My Mars work was NEVER funded, by anyone. I did it because I wanted to. I paid all my own air fares and motels.
Maybe that makes me a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot, but it certainly doesn't make me anyone's pawn or mouthpiece.
Nobody said Mars was frozen to the core. Just that the ;lithosphere is thick and rigid. (Even our Moon has a zone of weak moonquakes at depth revealing a softer layer)
If you think a little about planets, it's very hard to have a significantly different lithospheric thickness at the equator and the poles. Mercury is an exception - it's like a joint of meat on a spit-roast, turning along so close to the Sun. Other planets have much less difference in surface temperature between poles and equator and there's no reason for a different thermal gradient (unless you see equatorial volcanism, or some other evidence).
On Mars, the poles are at about 147K and the equator at 225K. You have to heat rock to about 1300K before it stops being lithosphere.
If the Lithospheric thickness at the poles is about 300km, then the thermal gradient is about 3.85 K/km. (on Earth it's about TEN times this gradient).
So manifestly, the equatorial lithosphere of Mars should be very similar in thickness. The difference would be 78/3.85 km - about 20 km thinner at the equator - not significant.
If you have EVIDENCE or a good reason why the equatorial lithosphere should be substantially thinner, and liquid water developed at relatively shallow depths, then please do share it with us...
Space/Science » in reply to re: Not "just" underneath the surface
Funding?
The whole thread (42 posts)
- Well, Nick?..You're Mars theory has received it's most vital support evidence to date.
- Your inference that Mars harbors no pathogens is not supported
- Tharsis Bulge.
- Yet we still know very little
- re: Well, Nick?..You're Mars theory has received it's most vital support evidence to date.