Mars - A Planet of a Thousand Mysteries

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wOogk2LSSw

Many of the anomalies confronting investigators of our celestial neighbor.

[CraigS]

G'Day Alex;

I'm needing some help on the Peratt thread !!

I'm trying my best !! .. I'm losing ..


Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Cool, lets try and keep threads on topic...

[renormalised (Carl)]

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.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

And now for some specifics... from Carl...

lets start with time stamps and rebuttals, if you are interested.

[renormalised (Carl)]

And now for some specifics... from Carl...

lets start with time stamps and rebuttals, if you are interested.

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.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

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.

[CraigS]

Seems to me the biggest mystery about Mars is:

"Where did all the water go?" (Mainstream question, here mind you).

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

Carl,

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.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

Carl,

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.

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 and 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...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/gl20.../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. 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 (much as Mars is now, but for different reasons).

[ngcles]

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.


Best,

Les D

[renormalised (Carl)]

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.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Do you understand the physics behind intraplate volcanism , Malcolm??

Do we have direct evidence of this existing on Mars?

Very similar processes have occurred on Mars.

How do we *know* this? It is assumed.

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.

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... ?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

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.


Best,

Les D

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!!!!.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

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.


Best,

Les D

Hi Les,

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.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Seems to me the biggest mystery about Mars is:

"Where did all the water go?" (Mainstream question, here mind you).

Cheers

Yes!.... An artifact of erosion only modeling.

Many mysteries indeed.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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 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... ?

Alex;

On modelling I mentioned my views the other day:

For the sake of the record, I’d just like to summarize my observations on the topic of modeling in the Cosmos. This seems to be where Alex has been focusing his dialog with me, in places throughout this thread.

On modelling:

2) Is there a need to connect models to the real world, if they explain some macro behaviours adequately, and make predictions ?

The connection with the real world is achieved by relating the known physical behaviours of the actual object in detail, to the model.

If the connections line up, then it can be used to achieve the next level of understanding and make credible predictions.

There seems to be a gap in the step connecting the real world to the EU models.

3) The weaknesses in the mainstream models sometimes emerge towards the end of the process but they have their strengths in real-world connectedness, thus going a long way towards establishing credibility for the strangeness which sometimes results, at the end.

4) I can see now why EU points to lab experiments as a way of achieving some credibility. The cosmos objects we are talking about however, are not lab objects. Scaling is modelling in itself, and thus should be explained in the same descriptive language as the objects themselves.

5) At this stage, the best I can suggest, in support of the EU models, is that they might be used as analogies, (or mind experiments), to explain some limited AstroPhysical phenomena for Electrical Engineering mindsets, but as far as real-world connectedness, there are major gaps and shortcomings. Some say they don’t even fit this bill.

6) The real science of Plasma Physics tackles the behaviour of Plasmas in the lab, in order to explain the behaviour of this substance, where it is shown to exist in the Universe. This is a common approach of mainstream science and I cannot see any major issues with this. In my mind, this aspect is clearly separate from linkage relationships established independently, by the EU folk.

Cheers

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.

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

And more to the point, Malcolm, where has your input been into these posts and conversations??.

Carl,

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.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Hi Craig, only to happy to try and provide some insight...

2) Is there a need to connect models to the real world, if they explain some macro behaviours adequately, and make predictions ?

The connection with the real world is achieved by relating the known physical behaviours of the actual object in detail, to the model.

If the connections line up, then it can be used to achieve the next level of understanding and make credible predictions.

There seems to be a gap in the step connecting the real world to the EU models.

EU stems from electrical engineering, much of the physics used is utilized in technology.

I don't see the *gap* you speak of? Expand?

3) The weaknesses in the mainstream models sometimes emerge towards the end of the process but they have their strengths in real-world connectedness, thus going a long way towards establishing credibility for the strangeness which sometimes results, at the end.

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

now...
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.

4) I can see now why EU points to lab experiments as a way of achieving some credibility. The cosmos objects we are talking about however, are not lab objects. Scaling is modelling in itself, and thus should be explained in the same descriptive language as the objects themselves.

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

5) At this stage, the best I can suggest, in support of the EU models, is that they might be used as analogies, (or mind experiments), to explain some limited AstroPhysical phenomena for Electrical Engineering mindsets, but as far as real-world connectedness, there are major gaps and shortcomings. Some say they don’t even fit this bill.

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...

6) The real science of Plasma Physics tackles the behaviour of Plasmas in the lab, in order to explain the behaviour of this substance, where it is shown to exist in the Universe. This is a common approach of mainstream science and I cannot see any major issues with this. In my mind, this aspect is clearly separate from linkage relationships established independently, by the EU folk.

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 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

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

Carl,

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.

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.