May
24, 2007
One Crater, Many
"Puzzles"
Elevated craters, called
"pedestal craters," exist in considerable numbers on the
surface of Mars. But the explanations given grow
increasingly implausible.
The innocent looking crater in the picture above throws an
uncomfortable light on one of innumerable Martian challenges
to planetary science. Though NASA scientists identify it as
an impact crater, its floor is higher than its
surroundings. That is the first mystery of pedestal craters.
How does an impact create a cavity raised above the
surrounding terrain?
NASA scientists have proposed explanations that are not only
speculative, they are often contradicted by the images
themselves. In analyzing the picture above, the Mars Global
Surveyor team begins with the assumption that the site of an
impact crater “has been modified by wind erosion.” The
process supposedly occurred in this way: the impactor struck
a region of relatively loose material susceptible to
erosion. The force of the impact created ejecta that
hardened into an “armor” against subsequent erosion.
According to the Mars Global Surveyor website, “This caused
the crater and ejecta to appear as if standing upon a raised
platform—a feature that Mars geologists call a pedestal
crater.”
But the remarkable complex of ridges required something
more: “Next, the pedestal crater was buried beneath several
meters of new sediment, and then this material was eroded
away by wind to form the array of sharp ridges that run
across the pedestal crater's surface.”
So apparently, the crater and its immediate surroundings
have two different explanations: first a hardening of ejecta
followed by erosion of surrounding material; and, second, a
deposition of fresh material followed by the sculpting of
“yardang” ridges by further wind erosion.
Of course, nothing would be more easily blown away than the
supposed loose material scattered by the impact. As numerous
experiments with impacts and explosions have shown, the
scattered debris is not melted. So there is no foundation
for the claim that ejecta created “armor” against erosion.
Though the authors are ambivalent as to the relationship of
the ridge patterns to the “impact” ejecta, it is quite
apparent that the crater lies in a layer of ridges that do
not stand in a radial relationship to the crater. Many of
them do not intersect with the crater at all, but run as
parallel ridges to the north and south of the crater.
This is surely why they have superimposed an improbable
“yardang” topography upon an equally improbable “pedestal”
form of an impact crater. If the two overlying ridge systems
were created by two radically different formative events,
how did it happen that the crater is centered within both.
Appeals to coincidence are one of the first signs that
something is wrong at the level of foundational assumptions.
Theoretical assumptions have a way of removing anomalies
from one’s field of view. In the electrical interpretation,
anomalous ridge patterns are one of the keys to the geologic
history of Mars. Consider, for example, the ridges running
in a northerly direction. More than a half-dozen of these
ridges terminate in bifurcation. No similar examples occur
in the southerly direction. Another coincidence?
Bifurcation at the initiation point of an electric discharge
is one of the most common features observed in laboratory
experiments. Bifurcation involves entwining current
filaments under the influence of magnetic fields produced by
the currents themselves. It is these magnetic fields that
“pinch” the filaments into rope-like configurations. The
magnetic force is also responsible for the flaring out of
the filaments at the point of discharge initiation. This
feature of high-energy discharge draws our attention to the
rope-like qualities of the ridges, while the flaring in the
northerly direction offers a strong clue as to the primary
direction of current flow.
In this instance and thousands of others on Mars, it is
clear that the red planet will not give up its secrets under
the demands of standard theory. Supposed “yardangs,”
“dunes,” and “wind erosion” must be counted among the
primary failures of theory to account for the patterns of
discovery. To show that these patterns are in fact
predictable under the electric view of Martian history
will be a primary purpose of our Picture of the Day in
coming weeks.