Mars

[UTEOTW]

All the recent attention being placed on Mars is revealing an interesting planet with a history that I personally think would be hard to explain in a 6000 year old universe. There are details being revealed about possible past plate techtonics, magnetic fields, and surface water. Let's take a look, shall we.

On earth, there is a record of crustal spreading that continues up to this very day. Perhaps the most famous example is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Here new crust is being formed as the ocean spreads the Americas further and further away from Africa and Europe. Recorded in the new crust being formed are alternating magnetic field lines.

As it turns out, a very similar situation has been found to have occurred on Mars in the distant past.

"Magnetic lineations in the ancient crust of mars," Connerney JE, Acuna MH, Wasilewski PJ, Ness NF, Reme H, Mazelle C, Vignes D, Lin RP, Mitchell DL, Cloutier PA, Science. 1999 Apr 30;284(5415):794-8.

On some of the oldest, most heavily cratered terrain on Mars, the Mars Global Surveyor has found evidence of banded magnetic lines. See http://www.solarviews.com/browse/mgs/magmap.jpg for an image of the data. The data is circumstantial in revealing the possiblity of past tectonic activity on Mars. While this seems to be the most likely possibility, others are possible. But what it does show with even more certainty is the Mars once possessed a relatively powerful global magnetic field. This field faded over time as younger, less heavily cratered areas do not show the banding.

The loss of the magnetic field had other consequences.

Both orbiting and surface exploration of Mars is revealing a history in which liquid water once existed on the surface of Mars. Currently, almost all of Mars exists at a set of surface conditions cooler and at lower pressure than the triple point of water. This means that for most of Mars, liquid water on the surface is not possible. Even where possible, it is only in an extremely narrow range of temperatures and at points much below the mean elevation where there is sufficient (just) pressure for water to exist as a liquid.

But this was not so in the past. For instance if you follow this link http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20041007a.html you will see evidence for water action from the two Mars rovers. The article talks about a number of items, including layered rocks such as this http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20041007a/04-SS1-04-Color_Rock-A268R1_br.jpg that seem to have been deposited by water. There are also the "blueberries" that show evidence of formation in water. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20040318a.html .

There are numerous bits of evidence for large scale water action on Mars. There are large canyons such as Valles Marineris which is the largest and most famous. But there is also evidence for lakes and meandering rivers and river deltas and even an ocean. For examples see "Evidence for persistent flow and aqueous sedimentation on early Mars," Malin MC, Edgett KS, Science. 2003 Dec 12;302(5652):1931-4.

So what we have is a picture of Mars where the persistence of water indicates that it once held a much thicker atmosphere. This thicker atmosphere would have neccesitated a global magnetic field to prevent the atmosphere from being stripped away. We have evidence of just such a magnetic field in the bands of magnetic field lines on the surface of parts of Mars. That there are many bands indicates that the field persisted long enough for growth of new crust to occur through plate tectonics.

Since we constantly disagree over how long it takes to form geologic features on earth, we will neglect for now even considering the time involved for them to form.

Results from the Mars Express orbitor have measured the current loss of atmosphere from Mars at about 1 kg / sec and estimate that the loss at its maximum was about 100 kg / sec. Making an assumption that the atmosphere on Mars started at about 1 atm pressure (I have seen estimate that the atmosphere would have actually needed to be thicker than this to provide enough CO2 partial pressure to have sufficient surface temperatures.) and going through a very crude back of the envelope calculation, if that maximum rate had been maintained, it would take about 400 million years for Mars to lose its atmosphere. Even if the crude analysis is off by two orders of magnitude, you are still talking about millions of years for Mars to lose its atmosphere. (The process could be speed along a bit. Large impacts could remove some of the atmosphere quickly. But I do not think you will be able to lose the atmosphere in a couple thousand years that way. No impacts quite that big on Mars.)

But before it can lose its atmosphere, it has to lose its magnetic field. That it had a magnetic field to begin with implies that it had a molten core capable of powering a dynamo producing a global magnetic field. To lose this dynamo, all that heat must be lost. Over 100 years ago, Kelvin estimated the cooling time of the earth to be 20 to 400 million years. His estimate were found to be very low because he did not know to include the effects of radioactivity. Even if we, too, ignore the effects of radioactivity, you should be able to see that it would take millions of years for the heat of Mars to escape to a point at which the dynamo would be lost. Unsteady state heat transfer is not that hard of a subject to get a grasp on. There just is not a way to remove all of that heat quickly.

So, in summary, Mars shows evidence of an age much greater than a few thousand years. It surface shows the effects of a previous denser atmosphere that was capable of sustaining liquid water at the surface long enough for various features to form. The thicker atmosphere implies the need for a global magnetic field to keep the solar wind from removing the atmosphere. The magnetic bands found on the surface give evidence both for the magnetic field and that the planet was once geologically active and had a warmer interior. These both support that Mars once had an internal dynamo powered by a molten core. The rate of heat loss needed to lose the magnetic field and the subsequent rate of atmospheric loss after that both show that the process from where Mars started to where it is today would have taken orders of magnitude longer than a few thousand years.

 

[Helen]

Barry has already discussed this:
http://www.setterfield.org/stellarhist.html#inner

 

[UTEOTW]

The is no discussion of how the core got hot enough to melt and start a magnetic dynamo abd then completely cooled to eliminate the dynamo. That is a lot of heat to be conducted out of the very center of the planet. And that is the main point. There is also no discussion of how the atmosphere could be lost so quickly.

I'll look more closely at the rest later. It is almost Bama / Tenn. game time.

 

[UTEOTW]

The atmospheric pressure is quite important, too. As I said above, the surface pressure of Mars is below the pressure at the triple point of water. This means no liquid water on the surface. It either freezes or boils as soon as it emerges. So you cannot form the large scale water features on Mars at the current pressure. Very small, local erosion, yes. It does take a short time for the water to freeze completely or boil completely. But for the large scale structures, the pressure must be much, much higher to give a temperature window in which water can be liquid and to provide enough CO2 partial pressure to allow for enough warming for the atmosphere to be at that temperature. So a thicker atmospher in the past is a must.

 

[UTEOTW]

Just looking through http://www.setterfield.org/stellarhist.html a few random things jump out. These are just random things that I noticed. I have no knowledge in any of these areas to do any kind of in depth critique.

"When it is remembered that aluminium 26 would have an accelerated decay rate with high light-speed values, a potentially viable scenario opens up."

This seems to contradict other parts of your website. Here ( http://www.setterfield.org/MassandEnergy.htm ) is says that

In a changing c scenario, the energy, E is held constant in E = mc^2 which means that atomic masses, m, vary as 1/c^2. There is experimental evidence for this increase in atomic mass with time. However, there is a second string attached. Experimental evidence also indicates that the way masses behave on an atomic scale is different to the way mass behaves macroscopically. In fact the evidence suggests that while atomic masses are proportional to 1/c^2, mass as measured on a macroscopic scale is total energy related and so is constant at all times.

Now, what I read from that is that even at higher rates of radioactive decay, the amount of energy that is relaesed is constant. This same theme is repeated on other parts of the web page.

http://www.setterfield.org/CnC.html

As was mentioned earlier, the faster light speed, the faster radioactive decay. This seems, at first, to pose some potential radioactivity risks. It has been suggested by some, when dealing with the concept of a faster light speed in the past, that the resultant radiation from accelerated radioactive decay rates would destroy all life rather quickly. This is not the problem it is presented as being, for several reasons... In addition, when the data is examined and the math done, the conclusion is that energy has been maintained, or is invariant. In other words, energy levels are conserved despite c variation.

A good picture of what is going on can be presented by water flowing through a pipe. Imagine the pipe has varying internal diameters along its length. Sometimes it is very narrow, and sometimes very wide. As a result a stream of water moves with varying velocity down the pipe. But no matter how fast or slow the stream of water is moving, the same quantity of water flows per unit of time through all cross-sections of the pipe. Similarly, energy flux from atomic processes is conserved for varying c values.

Under these conditions, the radioactive decay rate is indeed proportional to c. However, the energy density of that radiation is proportional to 1/c, due to the difference in the permeability and permittivity (the magnetic and electric properties) of free space at the time. In other words, despite higher c causing more rapid decay rates in the past, this radiation was intrinsically less dangerous than today because of this lower energy density.

The first quote implies that the accelerated decay of the short half life elements would have been enough to account for what happened but other statements seem clear that there would not be any increased energy from the faster decay rates.

"Since our solar system is about 30,000 light years from the centre of our galaxy, the brilliant illumination from the quasar there would supply the directional light during the first few days of Creation Week before the sun lit up."

We have discussed this before. The most intrinsically bright quasar known would be orders of magnitude to dim for such an effect. I think previous calculations showed that it would need to be on the order of 100 lys away instead of 30000 lys to be as bright as the sun. The black hole in our galaxy's center is also orders of magnitude less masive than a typical quasar.

"On this basis, then, the first possibility for the formation of asteroids and meteorites is favoured, namely a parent planet that fragmented, disrupted, or exploded sending debris through the solar system with asteroids and meteorites being the left-overs."

First, where did most of the planet go. I thought the whole asteroid belt was estimated to have about as much mass as the moon, and now we have a planet and a moon disrupt?

Second, we should be able to easily trace the paths of the asteroids back to such a recent disruption. I give you http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/asteroid_collision_020612.html . Here, scientists were able to trace the orbits of 39 objects back to their formation in a collision about 6 million years ago.

"The way that these events are dated comes from the Cosmic Ray Exposure (CRE) age of the resulting meteorites. "The cosmic ray exposure age is how long a meteorite orbited in interplanetary space, exposed to cosmic rays from the Sun and the galaxy. As these cosmic rays (high energy elementary particles) hit a meteorite, they produce some characteristic new isotopes (by transmutation) of chemical elements, both radioactive and stable." [http://set.lanl.gov/programs/mars/Ages.htm]. The CRE age has thus been calibrated using the radiometric time scale and therefore is a form of atomic clock."

Should there not be a discontinuity in the data here that you could use to bolster your theory? The transmutation of atoms when hit by the elementary particles that make up cosmic rays should produce new elements and isotopes and a predictable rate. However, if decay rates were quicker in the past, then the older that a meteorite dates by radioactivity, the greater should be the disparancy between the age and the number of cosmic rays with which it has interacted because while the decay rates were faster, the number of cosmic rays impacts should have remained constant.

"These radiometric dates are of significance in that they also coincide with an event recorded on both Mars and the Moon. This event is called the "Late Heavy Bombardment" in which a cloud of debris swept through the inner solar system leaving impact craters on Mars and the Moon. The radiometric dates for this event from Lunar samples range from 3.92 down to 2.76 billion atomic years, with the majority of samples returning dates above 3.05 billion atomic years."

Well, this is well before your atomic clock date for the Flood. And the earth would have been affected also. So the earth went through the LHB, with many impacts that scientists would say were in range of worldwide devestation in size, and humanity and the rest of world went on about its business? I find it hard to believe any sort of civilization could survice this and even less that if they did that they would not have bothered to write it down. Shouldn't such an event be well recorded in Genesis somewhere?

I find it very curious that you included the following quote. "scientists have always had a great deal of trouble explaining just where those gigantic eruptions of high- pressure water came from ­ especially since the patches of collapsed, "chaotic" ground from which they seem to have gushed usually don't look anywhere near big enough to contain amounts of water capable of carving such huge flood channels."

You are trying to build a case for catastrophic flooding on Mars and you quote someone who says that the collapsed ground where the water appears to come from does not have enough volume to hold that much water. Instead, he proposes that CO2 bursts were responsible for the catastrophic erosion. This seems to undermine your case.

Furthermore, the other quote you give just before this about the amount of water released also undermines your case. The article you cite indicates that the water for the flooding came from melting ice, which is a different scenario than you are presenting.

"Furthermore, the slightly lower nuclear reaction rate that this would entail may also result in a partly reduced neutrino flux."

Is this supposed to be about the lower than expected neutrino flux from the sun? Experimentation has shown that the reduced flux was because the neutrinos occilate between various forms and only one form was being detected. When all are accounted for, the measured flux is correct.

"This might be expected as it is the closest of the inner planets to the asteroid belt, and so, compositionally, it should have been very similar."

Why would you expect such? If it were created and not formed, then it could have any potential composition. Only if they both formed in a nebula might you make that assumption.

"The conclusion is that any LHB objects hitting the earth must have impacted in what is now the ocean."

All those impacts selectively missed the 25% that is now land? All those tidal waves were somehow missed? And we can find impacts that hit the ocean. For example, the impact off the coast of the Yucatan at the K/T boundary.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Another problem for Setterfield Solar system dynamics is the formation of the Kirkwood Gaps. These are areas where those asteroids that happen to have orbits that resonated with Jupiter's orbit were pulled out of those areas over the millenia, forming the gaps.

It is quite clear that an original formation of asteroids from a planetary breakup would have to put asteroids into every possible orbit, no gaps would exist, and it is quite clear the asteroids have orbited long enough to form the gaps.

How long does it take to form the gaps? A minimum of a million years is required.

Note this is a gravitational clock, the one clock the Setterfields believe to retain its constancy for their 10,000 year old age of the entire universe.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

From Barry's website as pointed to by Ute, above:

The issue of lightspeed and Einstein's equation is one which is coming to the forefront of consideration by physicists as a result of some evidence that lightspeed was much faster in the early days of the cosmos. In fact, no less than 50 scientific papers dealing with the topic have been accepted for publication by scientific journals in 2002 alone. In most cases, there has merely been tinkering around the edges of the problem. The work that I have been engaged in has a slightly different answer to the problem. In a changing c scenario, the energy, E is held constant in E = mc2 which means that atomic masses, m, vary as 1/c2. There is experimental evidence for this increase in atomic mass with time. However, there is a second string attached. Experimental evidence also indicates that the way masses behave on an atomic scale is different to the way mass behaves macroscopically. In fact the evidence suggests that while atomic masses are proportional to 1/c2, mass as measured on a macroscopic scale is total energy related and so is constant at all times. Thus Einstein's equation only applies to the atomic environment, where all the reactions occur to which it has been applied.

This is an incredible piece of mis-information. Mass in this context is inertia. Barry says here that sometimes all the little atomic masses in a piece of matter are somewhat smaller and other times they are somewhat larger and yet, when they are all added up into a macro sized piece of matter, they add up to the same thing!

This is Alice in Wonderland physics, folks.

The "experimental evidence" Barry refers to - that mass does not change with time - is evidence, therefore, that c does not, in fact, vary.

If at any time the equation e=mc^2 ever fails at any level, at any epoch, in any way, and that can be demonstrated, the news about this would make headlines around the world.

 

[UTEOTW]

Well, the other issue with the statement you quote is that the early light speed change papers that are mentioned do not resemble the ideas being proposed in any meaningful way.

 

[UTEOTW]

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20041104a.html

The Spirit rover is returning data that shows that its location was likely formed by volcanic ash that was layed down in layers and altered by water. The data shows volcanoes and then water (they could have started at the same time) where your history shows water effects followed by volcanoes.

 

[jcrawford]

Earth to Mars! Earth to Mars!

UTE! Can you hear us?

Earth to Mars! Calling Earth to Mars. UTE?