View Full Version here: : Mars - A Planet of a Thousand Mysteries
05-10-2010, 01:54 PM
Many of the anomalies confronting investigators of our celestial neighbor.
05-10-2010, 02:01 PM
I'm needing some help on the Peratt thread !!
I'm trying my best !! .. I'm losing ..
05-10-2010, 02:24 PM
Cool, lets try and keep threads on topic...
05-10-2010, 02:33 PM
5 minutes of that was enough....is that all you can do, Alex, post youtube videos of more Neo Velikovskian rubbish. You and the originators have no idea about geology, none whatsoever. I have never heard such utter nonsense in all my time as a geologist (apart from the ridiculous theories of "Expanding Earth"). I couldn't even be bothered arguing with you, Alex, simply because no matter what I said, you're not going to listen. You're so caught up in your own little fantasy worlds, that nothing outside of that ridiculous reality is going to make any difference to your opinions. Just like astronomy, if I started to explain anything geological to you, I doubt you'd understand the physics behind it. And, despite your assertions to the contrary, you have no inclination of actually going and learning anything about geology. Despite the fact that there are mysteries on Mars which need looking into, we know more than enough to be able to say what is most likely going on there, though what really needs to happen is ground truthing. That means actually going there and studying it all in situ.
05-10-2010, 02:42 PM
And now for some specifics... from Carl...
lets start with time stamps and rebuttals, if you are interested.
05-10-2010, 02:53 PM
I don't need to prove anything here, Alex. You and your cronies made the ridiculous statements, you come out with the proof and the science behind it....with all the theory and maths behind it, and then it might be worth actually having this conversation.
05-10-2010, 02:57 PM
It's exactly what the body of work with experimental investigation does.
Many of the anomalies are cannot be explained by conventional geology, much like you admitted these are called "mysteries".
The video attached explores and provides hypothesis for them.
Speaking of which, OutbackManyEP (if you are out there)... do we have a standard-explanation for how a sublimating dirty snowball can form spikey pinnacles hundreds of meters high on it's surface? .... waiting.
05-10-2010, 03:17 PM
Seems to me the biggest mystery about Mars is:
"Where did all the water go?" (Mainstream question, here mind you).
05-10-2010, 03:50 PM
You are exhibiting the same symptoms as the Thunderbolts group, narrowmindeness. Maybe we need this or not!
If you have answer let us know now otherwise you opinion are the same un-proven theories.
I looked at the intial five minutes and thought could it be geological pulling apart in the centre some strange force - too long an introduction I feel, but the universe is massive and powerful and it could be just possible their theory (the last five minutes).
People in the old day were able to look up at the sky and study in their own minds what might be. Our early thoerist did this and founded many new things through completely new concepts.
We are not seeing much of this now.
I do not totally accept their thoery they are pursuing but I am not opposed to it as well but I feel would be a better place if people where not so argumentative about science.
I watched the other vids as well and they also come up with more controversal issue including theories of why Dark Matter and Dark Energy is not really there. Very interesting and seems more plausible than the theory of nothing but I am not about to accept that theory as well. It is contraversal but that is what many people but in the early days of science.
05-10-2010, 05:13 PM
It's not narrow mindedness, Malcolm. It's frustration at seeing so called "theory" that has little basis in the observational evidence and geological theory being bandied about as the real way it was formed and in the process being told be people with no education in the science, that as (a) geologist(s), (I) we don't know what (I'm) we're talking about!!!!!. This also goes to their pronouncements on astronomy and astrophysics (and other subjects as well). Have a good look at just what they say, in their own words on their own sites (especially holoscience.org (http://www.holoscience.com/) and www.electric-cosmos.org (http://www.electric-cosmos.org)).
What this has to do with is this (it's simple science)....you make a claim about something, then you better have the facts to back them up. Otherwise it's nothing more than speculation at best and wild fantasy at worst.
Do you understand the physics behind intraplate volcanism , Malcolm??
If I'm about to go into explaining the mechanisms behind it, then I'm hoping you know enough to be able to follow it because I'll be wasting my breath going over the same things again and again and not get anywhere. I'm not here to teach anyone geology, you can go learn that yourselves.
Vallis Marineris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Marineris)...there's a simple synopsis of the Mariner Valley on Mars.
Put it simply, it's a series of fault valleys (grabens) that formed along the side of the Tharsis Bulge after most of the volcanism in that area subsided and the crust was no longer supported by the upwelling of the large volumes of magma that supported the bulge. The bulge is still there simply because of the thickness of the crust in the area. The grabens of the valley formed along the periphery of the bulge, where the crust wasn't as thick. There was some stretching of the crust in the area at the time (incipient rifting), but that all came to a halt after several hundred million to a billion years....these valleys were not made overnight. The age of the Bulge and the Valley range over the Noachian to Late Hesperian Epochs of Martian time (probably between 4.2 to 3.2Ga).
http://geology.com/articles/east-africa-rift.shtml...about rift valleys (specifically the East African Rift Valley)
http://www.le.ac.uk/geology/art/gl209/lecture7/lecture7.html ...discussion on mantle plumes
Very similar processes have occurred on Mars.
If you want to learn more about it, go to the sites I provided or I can recommend to you some books to read.
The crustal dichotomy is believed to have been formed either by a single impact or series of impacts. Basically, they blew away part of the upper crust of the planet early during its formation and left a low lying surface. It also could've been formed by very early plate tectonics, much as ocean basins formed on both Earth and Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Venus). If you want to talk about crustal dichotomies, then those two planets far exceed the level of dichotomy as shown on Mars, Venus being the most extreme example. Just because Mars shows no sign of plate tectonics now, doesn't mean it never had it in the past. Venus, now, shows no sign of plate tectonics. As a matter of fact, it is a one plate planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Venus) (much as Mars is now, but for different reasons).
05-10-2010, 06:17 PM
Hi Alex, Carl & All,
Just goes to prove the old principle that you should never make do with a simple, well supported hypothesis when you can have a convoluted one with essentially no backing evidence.
Just love the commentary on the video ... it has the air of Von Daniken about it.
Seriously Alex, and I'm not normally so blunt or direct mate, but the content of that video is quite simply (and damn the torpedos ...) bollocks.
05-10-2010, 06:17 PM
And more to the point, Malcolm, where has your input been into these posts and conversations??.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, because it's not me (or Steven or anyone else here) that's been making these pronouncements and such. It's Alex. He's been brought to question and asked any number of times to explain himself and his posts, yet he has continually avoided doing so. Whenever there has been "some attempt", the effort in doing so hasn't been worth it and left everyone with even more questions and less answers. He claims to want to learn and is open minded about it all. I think a quick look at all his posts will prove otherwise. And so far as me not listening to his ideas....I think you'll find that I have said on numerous occasions that plasma science is legitimately involved in astrophysics but that it has its place and is not the overarching panacea of all that ails astrophysics, or explains (or even is applicable to) every situation and observation. If I wasn't broad or open minded, I wouldn't be a scientist. However, as with any discipline, there has to be some limits otherwise you'd be chasing every crazy idea and supercilious nonsense around and no progress would happen. That's why they call them disciplines....discipline of thought, logic, mind. Discipline of theory and observation. If you start believing in everything and anything, then you might as well give up and take up a religion like Scientology, because the way the EU crowd behave is almost akin to it (with respect to their attitudes to science and scientists (those people not of their mindset and contrary to their ideas)). It makes about as much sense.
05-10-2010, 06:22 PM
Do we have direct evidence of this existing on Mars?
How do we *know* this? It is assumed.
So given that both Venus and Mars show very little, if no, plate tectonics activity it is just an assumption that these plate tectonic processes existed?
With very much respect, I do not see direct evidence here to rule out the EU hypothesis.
Contrary, EU seems able to explain these features *without* the tectonic activity that may or may not have occurred in the distant currently unverifiable past.
Yes the hypothesis is different, as we look to explore Mars we should examine the testable differences in hypothesis to make falsifying predictions. Carl your knowledge of current terrestrial (mainstream) geology can no doubt help us explore these.
Something like EU expects this... MS does not... MS expects this... EU does not... etc... ?
05-10-2010, 06:22 PM
It's Neo Velikovskian catastrophism couched in pseudoscientific nonsense. It has little if nothing going for it...what's worse is its abuse of real science for the sake of sensationalism and wild speculative, fantasy.
It's not even good Sci-fi!!!!.
05-10-2010, 06:24 PM
Do you have any specifics to add there Les?
Contrare Les, you are often blunt and direct and rarely provide any meaningful detail to your bow-shots.
05-10-2010, 06:28 PM
Yes!.... An artifact of erosion only modeling.
Many mysteries indeed.
05-10-2010, 06:31 PM
On modelling I mentioned my views the other day:
I haven't changed much since I wrote this.
Comparing EU hypotheses with mainstream would seem not be be a direct comparison. Is this because of the relative immaturity of the EU hypotheses?
You comments would be appreciated.
05-10-2010, 06:32 PM
I have objection to your ideas or anything else present, I undestand a bit about the science of electricity as I have been trained in it.
Maybe you are right, or maybe they are right, who knows until we get there.
What really erks me is that as soo rude in your comments on an open forum. You really put people off. Your ideals are best suited for closed geology forums.
Most discussion you are involved in I try to steer clear of but as this one is close to my understanding I got involved (Maybe never agin). Still do not accept it but has a small amount of grounding not to reject it either.
05-10-2010, 06:49 PM
Hi Craig, only to happy to try and provide some insight...
EU stems from electrical engineering, much of the physics used is utilized in technology.
I don't see the *gap* you speak of? Expand?
Mainstreams models depend on many unverified and hypothesized physics... yes as you point out these tend to come at the end as adhock inventions. Dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars are all examples of this.
Maybe LIGO will find something... it hasn't
Maybe LHC will find higgs... it hasn't
Maybe sustained nuclear fusion reaction is possible.... it hasn't been
Maybe a plasma ball looks like a star, with twisting birkeland currents travelling off the surface of the anode. Verified in lab and solar system by insitu measurements. bing.
Maybe Peratt built a model based on plasma laws, then Bostick actually created it with plasma, and the geometry, rotation profile of this 'real thing' matched the observations of spiral galaxies. bing.
Are we forgetting the space-craft verified electric currents that supply power to our auroras, between moons of jupiter etc.
Lab --> terrestrial --> solar system.... have been predicted/modelled and verified by insitu measurements
mind experiments? like blackholes, event horizons, paradoxes?
No you are totally ignoring instu measurements of birkeland currents 'flux toobs'.
They were predicted... they are there...
Yeah... kinda agree here.. i have no problem with it...
The main differences that EU make from mainstream (to me) are qualitative and particularly geometrical predictions based on the dipole (http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/images/NASA/SN1987A.jpg) nature of celestial events, which ideal gas laws do not predict.
What happened to that rant you deleted Carl? asking me to leave? Deleting posts etc? If it upsets *you* too much, vote with *your* feet.... or yes lets explore some details.
Why do i pop in / out... day job brother ;)
05-10-2010, 06:53 PM
This is a forum for science, amateur or otherwise. If he puts forward an idea that has no basis for its veracity in any observations or theoretical evidence based on those observations, then it is anyone's place here to say so, if they have the necessary training and experience to say so. I am a geologist, and have nearly finished my Masters in astrophysics (so I am working towards my professional qualifications in this field as well). I think I may know a little bit about both subjects. If I didn't understand the science, I wouldn't make any posts...full stop. I'm not stupid, nor am I one to make statements without having anything to back them up with. I also make sure that what I post has veracity and makes sense, not post fantasy or dubious science.
When someone comes out and make statements about the veracity of something and has no verifiable facts to back them up, then all they're doing is making speculation.
If you want to contribute to the subject, then I welcome it. The more people the merrier. If not, that's fine as well.
05-10-2010, 07:00 PM
Thanks for your reply.
The 'gap' I speak about followed two huge posts by Carl about neutron stars/pulsars the other day. His 'thesis' covered many detailed aspects of mainstream theory and there seemed to be no feedback (or equivalent) points coming from EU/PC. In my mind those gaps still exist.
If we change tack and go back to martian geology, I can see we're heading back to exactly the same place (except topic = Mars) and making no progress (again).
Bojan is still hangin' for his relaxation oscillator … ??
PS: Weird stuff happening here with the board.
05-10-2010, 07:06 PM
Bojan is still hangin' for his relaxation oscillator … ??
Did he not get Peratts paper? I saw this was discussed... or did we want to explore Scott/Thornhill.... i'm not sure if a detailed paper has been developed on this? Will have a dig... Ofcourse qualitatively it's quite simple to produce the relaxation oscillator... but yes... lets try stick to topics... I'll try jump over to Carl's detail and respond...
Re Weird stuff... I saw and read Carl's demand that i leave IIS... happy to dig up cache... or maybe you could repost Carl if anything worthwhile was in it?
05-10-2010, 07:13 PM
No relaxation oscillator has been sighted in any Peratt paper. What we saw was a transmission line model for the 'ropes'.
DOes this mean you'll keep looking for it ? I'm interested, also.
I've seen the PEratt circuit diag for the Sun/Earth 'circuit'. 'Twas interesting. The values of the components may be a little overstated.
OK. Thanks. Not getting into that one. I think IIS needs an 'Alternatives' Forum to discuss models in the making. 'Twould go some way to avoiding the angst.
05-10-2010, 07:28 PM
Thats on the edge of a white flag for rigorous discussion, i think you, sj and carl by this discussion have raised some great questions. Apart from the sledging and name calling ofcourse. ;) irrelevant water off a ducks bum.
And...we'd kinda have to put DM, DE, etc in the "developing science" category though yeah? since well they are only extremely detailed hypothetical mathematical models, without any physical evidence.
I'm happy for an alternatives forum, only if we call this one Big Bang Standard Model Exclusive Cosmology or something like that. Since these EU/PC hypothesis' are being examined by NASA (see Don Scott @ NASA Goddard), and contain peer reviewed science papers we cannot seem dismiss them as 'crackpot'.
I guess i'm puzzled as to how science progresses functions without alternatives.... as i think we also have Malcom alluding to here.
I agree, It does seem that the 'alternatives' to create some angst here. We should not be afraid of rigorous discussion and dismiss potential ideas, i feel this is a dangerous and insulating way for science to progress.
anyways.. /end rant... back to mars!
If i remember correctly an external current was hypothesised to provide for this... Yes i will endevour to dig up more on ES-pulsars. Don Scott recently released the mathematical electrical model of the Sun's electric field (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield92210.pdf), interestingly i think Bridgeman had mentioned he had apparently 'tried in vein to achieve'. You are quite correct, with only a handful of theorists, this is a quantitatively developing model, although qualitatively very different to MS with clear differences.
05-10-2010, 07:30 PM
Well I'd invite you to take a look at a larger variety of my posts here.
You are fortunate Alex that Carl has the time, forebearance and patience to argue with and correct you. While I have a great deal of respect for Carl, it is not my approach here to dealing with E.U "theory".
As I see it, if I spend the time to argue with you I am giving this stuff a hint of respectability and legitimacy as a "competing theory" or "alternate explanation". I am dismissive with E.U on-purpose for that reason alone. It's not you Alex, it's what you are saying. I do the same with the Planet X / Nibiru proponents. I have an open mind, but it isn't open so far that my brains have fallen out.
And that leads me to recall an exchange between Arthur and Bedevere as they ride toward Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
Bedevere: "... and that my liege is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped."
Arthur: "This new learning amazes me Bedevere, explain once more how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."
Bedevere: "Certainly my liege!"
05-10-2010, 07:40 PM
Yep... More of the same...
EU is being discussed at NASA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y) and contains a body peer reviewed papers in well respected journals.... doesn't means it's correct, but it is being seriously considered....
If this does not 'concern' you why make the comment? and then allude to a connection to 'planet-x' theory and Monty python skits to dismiss? All due respect, this response is irrelevant misleading nonsense Lez.
05-10-2010, 07:40 PM
Don't get carried away there, Alex … I'll probably get 'lynched' tomorrow !!
05-10-2010, 07:44 PM
haha... it's a loud growl... peel it back, it reveals to not much of a bite..
kudos for your spirit though... i agree with much of your direction and insightful questions.
05-10-2010, 07:47 PM
I'll be clear for all ..
I'm here to learn. It started out to learn about mainstream science/ astronomy.
I can still achieve this goal by looking into your world to learn more about mainstream. (All without my brains dropping out .. I think …).
I have nothing to hide .. everyone has it all !!
05-10-2010, 07:58 PM
The EU is not being discussed at NASA....Plasma Physics is, Alex. The EU only hijacked PC (plasma cosmology) for it's own purposes, it never originated it, nor has it helped the cause of PC in any way by espousing the nonsense that it has. As for the "respectable journals", it's mostly been published in journals that only IEEE members (electrical and electronic engineers....not astrophysicists and other astronomers and physicists) read, and where something is mentioned in the astronomical journals, it's been in journals with lax peer review standards and low citation indices (which means the quality of the science in those journals isn't as stringent or well regarded as with other journals).
The fact that Les was cynically commenting on what you have written is only a reflection of what you have written.
06-10-2010, 07:19 AM
You should have a look at the list you recently compiled for how pseudoscience operates and note how this thread has been patterned on those principles.
06-10-2010, 08:46 AM
Do you mean this one ? ..
Updated list of Pseudoscience distinctions (ie: ways of detecting pseudoscience):
(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");
(4) No evidence of ever having gone through 'Peer Review' and announcements made in mainstream media, before journal publication.
(5) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data, which may be used to disprove the theory.
I think this was the last revision ..
06-10-2010, 09:32 AM
That's correct. Note the none too subtle application of (1).
06-10-2010, 09:57 AM
Ok .. I've done some more thinking on all this .. there is clear evidence of pseudoscience.
There is also evidence of legitimate research in some of the links posted by Alex. (Not all .. just some).
I've just watched Don Scott's Youtubes (Alex's NASA link).
Scott's point he makes in this lecture is fairly innocuous. All he's saying (presumably, to mainstream AstroPhysicists), is 'try this on'.
Frankly, I can't see much wrong with this. Perhaps as the situation becomes more agitated, people revert to the extreme fringes in order to defend. This is just human nature .. nothing more.
The lack of maturity of the legitimate research when applying Plasma Physics to AstroPhysics could in fact be, the result of just what they claim .. that the concepts are rejected outright, without a lot of deliberation by those who reject it outright.
I'm not saying that legit scientists like Plait, Wright, etc aren't considering their ideas, but where it seems to fall apart is the lack of a track record of real supporting evidence in the cosmos, and the scalability of lab simulations.
But to use a recent example from here .. habitable zones/exoplanet life thread. It turns out that the search for life is driven purely from a 'matter of faith' motivator. There is no real evidence to drive the search. All these guys are asking for is a 'little faith' and support.
Is this so bad ?
06-10-2010, 10:17 AM
Scott would have to be careful about what he said at NASA, simply because if he started to propose to them most of his ideas, he'd be shown the door. The simple fact he toned it down, and that he is a credentialed electrical engineer allowed him to get away with a few small things.
The reason why scientists get narky about this stuff is exactly for the sames reasons we do. These people propose theories, which have little or no verifiable evidence, science that is ambiguous at best and fraudulent at worst, and the temerity to come out and spin their nonsense as being legitimate science. Then when you ask them for the proof and evidence, they get either defensive about it or run a mile to avoid having to answer for themselves. That's why most scientists don't even bother with them.
The "results" they come out with are rejected on the basis of their science content and its veracity. Regardless of any shortcomings of the peer review system, it's far better to have at least some sort of control over what is considered to be good science than having it an open door policy to every nutcase and bad idea that gets bandied about. I think it was Carl Sagan (or someone equally as famous) that once said "It's always good to keep an open mind, but not that open it becomes a sewer". Otherwise, keep open to new ideas and such, but don't believe everything that comes out, without having a critical and logical appraisal of what it is you're considering.
The HZ/Life search may have an element of "faith" about it, but it's hardly not a highly thought out and considered subject. Despite the fact we only really have one example, these guys aren't silly and they do know this. Actually, I feel they're not doing too bad a job at the science, despite the limitations and the obvious speculative nature of the subject.
They could do better, though:)
06-10-2010, 10:24 AM
Er .. the 'guys' I'm referring to would be the PC guys.
I was attempting to draw analogy from 'the search for life' clan. Sorry if my words weren't clear on this point.
Interesting analogy though … is SETI more credible than Alven, Peratt/Healy and/or Scott ?
06-10-2010, 10:30 AM
Far more....at least it's based on clear and good science, even if it is considered by some to be fringe.
You mentioned Scott and Co.
The only legitimate research in some of Alex's posts would be due to Perrat and others having their papers published in journals, where some of those papers were topics in but not exclusively dealing with PC. Or papers not directly connected with their ideas (Arp's papers etc), but used to "back" them up.
06-10-2010, 11:05 AM
Mars is such an interesting planet as it offers the opportunity of debate on such unrelated matters.
You guys are not being very cool.
If a matter is science is can be called such..if a matter is speculation it can be called such.... and if we follow this simple principle folk should not have to get personal.
I live in a community where some folk believe in the most ridiculous things and yet I am polite and never rude or condescending and with such an approach I enjoy the companionship of many people with different views who still turn out to be decent folk.
If either of the Universes seeking domination are to have any cred then look up the areas of current concern in physics..sun's corona etc and go for it ..solve those problems with the t3eachings of your universe against all others...do some real stuff and answer the big questions but if that is too hard at least try to operate with respect for the individual without denigration of their character.
Sorry for getting off topic but this arguing without result is pointless.
Irrespective of which universe you like to support and irrespective of the science one can enlist the truth is humans know very little as they are confined to a very small part of the universe and can only ever speculate upon matters they profess to have absolute understanding upon... such conduct is arrogance and is best avoided if one wishes to be a decent person.
06-10-2010, 11:17 AM
I am here Alex.
Why not have a read:
Show me where it says anything about "spikey pinnacles hundreds of meters high" ?
06-10-2010, 11:25 AM
Alex (as in xelasnave),
Your post is all well and good, but, this is the science forum, not the pseudoscience forum.
06-10-2010, 02:17 PM
Science had to start somewhere, early astronomers who were outcast or even sentenced to death for proposing Psuedo-sceince known at the time. Do we still live in the dark ages then that this forum cannot even suggest aternatives to mainstream thinking, which is what this post is about.
An example when I did my aprentiship was to suggest Diode blocked half an AC waveform in a single direction, this was mainstream at the time. I felt along with another person at the time that a diode was harmonic generator that produced so many harmonics that it appeared to block. It turned out few years later that it was partcially true as it was easily proven by placing a band pass filter after the diode and re-creating the waveform minus a small distortion.
The same is said about any people who put together ideas against mainstream. It take many years of being an outcast before finally being recognised at least in part for some of the earlier finding. People mostly have to die before being recognised.
Lets try an discuss science post with some respect for what other people think. It is an amateur forum not a discussion site for proffessional, lets give the amateurs some say here without being told we a no good stupid people who dont deserve to right to say anything.
06-10-2010, 03:45 PM
While agreeing with your sentiments I cant agree with the proposers of crazy theories that allow no rational arguement to prevail. Thats not science.
As you say in your second sentence the fault lay not in the proposal of a new theory but with the blind dogmatism of the Church at the time that they were right and that no rational arguement could dissuade them from their point of view. The church doesnt/didnt use science but faith.
Your example of the manner in which a diode works is science. It was once thought to work one way which sattisfied the majority but not all. When another hypothesis was proposed and TESTED a different interpretation became the consensus that sattisfied you. But remember that may not be the complete answer.
People dont have to die before their thoughts are recognised. Both Gallileo and Copernicus etc had their detractors but also their immediate converts. What wins out is the testing of rational thought and ideas to approach an understanding of the problem. Not a dogmatic and empiracle diatribe.
Stupid ideas have very short legs in science. The reason many crazies continue with their beliefs is that they never apply a scientific rational to their pronouncements nor rigorously test them in an open and verifyable manner.
Just my 2 cents
06-10-2010, 03:57 PM
Both models of a diode you are mentioning are actually accurate.
The difference is in mathematical analysis.
One model (blockage of current in one direction) is more applicable to low frequencies, including DC.
The other one (harmonics generator) is more suitable for higher frequencies ....
However, the full mathematical model predicts that because diode has a very non-linear u-i characteristic (meaning, it passes current in only one direction), it will generate higher harmonics.. and their sum will result in waveform showing only one half-period.
I think your example is not a good one... it only shows the difference in approach (simplified apprenticeship level versus comprehensive uni level).
06-10-2010, 05:25 PM
Yes I agree, I am in Trade not Uni, although am re-considering my options, but the whole meaning was that there is a lot of people in the forum are interested in science but not overall advanced in understanding. I do understand a lot more than I expressed as I have positioned my life and work on helping people understand in very simple language. My clients are extreme techno-phobes and it is hard to break that habit.
You may have notice I did say I was partially correct for that very reason I just didn't go into it.
This type of discussion doesn't matter who bring it up should not be knock down by someone saying we are sensless useless humans that should not post these type of discussion at all.
This is why I never post science questions on this forum. At this stage I would like to get involved a understand greater the area of Astro Physics. The original post showed me something of interest and all the time I have said it I do not accept it automatically but would like to question it. Intead as with a lot of posts on the science section they are full of bad mouth slanging matches.
It would be nice if a civil tongue was used and suggestion ideas to refute with detailled explaination on why preferrably in a more simpe language. It seems this forum is only open to University Graduates.
The other issue I have is that English is not my primary language I speak at home and work. I have lost a bit of my more advanced language. Most of my post are conversational English compared to written English. (another thing I am looking at correcting)
06-10-2010, 05:33 PM
It's not surprising when a science forum is used as a vehicle for peddling misinformation conflicts invariably arise. In this case the misinformation is not the pseudoscience itself but how mainstream science is portrayed.
The descriptions used for mainstream science by one particular individual is totally misleading. If science was a person this would amount to character assasination.
This is how pseudoscience operates. It cannot stand on it's own merits, it requires a whipping boy as a diversion.
Despite the tribulations, I think the behaviour here has been quite responsible. If you want to see truly vile behaviour go to the Thunderbolts forum.
06-10-2010, 05:41 PM
If I was to say what I thought this forum was really about, I'd have to say it is primarily about "Rational Thinking".
To express rational thought clearly, requires a certain mastery over the language of the medium.
To understand the science requires knowledge.
University degrees are optional, but not a hinderance to clear expression.
I too, find the heated debates, disturbing at times. People are people. They have emotional outbursts when there is much thought to convey.
The content remaining on the threads usually contains gold for knowledge seekers. I would weigh this against the emotional outbursts in considering the value of what goes on here.
That's just my two cents worth. Your views too, are valuable. I thank you for them.
Cheers & Rgds
06-10-2010, 05:52 PM
If we are to encourage young people to get into science then comments like - http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=642225&postcount=4 should not take place.
I dont think people really read all messages I have already mentioned way at the beginning that Thunderbolt are narrowminded, and as I have further digested into the site and the topic the more I begin to realise that is is more malarky. But that doesn't alter the fact that people join this group to hopefully understand more about topic.
For me it is ended up as some interesting tit-bits of information instead of accepting the whole concept. There is still a bit of science in the topic but it is far removed from some realistic fact. I would still like to feel involved in the subject but feel more and more alienated even though I don't agree
I will though never discount it entirely until someone digs a hole in the widswept martain sand and either find plasma fused rock or geological pulling apart of the crust.
Theories are great but in the end both sides will eventually need proof.
06-10-2010, 09:22 PM
Dr. Don Brownlee
Stardust Principal Investigator
October 29, 2009
Thornhill's 'electrical nature of comets' paper in IEEE has described much of the anomalies encountered by standard, essentially he is describing a 'rock' being EDM'd by the electrical environment of the sun as the comet passes from low potential to high potential regions, yes it is only a hypothesis... but it's well developed and published... and so it stands with it's predictions.
i'm very seriously interested in any developments standard hypothesis (sublimating snowballs) has for this surface feature... should you and robK might have contact with yeoman et al?
back to you
07-10-2010, 09:42 AM
There are other explanations of the pinnacles in the paper that i sent the link for, did you read it? It was done in 2004!
As for Thornhills paper, do you have a copy of it? I can only find an abstract, if it's well developed and published then it should be freely available!
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.