While I was searching for appropriate images for my model of earth I
came across one of Blue Mars, Mars with water based upon surveyed
elevations. I am just showing it, not setting water level. It came this
way. 

	I thought some might like to see it. 

-- 
Ptolomeic astronomy, phrenology, marxism, 
all are gone and not grieved. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 270

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'bmars0.jpg' (17 KB) Download 'bmars20.jpg' (20 KB)

Preview of image 'bmars0.jpg'

Preview of image 'bmars20.jpg'

3 of my favorite books in the world are Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars by
Kim Stanley Robinson.  This could easily be right out of the book Blue Mars.

Matt Giwer wrote:

>         While I was searching for appropriate images for my model of earth I
> came across one of Blue Mars, Mars with water based upon surveyed
> elevations. I am just showing it, not setting water level. It came this
> way.
>
>         I thought some might like to see it.
>
> --
> Ptolomeic astronomy, phrenology, marxism,
> all are gone and not grieved.
>         -- The Iron Webmaster, 270
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]  [Image]

--
Bryan Valencia
Software Services - Making Windows Scream
http://www.209software.com
mailto:bry### [at] 209softwarecom

Post a reply to this message

Unfortunately recent findings my NASA and USGS show that large quantities of
water likely did NOT exist on Mars in the past. This is because they discovers
large quantities of the mineral, olivine (I think that's how you spell it),
which is easily soluble in water. Too bad cause it would have been AMAZING to
have discovered evidence of life on mars, not that this totally rules that out
but it is another thing to but down in the "cons" column. Oh well there is
always Europa still:-)

Matt Giwer wrote:

>         While I was searching for appropriate images for my model of earth I
> came across one of Blue Mars, Mars with water based upon surveyed
> elevations. I am just showing it, not setting water level. It came this
> way.
>
>         I thought some might like to see it.
>
> --
> Ptolomeic astronomy, phrenology, marxism,
> all are gone and not grieved.
>         -- The Iron Webmaster, 270
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Is there any Olivine here on Earth? I hope not.
Its presents would mean that we couldn't have any water here.

Or maybe with all the water gone, the Olivine had to be left behind.
In large deposits.

Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately recent findings my NASA and USGS show that large quantities of
> water likely did NOT exist on Mars in the past. This is because they discovers
> large quantities of the mineral, olivine (I think that's how you spell it),
> which is easily soluble in water. Too bad cause it would have been AMAZING to
> have discovered evidence of life on mars, not that this totally rules that out
> but it is another thing to but down in the "cons" column. Oh well there is
> always Europa still:-)
>

Post a reply to this message

"Mr. Art" <mra### [at] chesapeakenet> wrote in message
news:3A0### [at] chesapeakenet...
> Is there any Olivine here on Earth? I hope not.
> Its presents would mean that we couldn't have any water here.
>
> Or maybe with all the water gone, the Olivine had to be left behind.
> In large deposits.

Perhaps NASA and USGS people need to read about it here:
http://asups.ups.edu/~lhee/olivine/paper.html

:-)  Bob

> Thomas Lake wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately recent findings my NASA and USGS show that large quantities
of
> > water likely did NOT exist on Mars in the past. This is because they
discovers
> > large quantities of the mineral, olivine (I think that's how you spell it),
> > which is easily soluble in water. Too bad cause it would have been AMAZING
to
> > have discovered evidence of life on mars, not that this totally rules that
out
> > but it is another thing to but down in the "cons" column. Oh well there is
> > always Europa still:-)
> >

Post a reply to this message

It only makes sense too, Bob. If, any of the readers here had ever visited a
salt mine, they would realize that the internal temperatures of the planet
build quickly the closer to the center you get. Olivine near the surface
might indicate a problem for us, but we might be an odd case compared to
other life forms.
  Don't forget, people, that the center of our planet is nickel, and
possibly liquid nickel. That very feature rules out the possibility that
minerals like gold, diamond, and other such dense materials, could have
formed here at all. If, during school, you learned that diamonds and gold
are formed within the crust of the earth, you were taught incorrectly. Only
elements that occur 'above' nickel (from the periodic table) could have been
formed here at all. Not naturally, anyway. The pressures of this planet are
insufficient for that.
  The building blocks of our planet are the result of a naturally evolving
universe. A universe that had been ongoing for billions of years in order
that our planet could even exist at all.
  I once sat in on a lecture by Hawking's himself, where he speculated that
diamonds could (possibly only) be formed in the resulting explosion of a
supernova. When I shared this revelation with a geologist friend he nearly
had a fit! As he put it, "Hawking's is a smart guy, but he really missed the
mark here."
  Somehow, I don't think so. It is much more likely that geologists have
been misled for decades. I trust Hawkings. :)
  Oops! Boy did I digress!
Anyway, back to the topic at hand....

Didn't you miss a few moons of Mars? :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message

Hmm sorry but I would have to say either you misunderstood Hawkings or he was
wrong, don't take this as a personal attack. Diamonds can and DID form in earths
crust. What you are talking about is the formation of elements. Now elements are
only formed in nature in extreme conditions, like those at the center of stars
and in super nova, during fusion. Diamond is really just another form, a
crystalline form, of carbon. If you take graphite, yet another form of carbon,
and compress it under sufficiently high pressures and heat for long enough you
WILL get diamond, in fact I just recently watched a NOVA video in my Chemistry
11 class where they were talking about the race to make better man made
diamonds. This does nothing at all to the atoms of carbon, it simply rearranges
them to form new bonds. Atoms of graphite are bonded together tightly in thin
layers, whereas in diamond they are bonded much more rigidly into a crystalline
structure. Also I don't think anyone would argue that gold, and other elements
formed in the earth, at least I hope not, when our earth coalesced out of the
primordial gas, dust and rocks 4 billion years ago it gained all of the elements
that it has ever had, the amount of gold, nickel, carbon etc.. on earth has
changed very little since the beginning, some may have been added from
meteorites, what has happened it that these elements have recombined countless
times since them into new compounds, all life itself is nothing more than the
recombination of elements that were already here.

GrimDude wrote:

> It only makes sense too, Bob. If, any of the readers here had ever visited a
> salt mine, they would realize that the internal temperatures of the planet
> build quickly the closer to the center you get. Olivine near the surface
> might indicate a problem for us, but we might be an odd case compared to
> other life forms.
>   Don't forget, people, that the center of our planet is nickel, and
> possibly liquid nickel. That very feature rules out the possibility that
> minerals like gold, diamond, and other such dense materials, could have
> formed here at all. If, during school, you learned that diamonds and gold
> are formed within the crust of the earth, you were taught incorrectly. Only
> elements that occur 'above' nickel (from the periodic table) could have been
> formed here at all. Not naturally, anyway. The pressures of this planet are
> insufficient for that.
>   The building blocks of our planet are the result of a naturally evolving
> universe. A universe that had been ongoing for billions of years in order
> that our planet could even exist at all.
>   I once sat in on a lecture by Hawking's himself, where he speculated that
> diamonds could (possibly only) be formed in the resulting explosion of a
> supernova. When I shared this revelation with a geologist friend he nearly
> had a fit! As he put it, "Hawking's is a smart guy, but he really missed the
> mark here."
>   Somehow, I don't think so. It is much more likely that geologists have
> been misled for decades. I trust Hawkings. :)
>   Oops! Boy did I digress!
> Anyway, back to the topic at hand....
>
> Didn't you miss a few moons of Mars? :)
>
> Grim

Post a reply to this message

Rgr, Thomas. I thought I posted a follow up note, but for some reason it
isn't here. I meant elements, not diamonds (carbon) specifically. My
geologist friend, to this day, thinks that even gold is somehow formed
within the center of the earth.
  The discussion came about as a result from a previous lecturer (Heinz R.
Pagels) who had stated that anything we find here on earth can be found (in
recipe form) within red stars. That brought about a few questions, which
Hawkings later tried to shed light upon. He was not in total agreement with
Pagels, either.
  Diamonds are indeed created within the influence of supernova (both
according to Pagels, and Hawkings), though collecting them would be
problematic. One estimate I bore witness to indicated that some half-billion
metric tons of gold (for one) would be created by the supernova of a
particular red giant, but that the resulting collapse into a blue dwarf (I
think is how it went) would destroy the effort. The diamonds come from
systemic carbon elements of the surrounding area.
  I went back and found the tapes of this lecture series. The beginning of
Hawkings lecture is missing, though. :(
  Not my specialty, anyway.

Grim

Post a reply to this message