Aren't the layers in the rock showing that water was definitely present on Mars, and that they're formed by sediment being deposited and forming into sedementary rock over time?

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

I could be wrong, but I don't think so in this case. Water would likely create more variation in banding where some groupings of layers is present and distinct. What I see in the differences at higher levels appears to be from exposure to wind and solar temperature fluctuations due to exposure. It looks too linear from top to bottom. With water I expect those more distinct sections of banding like you see on the Earth pic side. Maybe there was a lot more or less rain for a time due to a mountain range that came and went, or a local sea or large water basin. Those layers are deep time and more like the slow accumulation of an average dust before wind patterns shift significantly or some event shifts the composition like exposure of a different large rock unit to winds regionally. It is hard for humans to grasp deep time like this.

[–] TheDudeV2@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I’m not a geologist but I’ve read up on it a fair bit.

This Mars photo appears to be sandstone.

On earth sandstone is usually associated with ancient rivers, lake shores, and sea shores. But also sand dune fields.

The thing with sandstone though, is it’s not just sand. Rather, it’s sand plus time plus pressure plus cementation.

Now, the time part is obvious. What’s sandstone now was sand a long ass time ago (usually).

Pressure? That’s a little harder to understand for me here. Has mars ever had tectonic stuff going on to bury it (and hence have pressure applied), followed by erosion and uplift? Or am I incorrect and pressure is not a necessary condition? Maybe sandstone without pressure is a thing it’s just weaker and/or less dense? Maybe layers of volcanic basalt or something could have a similar effect? I don’t know and would love to have someone more knowledgeable fill this part out.

Cementation? This part, I’m nearly certain, REQUIRES water. On earth anyway, this happens when ground water absorbs chemicals from other rock/stuff (for example carbonates from sea shells, but there’s lots of other chemicals that can do this), then flows through the beds of buried sand, and some of those chemicals are deposited along with magical chemistry stuff happening, and your sand becomes sand stone.

So I don’t 100% know that the short answer to your question is “yes”, but I’m leaning towards a solid “yeah, probably, but I’m not a real geologist and Mars isn’t a real Earth so I dunno”.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Apparently, sandstone takes FAR less time to form than most people think. Apparently, some sandstone deposits have been found with roman artefacts inside. They were normal sand at the time and turned to sandstone since then.

Basically, it would take far less time than you would think to form sandstone on Mars. It's still proof of liquid water, but the lower end of the time estimate can be FAR shorter than you first think.

[–] Naz@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There's a non zero chance that Mars is a remnant of the planetary impact that occured to the Earth ~ 3.5 BYA. The issue is that's a really loose hypothesis, but the speculation is that Theia - which impacted Gaia (old Earth) was an ice planet / water world, which gave us most of our oceans.

Evidence of water evaporation on Mars therefore makes sense, as a catastrophic effect (such as planetary impact) would indeed cause the atmosphere to boil off, leaving behind these dry lakes and riverbeds.

I personally haven't spent enough time on Mars to make a substantial conclusion, there wasn't enough time to do any science between the sheer insanity of basic survival on a planet that seems uniquely designed to kill you and crush your spirit before doing so.

I totally approve of your analysis however, and it's proof why geologists deserve a seat on the interstellar jumpships :3

[–] anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, Mars was not formed by the moom-forming impact event between Gaia and Theia. The moon is the remnant you're talking about, not Mars.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think they mean Mars could be Theia.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think the fact that it’s really far away, in a circular orbit, and doesn’t have a big chunk missing is still a good sign that mars isn’t theia

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Why would it have a chunk missing after all this time? If it did could we even tell? Whatever it was isn’t still in the area so being far away may not mean much. Circular orbit is probably biggest reason it’s likely not Mars, although it could have evened out relatively recently.

This simulation shows the Mars sized object merging with Earth so there goes that theory.

[–] anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

Yup!

Sediment gathers at the bottom of a lake or sea. Builds up deeper and deeper layers. Each layer is formed by a sediment deposition event. Each layer you go down is going further into the past of that former water body.

Because sedimentary rock requires standing bodies of liquid to form, they are only found on Earth and Mars (and maybe Dragonfly will find sedimentary deposits on Titan which would be very different in chemistry).

[–] scala@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Think so. That's what I came here to ask

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I came to ask which picture is which then noticed the blue sky duh 😂

[–] braindefragger@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or the title.

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 6 points 3 months ago

OMG I'm being leftright-shamed