia challenging this idea, and I do remember your agreeing with it later.

I'm very confused as well, AHarvey. I was probably responding to something I imagined was said. Can we just consider anything I've said that hasn't made sense as the insane ramblings of a madman and start again?

 

[aharvey]

I'm very confused as well, AHarvey. I was probably responding to something I imagined was said. Can we just consider anything I've said that hasn't made sense as the insane ramblings of a madman and start again?

That's way too easy a target, so let me just say sure!

 

[Stripe]

:chuckle: thanks

 

[Stripe]

Mars v Earth. Water, Rocks and Gravity are responsible for all the canyons.

Agree or disagree?

 

[aharvey]

Mars v Earth. Water, Rocks and Gravity are responsible for all the canyons.

Agree or disagree?

Don't see why not, though it does seem a tad oversimplified.

 

[aharvey]

What are your impressions concerning these four locations?

 

[Stripe]

What are your impressions concerning these four locations?

Top left is a Grand Canyon source channel if I'm not mistaken.

Top right I don't recognise. It might be a glacier carved valley system.

Bottom left is Mt. St. Helens and bottom right is the picture I posted of Mars.

My impression is that all were formed by a water supply that has since been removed.

 

[Stripe]

Don't see why not, though it does seem a tad oversimplified.

I figure it's easier to talk about things in simple terms for as long as possible. At least we can agree on some fundamentals.

 

[fool]

Mars v Earth. Water, Rocks and Gravity are responsible for all the canyons.

Agree or disagree?

Faults as well.

 

[Stripe]

Faults as well.

Faults are made up of rocks and gravity.

 

[fool]

Faults are made up of rocks and gravity.

True!

 

[Stripe]

True!

:chuckle:

 

[aharvey]

Top left is a Grand Canyon source channel if I'm not mistaken.

Top right I don't recognise. It might be a glacier carved valley system.

Bottom left is Mt. St. Helens and bottom right is the picture I posted of Mars.

My impression is that all were formed by a water supply that has since been removed.

The top left is not a Grand Canyon source channel, it's the GC itself, and the top right one is the Mississippi River running between Missouri and Illinois.

However, the identities of the localities aren't necessary to discuss their appearance/attributes. Your impression above indicates that you see a commonality shared by all. Is that as far as you can take it? Of course, at the other extreme, it would be easy to highlight something unique about each site, but do you see anything in between? That is, are they all the same except where they're unique, or are there similarities shared among subsets of these sites?

Oh, and what do you think about pressure being a factor in the formation of canyons? The same amount of rocks, water, and gravity will react differently under high pressure (e.g., a small breach) than under lower pressures (e.g., a very broad breach), wouldn't it?

 

[Stripe]

However, the identities of the localities aren't necessary to discuss their appearance/attributes. Your impression above indicates that you see a commonality shared by all. Is that as far as you can take it? Of course, at the other extreme, it would be easy to highlight something unique about each site, but do you see anything in between? That is, are they all the same except where they're unique, or are there similarities shared among subsets of these sites?

Of course every site is different. Change the conditions and the result changes. I'm of the opinion that any large scale features that are repeated generally indicate a common set of conditions.

Oh, and what do you think about pressure being a factor in the formation of canyons? The same amount of rocks, water, and gravity will react differently under high pressure (e.g., a small breach) than under lower pressures (e.g., a very broad breach), wouldn't it?

Sounds like a function between gravity and rock placement to me .. but .. sure. Why not.

 

[aharvey]

Of course every site is different. Change the conditions and the result changes. I'm of the opinion that any large scale features that are repeated generally indicate a common set of conditions.

You're kinda skipping over my question. Yes, every site is different. Yes, you think all four sites are the same, at least in that they were the result of, how did you put it, a water supply that had been removed. Is that as deeply as you're willing to think about it? Actually, as you came in the middle of this discussion, maybe I'm just not clear on the point you're trying to make. I thought it was that since some scientists have concluded that the Martian canyon was the result of a catastrophic flood, and all canyons result from the same processes, then it's silly to conclude the Grand Canyon was not also the result of a catastrophic flood. If that's not your claim, then what is it?

Sounds like a function between gravity and rock placement to me .. but .. sure. Why not.

Could be, though I doubt physicists define pressure that way!

 

[Stripe]

You're kinda skipping over my question. Yes, every site is different. Yes, you think all four sites are the same, at least in that they were the result of, how did you put it, a water supply that had been removed. Is that as deeply as you're willing to think about it? Actually, as you came in the middle of this discussion, maybe I'm just not clear on the point you're trying to make. I thought it was that since some scientists have concluded that the Martian canyon was the result of a catastrophic flood, and all canyons result from the same processes, then it's silly to conclude the Grand Canyon was not also the result of a catastrophic flood. If that's not your claim, then what is it?

My claim is similar to Bob's. If canyons on Mars could be formed quickly by a water source that is no longer existent then why not canyons on Earth.

If Mars once had water enough to carve those canyons then that is evidence for a lot of water on Mars. I won't claim it was entirely under water, but it seems unlikely that any water layer was confined only to the places where it would form canyons.

Could be, though I doubt physicists define pressure that way!

How would a physicist define pressure? I'm perfectly willing to discuss situations in which the pressure changes, but I would see those changes simply as a result of more water and/or more rock. It'd be easier on me if I were speaking in conventional terms though