When I read this, written by Bradenbutrg himself, it became pretty damn evident why he cannot publish anything in any reputable journal. Basically what he means is that he has some data that is difficult to interpret (welcome to fucking science research 101), so he will make drastic assumptions for which there is no evidence to support, and draw concrete conclusions. It's like saying, "the Yeti could explain this dead animal, and so if we assume this is true, then the Yeti exists and therefore must be at least 10 ft tall with a size 22 shoe that he probably had to special order from Walmart." Norse, you are being duped my man. I really thought you were more inquisitive than this.
This just gets better and better.. lol Tell me, did they do these computer tests on the followup photos? You know, the ones that show that it's not actually a face.. or does your belief mandate that you ignore those photos? Cause if you do what you think you do, and that is update your knowledge and belief on a constant basis, you'd know that it was an optical illusion.. but let me guess, that is probably a coverup? People are hardwired to see a face.. hence the man in the moon and everything else people attribute facial features to. Put 2 circles and a line together and it'll resemble a face. That is on Mars too.. maybe these advanced civilizations really really loved The Muppets? lol, such a fucking joke..
The trick is not debunking it, but finding a bigger conspiracy that subordinates the first one. That way, you're playing on an even playing field.
Its possible he is wrong, thats why i nor anyone need to create a religion out of a science claim. If in 2 years he or someone else says " oh new data just in, we figured it out it was more probable it was caused by x, y, z than theromonuclear explosions" i will have no problem accepting that. The problem is people invest themselves to he point where it is emotionally difficult to abandon their dogma. Ive had to forget most of what i have learned multiple times as new science is available. No big deal to me. I dont have emotional attachmenta to science theories, i simply enjoy the journey. I do get emotional when things that are clearly wrong are continually espoused as fact, it slows down my journey. I dont know if the quantum realm is real but i like it because it is so counterintuative, but it may be counterintuative because its wrong. Time will tell, i dont care either way just keep progressing.
John E. Brandenburg is a plasma physicist at Orbital Technologies in Madison Wisconsin, working on space plasma technologies and space propulsion. He also performed research on the MET(Microwave Electro-Thermal) plasma thruster for space propulsion, Rocket Plume- Regolith Interactions on the Moon and Mars, Vortex theory of Rocket engine design, and Kaluza-Klein theory of Field Unification for purposes of space propulsion. He also performed an architecture study for a Human Mars Mission using solar electric propulsion. Before coming to ORBITEC he was performing research on air plasmas and plasma propulsion at Florida Space Institute. He is a pioneer in creating electrodeless atmospheric pressure plasmas in air using microwaves. Before this he was at The Aerospace Corporation, where one of his duties was as principle investigator of the MET propulsion project. Before coming to Aerospace corporation Dr. Brandenburg was a researcher at Research Support Instruments (RSI) where he specialized in making controlled laboratory plasmas for uses ranging from air plasmas for surface sterilization , Fusion research and the MET thruster. He also worked as an independent consultant on Space Missile Defense, Directed Energy Weapons, and space rocket plume phenomenology, and also at Mission Research Corporation and Sandia National Laboratories on plasmas for controlled fusion and similar topics. Its amazing what you can do without publishing in a 'reputable journal' wouldnt you say?
Or presenting actual evidence that counters said conspiracy. Im not saying it cant be done but all I hear a lot of talk. Put up or shut up as they say. Ill be anxiously awaiting.
I try that with the Ancient Aliens theory and substitute with my Ancient Atlantians theory.. but it's hard to break someone free of a belief aliens have and are visiting us, cause aliens are just so damn cool to think about. Alas, I don't think I'll ever be able to sink down to the level this one is at.. I guess I missed that person?
I think the difference between you/Brandenburg and real science is that Brandenburg, etc publish hypotheses. In other words, he says, "Here are previous observations for which no current model has a valid explanation. One possible explanation of this data is X, and if we assume X, then this brings up other interesting possibilities such as Y and Z". End of article. This is not how real science works. To publish in a reputable journal, one must assert in the introduction/abstract, "Here are previous observations that current models are not able to sufficiently explain. We hypothesize that an alternative explanation is X. We therefore sought to obtain direct evidence for X, and conducted experiments to test this hypothesis. The following manuscript outlines experiments that directly test this hypothesis." See the difference?
You have presented data that can be explained by the proposed model, not data the directly supports said model. Anyone can do the former, but not the latter. This is the difference between pseudoscience and science. The ability to distinguish the difference is something you learn very quickly in graduate school, which is why I encouraged you in your other thread to go after a graduate degree, even though you think academia is corrupt or something.
One, he didnt publish a hypothesis, nobody publishes a hypothesis if you recall what they are, they are unsupported ideas. He published data then said we should consider a hypothesis. Thats how science works. You learn something new, create a new hypothesis and figure out how to test it. Since no current theory explains the data a new hypothesis is needed. Thats why he called for a manned mission to mars to investigate further. Did you read his paper?
Just as i told Sam, put up or shut up. Well you dont need to shut up but id be happy if you put up. Cite the paper that explains this data. Get a degree? Apparently Brandenburg didnt learn anything about how to do science, why waste my time? The difference between pseudoscience and science is the former makes claims without supporting data and worst or at best with questionable data. In science you have data that is falsified and unfalsified. Thus far, as far as I know, this data and his paper on gravity are unfalsified. If it has been I wish you guys would just post it. Meanwhile, i have data saying there was two thermonuclear explosions on mars that have no clear explaination. That is it. The data makes no claims about aliens, unicorns or anything else. Everything else is pure possibilities and conjecture.
Oh sam I figured out the conspiracy! The pentagon hired him to spread disinfo! And they use the pope to tell people we can baptize ET! Its all coming together. This is much more exciting! I thought God made earth and the universe just for us, i would hate to think he made other assholes out there! Im so glad this is all nonsense!
I must ask, why do you presuppose we are the only intelligent life in the universe or or that mankind never reached this level of technology? I would expect that presupposition from religious folk but not you. It might chap their asses but whats with the immediate dismissal? Do you have an objection to his data or just his hypothesis? Why?
Evidence? Where? There have been cases of natural fusion-like reactions out in, I think Africa. This causes a ton of radioactive waste. No reason it couldn't happen on Mars. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
I'm no expert, but isn't that what's going on inside the sun also? Maybe Mars as bombarded by a large rock that passed the sun, absorbed massive radiation from a flare, and landed on mars? Or they have natural reactors under the surface from events we don't know about?
I looked at the link. None of the 15 papers' titles said Mars so I left. I just know for a fact he did not "provide evidence" for his claim. He just saw radioactive isotopes and was like, well fuck musta been some nuclear explosions going on here. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Sounds like Brandenburg is constructing a narrative from the story behind the Mass Effect game series.