Olympus mons - ejection point, not a volcano

[lw1990]

I apologize if this has been proposed elsewhere, it is an original idea as far as I know

Olympus mons is regarded as the 'largest planetary volcano' we know of, it exists on Mars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Mons

I would like to suggest that this is not a volcano, but an ejection point of one of the cores of Mars (it had two cores, like Earth, which produced a magnetic field). One of the cores had some asymmetrical event, and for whatever reason ejected out of Mars, taking much of the atmosphere along with it.

Besides the sheer size of Olympus Mons hinting to us that it is not a volcano, there is also the depression it sits in, about one mile deep, created by the void when the core was ejected. Olympus Mons sits in a depression, but the depression is part of the Tharsis bulge, which sits in the Tharsis trough, showing that when the core was ejected, creating Olympus Mons, it effected a third of the planets topography. No volcano would do that..

[Lloyd]

The owners of this website have discussed the same idea since at least 2004. Here's a TPOD excerpt.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... s-mons.htm
Jul 05, 2004
Olympus Mons
Do we see any volcano on Earth produce such a configuration on its summit now? We can find none. Yet the pattern is repeated more than once on the Martian Tharsis Bulge (row of pictures below), including the summit of neighboring Ascraeus Mons (lower left), a striking replica of the Olympus Mons "calderas". The electrical hypothesis maintains that within minutes successive strokes from a cosmic lightning bolt lifted the peak and carved the craters on the summit.

I disagree that there are no similar objects on Earth. There are seamounts under the ocean, such as off the coast of Oregon, which look very similar to the Olympus Mons summit. So, besides the theory of arc discharges forming such objects, it's possible that tectonic forces could form them as well, possibly in combination with flood waters. I think it's highly unlikely that arc discharges could raise up mountains or volcanoes, but more likely that tectonic forces involving horizontal compression could raise them up.

You said: I would like to suggest that this is not a volcano, but an ejection point of one of the cores of Mars (it had two cores, like Earth, which produced a magnetic field). One of the cores had some asymmetrical event, and for whatever reason ejected out of Mars, taking much of the atmosphere along with it.

Besides the sheer size of Olympus Mons hinting to us that it is not a volcano, there is also the depression it sits in, about one mile deep, created by the void when the core was ejected. Olympus Mons sits in a depression, but the depression is part of the Tharsis bulge, which sits in the Tharsis trough, showing that when the core was ejected, creating Olympus Mons, it effected a third of the planets topography. No volcano would do that.

I think you should say "affected", not "effected". "Effected" means "produced" or "resulted in". "Affected" means "had an effect on".

It's interesting what you say about Olympus Mons setting in a mile-deep depression. Since the northern hemisphere of Mars was apparently hit by a large asteroid that tore off much of the surface and a smaller one hit in the southern hemisphere, it seems that such impacts could have produced the depression and mounds. Why do you say Earth has two cores? It has only one. And magnetic fields seem likely to be caused by electric double layers within planets and stars. If the negative layer/s rotate/s faster than the positive, the magnetic field will be oriented one way, and if the positive becomes faster, the field reverses. See Charles Chandler's paper, Geomagnetism, at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10862.

Satellite scientist, John Ackerman, has a similar theory to yours about Mars' core. He thinks it was ejected as a fluid through the canyon, Valles Marineris, during a close approach with another planet, and the core became the planet Mercury. He thinks Venus formed from Jupiter's Great Red Spot, when an asteroid or something hit Jupiter. His website is http://firmament-chaos.com.

What makes you think the core was ejected? The asteroids that hit the northern and southern hemispheres could have removed the atmosphere. Don't you agree? The northern asteroid especially could have, because it seems that it also removed much of the northern crust. I think Charles thinks the canyon is a rift in the shield volcano of the Tharsis region.

[lw1990]

Very cool that others have similar ideas about this, I had no idea!

Do you happen to have any info on the size of the similar structures on Earth's oceanic surface?

The sheer size of the affected region of Olympus Mons is what makes this different than a volcano to me, not necessarily the hole itself or the other interesting, eye-grabbing features, just the sheer size.
However coupled with the sheer size of influence, the depression Olympus Mons sits in shows, to me, that a large mass was removed or as you say, a large collision happened. A meteor hit is not consistent with the ground being lifted up out of the ejection point. To me, that shows something was removed. The only thing which could be removed like that from within the planet is a core.

The earth has two dynamic rotating cores because it has a fluidic magnetic field, with magnetic lines constantly forming and diffusing. In static binary cores, such as in a permanent magnet, lines are fixed. A planet with a single core cannot generate a magnetic field, they are the product of interfacing cores.

The fact that the Earth has two tidal bulges also shows it has two cores (whereas the moon only has one virtual core (the uniform mass of the moon as a whole functions as a single virtual core) and one tidal bulge).

About the asteroids removing the atmosphere - I have no idea, but when Mars had two cores, it would slowly (but relatively quickly in the galactic scale of things) regenerate/form a new atmosphere even if it was taken away, this isn't happening because it only has one core now.

Kind of off topic, but more about Earth's binary cores:
Both the Earth's axis and magnetic field axis have their own precession cycle, independent from one-another. The Earth's surface precession cycle is approximately 26,000 years. The magnetic field's precession cycles fluctuates anywhere from 30,000 to several million years; which have been identified through magnetic polarity changes in lava flows, and old rock formations. Three primary internal dynamic processes occur that determine the precession cycles of Earth's magnetic field: 1- independent rotation of each of the planetary cores, 2- orbital rotation of cores around one-another, and 3- rotation of the core structure as a single unit. The combinations of these three cycles can produce thousands of sub-cycles; cycles within cycles, causing magnetic field precession in many different ways, over many different periods of time.

Other factors influencing planetary precession (in the case of Earth):
1. Earth's moon, which is inside Earth's gravity field and interfacing with it as a form of asymmetry
2. Plate tectonics of shifting plates changing mass distribution of earth and its rotational dynamic
3. Passing-by asteroids and comets, solar activity, and exterior disturbances (like meteor hits)

[Lloyd]

I don't know the heights of seamounts, but it's probably not hard to find out. I think they're a thousand meters or so high from the ocean floor. Here are some links, though I think the one I saw a few years ago was much more similar to Olympus Mons.

President Jackson Seamounts:
http://www3.mbari.org/data/mapping/West ... ackson.htm

Near Ridge Seamounts:
http://www.mbari.org/near-ridge-seamounts

Ely Seamount:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/weekl ... ounts.html

I've never heard any theory of two cores in any star or planet before. I don't think it makes sense that there could be two cores that orbit each other. There could be an inner core and an outer core, or concentric rings of material, but not two cores side-by-side. Please see Charles Chandler's papers that explain how the interior electrically charged layers formed and how they produce global magnetic fields when one charged layer attains a higher velocity than another. See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031.

[lw1990]

Height of Olympus Mons was not impressive to me, the volume of the affected area was (the raised area as well as the depression it sits in), just trying to be clear as to the reason why I suspect it was a core ejection and not a normal volcano or something.

For the record I think our Sun has at least three cores, with other stars having potentially many more. Stars can have very complex magnetic fields as a result, as well as complex solar activity (like solar flare cycles). (just in case I'm right in the future I want to plug this claim in ). Also I don't believe stars ever 'die' like orthodox science proposes, it simply diffuses, is not bright for a time, and slowly collects mass again (core remains). Also I don't think nuclear reactions power stars, even though they happen near/on the surface of stars. Nuclear-star-power link was proposed because orthodox science could not think of any alternative energy source.

Interesting that no major or alternative theories seem to propose multiple cores in celestial bodies - I am basically unlearned in alternative theories (as well as orthodox physics/cosmology). I suppose nobody truly knows for certain what goes on at the center of a large planet or star because we have no way to see yet.

[JouniJokela]

I found this issue interesting, and I share the view point that there is no such volcano in Earth. Nor the whole solarsystem. What I have noticed, is that on the opposite side of the mars, there is this low region;



I mean this deep-blue spot in W70 S40. It's like the material would have been sucked through the whole planet.

I have no reasonable explanation or hypothesis for this. This is just an observation and the Idea that followed.