Coal layer in Mars strata found by robots

I asked the question before but no-one had the ability to figure the
probability. I asked what the probability of stripping away Earth
surface of its life and if two robots landed upon Earth near the
Equater since the 2 Mars robots had to land near the Martian Equator.
That what would be the probability that these 2 robots would encounter
a Coal Layer?

By the way, I wonder why most of the world's coal and petroleum are
found in temperate zones and not near the equator or is that just a
false perception on my part?

I suspect that if Mars has coal layers, that the chances of either one
of these 2 robots in finding coal is slim.

The good news however is that this second robot that recently landed
on Mars is nearby to a exposed sedimentary strata.

Obviously if this robot finds coal on Mars is definitive proof that
Mars was teaming with life in its past.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

In sci.astro Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

By the way, I wonder why most of the world's coal and petroleum are
found in temperate zones and not near the equator or is that just a
false perception on my part?

I wouldn't call alaska north slope or Siberia "temperate" but as for
near the equator, it's interesting that since coal etc. are supposed to
be residue plant materials, one would predict that most of these deposits
would be found near the equator. Instead we find huge deposits way
north where plants are (now) sparce. Yet one more hole in "theory
of uniformity". Forget mars, we can't explain coal here!

I suspect that if Mars has coal layers, that the chances of either one
of these 2 robots in finding coal is slim.

Well, maybe. Don't forget that this isn't some mining exploration.
You don't really need to stumble across some huge vein with commerical
value. A few tiny grains scattered on the ground can give a lot
of information!

But for a real kicker, just imagine if large quantities of GOLD
were found on mars! Wouldn't that be a hoot? You'd be amazed at
just how fast the cash would be found to implement Bush's mars
plans!

Bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

skrev i en meddelelse
...

snip

I wouldn't call alaska north slope or Siberia "temperate" but as for
near the equator, it's interesting that since coal etc. are supposed to
be residue plant materials, one would predict that most of these deposits
would be found near the equator. Instead we find huge deposits way
north where plants are (now) sparce. Yet one more hole in "theory
of uniformity". Forget mars, we can't explain coal here!

There is a large organic production in the tropics, but also a fast
turn-around of organic matter. A low production but an absent biodegradation
may result in accumulation - as is seen.

Carsten

On 26 Jan 2004 08:12:49 GMT, wrote:

But for a real kicker, just imagine if large quantities of GOLD
were found on mars! Wouldn't that be a hoot? You'd be amazed at
just how fast the cash would be found to implement Bush's mars
plans!

Bjacoby


Gold isn't that valuable to spend the millions it would take
to go get it.

Even if gold were mined there and brought here in huge
quantities it would not have the same value it has now.








--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Yes, there are thankfully no lights in my head, pest."
- Joseph Bartlo

wrote:
In sci.astro Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


By the way, I wonder why most of the world's coal and petroleum are
found in temperate zones and not near the equator or is that just a
false perception on my part?


I wouldn't call alaska north slope or Siberia "temperate" but as for
near the equator, it's interesting that since coal etc. are supposed to
be residue plant materials, one would predict that most of these deposits
would be found near the equator. Instead we find huge deposits way
north where plants are (now) sparce. Yet one more hole in "theory
of uniformity". Forget mars, we can't explain coal here!


Ignoring the fact that "in the north" is relative to today - and
that Siberia and Alaska were much nearer the (paleo)equator at
the time the plants grew and the coal formed.

On earth coals do not have much exposure in outcrop and so finding a
coal seam by chance is fairly low. If we stripped all of the organic
matter from the surface, a rover gadget might collect some evidence of
life from isotopic ratios in carbonates.

Very thick peats are accumulated to day in New Guinea, the trick is to
bury the wood fast enough to avoid oxidation.

Gibson's point is well taken, most Paleozoic coals were depostied much
nearer the equator. In addition, thick Pleistocene peats have
accumulated as a post glacial feature in the high northern latitudes.

Richard I. Gibson wrote:

wrote:

In sci.astro Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


By the way, I wonder why most of the world's coal and petroleum are
found in temperate zones and not near the equator or is that just a
false perception on my part?



I wouldn't call alaska north slope or Siberia "temperate" but as for
near the equator, it's interesting that since coal etc. are supposed to
be residue plant materials, one would predict that most of these
deposits
would be found near the equator. Instead we find huge deposits way
north where plants are (now) sparce. Yet one more hole in "theory
of uniformity". Forget mars, we can't explain coal here!


Ignoring the fact that "in the north" is relative to today - and that
Siberia and Alaska were much nearer the (paleo)equator at the time the
plants grew and the coal formed.

On 26 Jan 2004 08:12:49 GMT, carved in granite...

I wouldn't call alaska north slope or Siberia "temperate" but as for
near the equator, it's interesting that since coal etc. are supposed to
be residue plant materials, one would predict that most of these deposits
would be found near the equator. Instead we find huge deposits way
north where plants are (now) sparce. Yet one more hole in "theory
of uniformity". Forget mars, we can't explain coal here!
Gees, we can't even explain women! How can we expect to explain coal?

Well, maybe. Don't forget that this isn't some mining exploration.
You don't really need to stumble across some huge vein with commerical
value. A few tiny grains scattered on the ground can give a lot
of information!
What if we did find coal? Would we mine it or drill it or leave it alone?

But for a real kicker, just imagine if large quantities of GOLD
were found on mars! Wouldn't that be a hoot? You'd be amazed at
just how fast the cash would be found to implement Bush's mars
plans!
If we find gold up there, I'll be in line for the next trip and I'll have my
trusty gold pan. And a few thousand cases of beer and Jack Daniels to sell to
the miners....

--
"Volunteer emergency personel are like toilet paper- no one realizes how valuable they are until they're needed." -- Coalbunny


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In sci.astro Coalbunny wrote:
What if we did find coal? Would we mine it or drill it or leave it
alone?

I suspect the interest in coal isn't so much in coal itself, but in
the observation that the production of coal implies life at one time
yes?

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Robert Ehrlich wrote in message news:DYcRb.155946$xy6.747155@attbi_s02...
On earth coals do not have much exposure in outcrop and so finding a
coal seam by chance is fairly low. If we stripped all of the organic
matter from the surface, a rover gadget might collect some evidence of
life from isotopic ratios in carbonates.

Very thick peats are accumulated to day in New Guinea, the trick is to
bury the wood fast enough to avoid oxidation.

Gibson's point is well taken, most Paleozoic coals were depostied much
nearer the equator. In addition, thick Pleistocene peats have
accumulated as a post glacial feature in the high northern latitudes.


I wonder if there is something better than isotopic ratios. Not sure
if the 2 robots on Mars can make that sort of analysis. Probably
limited to general composition of rocks.

But I wonder if Mars really has coal seams and since Mars is
widespread meteor impact craters that a good probability of impacting
a coal seam would thus spread a fine dust layer of coal particles over
much of the surface although in minute amounts. I wonder if a soil
sample of the Moon was brought back and whether any coal particles
were found?

I think there is a good chance that if these 2 Mars robots can scoop
up some soil
and can thence analyze the tiny particles for coal, that there just
may be some coal found.

I know that when a meteor of large size impacts Earth that the carbon
can be turned into diamonds. I am not sure what happens when a meteor
impacts a coal seam and whether it can thus transform coal into tiny
diamonds. As opposed to a meteor impacting calcium carbonate rocks.
Perhaps diamonds formed from meteor impact on a coal seam have a
unique signature and that the meteor would uniformily spread the
diamonds.

But I think a meteor or large bolide impact on Mars could well spread
coal particles uniformly over much of the Martian surface and that if
the robots can detect tiny minute particles of coal, then, well, Mars
had as abundant of life as what Earth had at one time.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

In sci.astro DrPostman wrote:

Gold isn't that valuable to spend the millions it would take
to go get it.

Even if gold were mined there and brought here in huge
quantities it would not have the same value it has now.

As usual DrPostman you are lost in your debunking world of
reason! This isn't about reason! Gold has fired mankind's
imagination for just about EVER! I mean was the gold rush
in '49 "worth the trouble"? Nah. But people took to hidious
hardships just because it was, well, GOLD! GOLD in THEM THAR
MARTIAN HILLS, I tell ya!

bjacoby
(Who notes that in a way it's too bad that Gold always fires
the human imagination because it's really a pretty decent
engineering material!)
--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!