Countless landslides are inside the crater. They may have been caused by the presence of water that weakened the crater walls, ESA estimates. Channels dug into the crater's inner walls mark the path of the falling rocks, while rocks and dirt dot the crater's floor.
Don't let the dry appearance of the Martian deserts in the Tagus Valles area fool you. Pictures taken by the European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft showed that a lot of water flowed in this area of the Red Planet. The images are further evidence that water shaped the planet, as scientists try to figure out when and how they disappeared.
This area is one of many that reveal evidence of the Red Planet's active past, and shows that the watermarks are integrated even in areas containing ancient craters." The European Space Agency says.
The area, which has not yet been named and is located just a few degrees south of the equatorial equator, caught the attention of scientists because of the crater you see in the upper left corner of the image (close-up photo below).
Countless landslides are inside the crater. They may have been caused by the presence of water that weakened the crater walls, ESA estimates. Channels dug into the crater's inner walls mark the path of the falling rocks, while rocks and dirt dot the crater's floor.
The scientists saw remnants of table mountains and bare rocks protruding from the ground, formed from sediments left there by a regional current. The lighter materials have worn away, and what can be seen today are the hard parts that remain.
In this area there is also evidence of volcanic activity such as ash scattered in the area. The scientists estimate that the origin of the ash is in the Elysium volcanic area located northeast of the photographed area.
19 תגובות
Yair
You are wrong.
What you encountered was a pile of bricks and not a wall.
Year:
It seems to me that we are treading water.
By the way - to this day there is no proof that the earth is not the center of the universe and in fact, according to Mach's principle which has never been disproved - there is no difference between the claim "the earth rotates on its axis" and the claim "the universe revolves around the earth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
From Kal, the comparison with his failed theories is helpful. When Copernicus created his theory, as far as I know he used the same observational data that the centrists used, and he had no other evidence. But since Galileo, the observation instruments went on and improved, until they became very accurate today. If the ancients had tried to send an aircraft according to their theory, they would almost certainly have failed. That is, even though they thought their theory was proven, they were wrong, because they did not have sufficient confirmations. Today there is sufficient confirmation for the opposite theory. It is as resistant to rebuttal as my crash wall. In addition to this, axioms may also be invalidated, such as the axiom of parallels. As far as I understand, the claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is a precautionary claim, when the word proof is demanded for rigors that no science can provide.
When I spoke of a mathematical sentence I did not mean a single sentence.
The basis of the theory of evolution is a collection of mathematical laws that claim that when certain conditions are met, evolution will occur.
The conditions in question, by and large, are the existence of individuals capable of replicating with small changes, when their ability to reproduce is a result of their success in competing for resources that are in short supply. The evolution that will take place under these conditions will be created by the death or the little reproduction of individuals whose characteristics do not allow them to compete for the resources against the other individuals who are more successful in doing so.
This is a purely statistical phenomenon and there are quite a few mathematical theorems that describe these and other aspects of it.
One of the first theorems formulated in the field is Fisher's theorem, whose description is below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_fundamental_theorem_of_natural_selection
Fischer may have started to give the subject a mathematical expression, but many followed him and today there is a whole branch of mathematics that studies the nature and rate of evolution that takes place under given assumptions.
Below are two relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%27s_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle
I don't think there is anyone here who disbelieves in evolution, but if you come across one, you are welcome to use this article as well:
http://1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=598:%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94&Itemid=189
And by the way - the theory of relativity is in conflict not only with the quantum theory but also with itself, in the sense that there are extreme situations (like black holes) where infinite sizes are obtained.
If we continue with Yair's example: if Yair encounters total darkness in something, one of the theories is that he encountered a wall and this is the stage where the theory can be disproved. After he turned on the light, he confirmed (or disproved) his theory because he saw that it was a wall (or a door stop, much to the chagrin of the little finger). It is certainly possible that new facts will come to light that will shed a completely different light on the essence of the barrier, and the wall will turn out to be something completely different so that there will always remain a certain level of doubt, but certainly in everyday language this is proof and in this sense, the theory of the centrality of the sun is proven and it is difficult to see what can disprove it and we certainly will not hesitate Develop technologies based on such a level of certainty.
While a "soft" proof is sufficient for the problem of the wall or for the development of technologies, it is not sufficient for issues at the edge of science and there, at the edge, we can only tell what we have disproved and what has not yet been disproved with one level of certainty or another and if we look at the great scientific theories, relativity and quantum mechanics, they are still somewhat conflicted (which does not prevent us from developing very reliable technologies based on them) so there is still more work there :). What is interesting is that in cosmological theories (for example, inflation that predicts the existence of the multiverse) it is quite possible that we are scratching the edge of knowledge that we can confirm empirically. Here is an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc&feature=player_detailpage&t=4158
Regarding evolution, we see it, in front of our eyes, happening in bacteria, for example and thus, evolution is a fact (similar to the centrality of the sun) and natural selection (as a mechanism behind evolution in combination with genetics, etc.) is the theory (with a high level of certainty). By the way, I would be happy to receive a reference to a mathematical sentence "that says that when known conditions are met, evolution will occur"
Year:
The debate is indeed formal, but this formalism is justified.
If the "soft" terminology is used then:
People in the distant past had sufficient evidence (for them) that the sun revolved around the earth.
Until the experiments of Michelson and Morley, people could equally claim that Newton's theory was proven.
This leads to the cheapness of the concept of proof and the need to invent another word to describe something that is really proof.
The debate is so formal, about the meaning of the word proof. I content myself with evidence in a softer sense. If I run into a wall it is proof for me of its existence. The possibility of building efficient devices based on the theory of the structure of the atom for me is proof of the theory's validity, and I don't think there is a good justification for denying the centrality of the sun.
Year:
A court will not help. There is no evidence in science.
A proof is a defined thing whose definition is based on axioms.
Axioms have no proof.
When we come to examine nature we guess the central axioms (the theory) and test it experimentally as much as we can.
We will never have a proof of the axioms - we will only have confirmations of their correctness.
And between us - after all, a theory is defined as scientific only if, in principle, it can be refuted. A proof cannot be disproved.
I never said evolution was provable.
I said it is close because it is based on a mathematical theorem that says that when known conditions are met, evolution will occur.
It is still based on the axiom that these conditions are met in what we call "replicating" - if these are genes and if these are living beings.
It is true that as far as we have been able to check - what we call "replicating" in nature meets the requirements of the law, but in principle we may encounter a garden or living creature that does not obey the laws.
It is true that it is very very (very very very very) unlikely, but we cannot arrive at a closed proof rule where there is no question of plausibility.
From Kal, when there are good confirmations, they are in possession of proof. The question of whether we do not live in the Matrix may not be possible to prove, but whether a human being has a brain can be easily ascertained after we have defined our requirements. Evolution has countless confirmations that are made to prove the fact. As far as I remember in the past you claimed that there is a mathematical proof of evolution. When Copernicus claimed the centrality of the sun it was a theory. In the meantime, good evidence was found for the most part, which turned into proof of fact.
friends I meant that channel 8 has a series about the presence of life in the solar system, and solid claims are presented there that are integrated into the earth in places where conditions are similar to other planets (without oxygen with sulfur, etc.) and Mars itself.
The claims that there is no reasonable evidence seem a bit inaccurate to me. Solid evidence - a matter of time, when the technology
of the probes will allow you to go down to the caves on Mars and such giants are visible to the star.
Apart from that, there is evidence at a 99% probability level, provided that the laws of physics on Mars and here are the same, that 3 billion years ago there were oceans of water there, and there is spectral evidence that there is ice in the ground in oceanic quantities.
In our oceans, under several meters of ice, there is water.
There is currently a series on channel 8 about life in the solar system.
3 billion years ago, Mars had an atmosphere that kept the water on the land surface. Covered by multiple volcanoes that emitted gases. At that time, volcanic activity ceased and the atmosphere evaporated. The solar wind completed the work and evaporated the water. Most of them are absorbed into the soil. A spectral image of Mars clearly shows that there is water in a frozen state on the planet, and the only question is whether there is liquid water under the ice.
Liquid water is the source of all life in Israel and where there is no water there is no life with us, point.
On Earth in deep caves (for example Al Cueva Mexico) there are bacterial life forms that exist on sulfur provided there is water and produce energy from it, and as a byproduct produce sulfuric acid in a very high concentration. But what a life.
In addition, there are creatures more complex than bacteria that produce methane in the process of feeding on sulfur and it is emitted into the atmosphere. In the measurements there is a large amount of methane emitted from the surface and the scientists are debating how.
Whether as a result of life as on Earth or as a result of a geological process.
Thank you Avi.
Roy, for some unknown reason the automatic system decided that this was a spam response. I happened to go through these comments, usually many hundreds accumulate and it is not possible to go through them and find legitimate comments. As a matter of fact, you are right, I should have written a confirmation.
Why was my previous message censored? I thank you for translating the original article (without sarcasm) and although I don't often respond to articles, the title of this article is a bit jarring and mostly misleading. I want to reinforce Michael's words by saying that this is not a proof, but as stated only findings that confirm the claim that water once flowed on Mars and cannot on any scientific scale constitute proof, but only testify to the plausibility of the truth of the claim.
Year:
There is no evidence in science. There just isn't! There are confirmations, but we can't even prove that we don't live in the Matrix.
This is also true for the theory of evolution, for the theory of relativity, and for the theory that I am actually sitting in front of the screen right now and typing a response (as opposed to the situation where someone plants this illusion in my mind - if I even have a brain)
Machal, you mean you see the theory of evolution as unproven?
You don't need to go as far as drafting.
Scientific theories are simply not provable.
interesting. Although I do not understand the need for the misleading title, this is a finding that can confirm the claim that water may have flowed on Mars, but under no circumstances and not with proof.
The title of the article is - Another proof that in the past water flowed on Mars. However, the "proof" uses the word "maybe" - it is possible that they were caused by the presence of water that weakened it. End quote. It doesn't seem to me that proof can be based on "maybe".
But beyond that I do believe there was water on Mars.
I may be convinced to sleep already.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda