Mars - A Planet of a Thousand Mysteries

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

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.

[allan gould]

Malcom
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

[bojan]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

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.

Malcolm.
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).

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

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)

[sjastro]

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.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Hi Malcolm;

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

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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.

If we are to encourage young people to get into science then comments like - http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...25&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.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by Outbackmanyep

I am here Alex.

Why not have a read:
http://www.astrochem.org/docs/Brownlee%20(2004)-Science.pdf

Show me where it says anything about "spikey pinnacles hundreds of meters high" ?

Dr. Don Brownlee
Stardust Principal Investigator
October 29, 2009
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news116.html

We saw kilometer-sized deep holes bounded by vertical and even overhanging cliffs; flat topped hills surrounded by cliffs; spiky pinnacles hundreds of meters tall, pointed skyward:

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

[Outbackmanyep]

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!