NASA: Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet.
The first definitive detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars indicates the planet is still alive, in either a biologic or geologic sense, according to a team of NASA and university scientists.
"Methane is quickly destroyed in the Martian atmosphere in a variety of ways, so our discovery of substantial plumes of methane in the northern hemisphere of Mars in 2003 indicates some ongoing process is releasing the gas," said Dr. Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "At northern mid-summer, methane is released at a rate comparable to that of the massive hydrocarbon seep at Coal Oil Point in Santa Barbara, Calif."
Methane -- four atoms of hydrogen bound to a carbon atom -- is the main component of natural gas on Earth. It's of interest to astrobiologists because organisms release much of Earth's methane as they digest nutrients. However, other purely geological processes, like oxidation of iron, also release methane. "Right now, we don’t have enough information to tell if biology or geology -- or both -- is producing the methane on Mars," said Mumma. "But it does tell us that the planet is still alive, at least in a geologic sense. It's as if Mars is challenging us, saying, hey, find out what this means." Mumma is lead author of a paper on this research appearing in Science Express Jan. 15.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
6 comments:
If we can get to the Martian surface and mine it, that should help some of our energy needs. However, I don't htink we should go ahead and mine the place. There's still a great deal to study about he planet.
You know what I mean, right? I meant harness it.
THERE WAS TITAN, NOW THERE IS MARS
Methane is ubiquitous it seems on other planets and moons. This is no surprise.
Take this scenario: Abiotic hydrocarbons, heavier than methane can be created from Iron and certain acids.
This has been known for over a hundred years.
On the other hand, organic detritus has never been able to be converted into hydrocarbons heavier than methane in a way that supposedly mimicked geological processes.
Given this knowledge, how should scientists conclude hydrocarbons are formed in the depths of the Earth?
Seems straight forward enough, follow the scientific evidence, which as noted above demonstrates that heavy hydrocarbons can be formed abiotically in the lab, but can not be formed from organic detritus in anyway resembling how it was theorized in the lab.
How in the heck did geologists ever conclude oil was derived from organic detritus?
Geologists failed to follow the scientific method of observation and measurement.
Now it needs to be pointed out not all geologists came to the "fossil" theory conclusion, there have always been geologists that believed oil was abiotic.
The "leading lights" who set the politically correct standard made a mistake and the rest followed.
I was talking to a friend and I pointed out the above scenario. They looked at me and shook their head: "How did those guys ever come to the conclusion that oil was made from organic detritus," they asked me, incredulously.
All I could do was shake my head...
OIL IS ABIOTIC
Oil is abiotic...not because I say so, but because the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Scroll down the left-hand side bar of this website or review the posts and read the evidence for yourself.
The conclusion is obvious.
Oil is abiotic.
THE BIG THREE -- No not the three American Auto Makers
The big three in descending order:
1. Plasma Cosmology because it sets the stage for chemical reactions that form abiotic oil and drives many other of Earth's processes.
2. Expanding Earth theory because abiotic oil formation goes part and parcel with an expanding Earth and an expanding Earth is in turn driven by the electrical plasma currents that flow from the Sun to the Earth and directly from the intra-galactic Birkeland currents, which press upon the Sun's heliopause.
3. Abiotic Oil theory because petroleum is the most productive substance on Earth (besides the mind of Man) and at present drives industrial civilization.
The scientific evidence for all three theories is substantial.
Should science focus its energies on these three theories a new era in scientific advancement could help usher in renewed economic progress and possibly even a new phase in Man's civilization.
Sounds like a pretty good bargain.
As Gregory Peck said to Anthony Quinn at the end of the movie, The Guns of Navarone, when Quinn was in the water next to the boat in which Peck was in, "Grab it. Grab it, Man."
(Peck was sticking out a boat hook to Quinn [to pull him into the boat], who was hesitating because his vision was blurry and he had sworn to kill Peck due to a falling out.)
Will Man "grab it?"
We shall see.
WHEN SCIENTISTS FROM TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES COME UP WITH THE SAME OBSERVATION...
[I]t should tell us something.
Indeed, the result by which two different scientists unaware of each other's work -- observations, measurements, and conclusions come to similar observations and conclusions has been recognized by the scientific community as strong confirmation of the conclusions arrived at by the two scientists.
I would like to submit a case in point of the above result for consideration by the readers.
David Ford and Stanley Keith both are geologists and and study the Earth's geology, but come to the discipline from very different perspectives.
David Ford investigates Expanding Earth theory. Ford's Introduction to Expanding Earth theory is a necessity in studying the concepts and evidence for an expanding Earth.
Stanley Keith is a practical geologist interested in locating economic minerals (gold, silver, copper, and petroleum among others). Keith presented this paper on abiotic oil formation.
Both geologists' work has received considerable attention, analysis, and comment on the Oil Is Mastery website.
Cutting to the chase:
Even though these scientists come to the study of geology from different perspectives they have observed a similar geological formation:
Ford presents a study of Australian continental-scale lineaments in his chapter on Intra-cratonic orognesis (there is a schematic of Australia showing the continental-scale lineaments) and Keith presents a study on the continental-scale lineaments in the North American continent.
Keith is primarily concerned with econmic mineral deposits, in this instance primarily petroleum and Ford is concerned with evidence of an expanding Earth.
Yet, each scientist focusses on continental-scale lineaments.
Keith states: "Evidence is mounting that the Earth is encircled by subtle necklaces of interconnecting, generally latitude-parallel faults. Many major mineral and energy resource accumulations are located within or near the deeply penetrating fractures of these “cracks of the world.”
PDF version presents schematics of the continental-scale lineaments of Mexico and more broadly North America.
The schematics presented by both scientists of Australia and North America respectively are noteworthy for the similarity of the continetal-scale interconnecting, generally latitude-parallel faults.
Ford explains that intra-cratonic orogenesis is not explained by the standard Continental Drift, Subduction theory (Ford's explanation is compelling).
Keith goes on to state: "The above mega-shear observations suggest that the continents are also active participants in the oceanic-spreading process. A global network of transform faults apparently links ocean basin to ocean basin through the continents."
Ford's chaper is well worth reading and Keith's work is too.
But when both works are considered in tandum, a synthesis of the scientific evidence can be made and conclusions drawn that furthers the work each scientist has made.
The conclusion of this writer is that Expanding Earth theory has a dramatic impact on Abiotic Oil theory. Indeed, the formation of hydrocarbons may be a specific result of the mineralogical processes that are initialed by an expanding Earth.
Therefore, if the Earth is expanding as theorized, abiotic formation of hydrocarbons is an ongoing process of considerable bulk formation.
In other words, abiotic oil formation is substantial on ongoing.
While this comment does not bring into discussion the electromagnetic, plasma currents flowing into the Earth, that phenomonen undoubtedly plays a role in the Earth's dynamics.
Remember, as stated at the beginning of this comment, each scientist was coming to this issue from a different perspective, yet each has arrived at a similar conclusion:
The Continental Drift, Subduction model of Earth's geology needs substantial revision.
Post a Comment