Thing is, Brandenburg is NOT an expert in this field.. he is a theoretical plasma physicist. He is not a biologist, not an archeologist, not a geologist. Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they're educated in any and all sciences. The only thing he is an expert at would be plasma physics, more specifically, theoretical.. which really doesn't mean shit when talking about radioactive materials and geological structures of Mars. So his explanation has just as much weight as anyone else's.. unless you find yourself entertained by his theory.
And mantikore says i am too open which i take to mean too imaginative. No i am serious though, of all people i am what, too rigid in my openmindedness? Mmmk
Dude.. there have been numerous times where numerous people have offered you a natural explanation and you basically plugged your ears and went "la la la laaaaaaa" like a theist would do when you try to explain to them anything that negates their religious belief.. You don't even take the time to put any thought into the natural explanation. For example.. this "airburst" that is being used to say it was a nuclear attack. I explained to you that Mars has air.. not air like we have, but it does have an atmosphere. It would be common sense that if a planet has air, a comet or meteor could be subject to an airburst. Then, without even putting any critical thought into it, you fired back with something like "show me the evidence that says Mars has an atmosphere like that" just so you could keep your ears plugged.. But here is the funny part, this theory that you are making yourself look like an imbecile by defending it.. relies on the assumption that Mars had life.. that Mars had a much stronger atmosphere to support life. A tid bit of critical thinking would have told you that in your theory, Mars had an atmosphere similar to that of Earth.. which would mean that comets and meteors could go through an airburst on Mars when it had an atmosphere like Earth's, just as they do on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event It is even estimated that a couple meteors and comets go through an airburst in our atmosphere each year, with enough force equal to the bombs dropped on Japan.. it's not an uncommon occurrence. That right there is your natural explanation of how a comet or meteor could burst in air, scattering it's radioactive material. Notice I said could? Cause I don't really know.. but I sure as hell know that thinking it was god damn aliens or ancient humans if fucking ridiculous. Do you need more natural explanations? Cause you'll get them.. but you can bet that I am going to point out your lack of critical thinking. If you're not going to employ self reflection, then someone else will do it for you. Like that map of Mars with the thorium hotspots.. one smidgin of critical thinking would of had you researching just what thorium is, and then learning that you can't really make a bomb out of thorium without converting it into uranium. So if that hotspot was caused by a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't have been made out of raw thorium. Become your biggest critic and you won't ever have dicks like me criticizing you.. it's a good quality to have if you truly want to pursue a career in science.
Mantikore has a point here. Also... the kind of conspiratorial thinking implied in the narrative that Norse Mythology has laid out doesn't necessarily mean a person is lacking critical thinking skills. Conspiratorial thinking and ideation is essentially a broad critical theory misappropriated into a working man's logical positivism. This is especially interesting, if you consider that the self-stigmatization by the proponents of more complex or niche conspiratorial belief systems experience multiple forms of social exclusion, thereby reproducing the experience of being in possession of 'privileged' knowledge. Conspiritorial thinking tends to be very functional in certain contexts. It's a very interesting behaviour. This pattern of self-reinforcing confirmation bias requires a ton of creativity, intelligence, and imagination. The missing factor in the whole thing is insight; being conistently and exhaustively reflexive, and engaging in discourse. Therefore the rigidity. And that doesn't mean, bicking on epistemology or adversarial rhetoric - which is what half the conversation on the science and politics section are. When NorseMythology asked me to explain, I thought he was in on the joke, as in he was asking me to explain why it is funny that he doesn't have any insight. I thought he was being sly.
Finally someones got there head on there shoulders. One dude a while back was wondering what it would be like to shoot a 50 Caliber in space haha. Combustion cant happen with out oxygen my friends. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Just for reference sake, a nuclear explosion doesn't need oxygen. A nuke could go off in space, it'd basically be like a mini supernova..
Well on Mars it would probably be more like an explosion because Mars does have an atmosphere, so it has a medium for the shock wave to travel through.. it just wouldn't be very fiery. Thinking about it, it'd probably be pretty interesting to see.. a nuke on Mars wouldn't be so bad for educational purposes.. lol, we've set off thousands of nukes on Earth.. and have had a few nuclear accidents and with all that, we only really account for like 15-20% of radiation we're getting bombarded with. If there was an explosion though, it would more than likely have been a comet or asteroid. Sometimes they can stay intact, but other times the heat and resistance is just too much for it to hold together and it explodes. The one in Russia leveled hundreds of square miles of forests.. and the damage they do looks like any other massive bomb that explodes in the air. Even without oxygen, there is air there and it would be a good medium for a massive shock wave to travel.
That, my friend, was a brilliant examination and very well thought out! I almost dont want to comment to ruin the beauty of it (i know that sounds sarcastic but I am being genuine). I do think you misjudged me though. I have never come across a conspiracy i found welcome. I am familiar with many conspiracy theories, but they are usually speculative, unfalsifiable and unwelcome and can easily be dismisses. I am not convinced that is the case here. I have actually heard evidence for remains on mars years ago from Tom Van Flandern, but never really knew what to make of it because, well it seems obsurd, truth be told. The evidence seemed pretty solid, but was too far outside my paradigm to really acknowledge it, so I made a mental note but never devled into it. Then I saw this from Brandenburg and I thought it was some conspiracy theory nonsense, probable not worth looking in to, but I did. I wasnt convinced it was worth entertaining until I saw he was commenting on that scienceblog and someone noted he published a paper on unifying gravity and it hasnt been challenged. I looked up and found more info on him from astroreview, which has his projects and work history and couldnt dismiss it as a conspiracy on those grounds. He worked on what, directed energy weapons and space propulsion systems coupled with the claim (which i cannot verify) that the DoD cleared him to publish this. Sounds like any good conspiracy! If all of that is true, is it reasonable to assume he wouldnt risk his career to promote something that is likely untrue or that he knows to be false. Its possible, but what does he have to gain if months from now he falsifies his own.conspiracy? Seems like career suicide if you ask me, and he doesnt come across as an idiot. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose, so what would his motivation be? We should be open to the hypothesis because if it is confirmed, we will have to do some rethinking. Even the hardcore conspiracy people would probably be shocked to find this out we are not alone (well we still may be alone, this was hundreds of millons of years ago). If it isnt falsified but confirmed, how would we deal with it? I am not really sure how the world would react, I am not even sure how I would react. And Mantikore raised a what I thought was a valid objection in regards to the thorium/uranium problem (which I give you credit for). But Brandenburg says it was a uranium/thorium explosion, so that didnt explain it away for me. Brandenburg also says his hypothesis rests on the cratering rate of mars, which is where the fate of the hypothesis will be decided. He says there will be a debate about the cratering rate next year and he was invited (idk if he means as an audience or participant). Well, our speculation aside, apparently we will find out soon and we can lay this to rest. Typically a good conspiracy theory doesnt set itself up to be falsified the following year. Would it be worth it for him to make this up to sell a few more books but be rejected in his own field? Im really trying to imagine what the purpose would be if he knew it would be falsified. Any thoughts? Sam you seem to be pretty educated on such matters, what are your thoughts? And I would like your further assessment of me. I can understand how I may have come across as a attemping to spread a conspiracy (i dont view it as a conspiracy since it can be falsified). But on your point about self-reinforcing confirmation bias, you are assuming i have an underlying framework that this 'conspiracy' reinforces. I have no way of proving to you that this in no way fits into any worldview I have considered as probably true. On the contrary, my rejection of my once rigid worldview has left me free to explore the possibilities. Since his hypothesis will be subject to falsification, i have no need to reinforce or accept it, but i withold rejection until the verdict is out, and i will go from there. Is there a more reasonable approach I am missing?
I would agree your hypothesis seems to explain it as natural if asteroids or comets posses such high levels of radioactive material. I dont know if they do or do not I will have to look. He says there is evidence of a shockwave at the antipodal of the explosion where it dropped more material, so it would also explain that. So your hypothesis rests on that as far as I can tell. I disagree that my failure to do an exhaustive examination of his hypothesis means I lack critical thinking. As i have said numerous times I am open to the possibility but I have no reason to spend countless hours trying to falsify it. I am not the one claiming knowledge, you are and he is. The burden of proof lies not with me. I do make a knowledge claim in my other thread and I do spend time critically thinking on that subject. When I make a knowledge claim, i defend it with evidence, sources or logic. I have never once claimed he is right, nor have I rejected his hypothesis. Simply because I correct you, and you are against him, you assume that means i am FOR him. I will leave you alone and you can keep discussing this with the others, i will only chime in and give you props if you falsify his hypothesis before he does. You are clearly more invested in this tham I am. Either way I do hope his hypothesis is falsified eventually.
I didn't feel like getting into all this cause I'd have to talk about myself.. which I really don't like doing, but I consider myself socially excluded.. but I know my problem isn't society, it's me. I have an antisocial personality "disorder".. so I bring upon myself my social exclusion. No organized education, government, sports, labor, or anything socially organized for me.. I can say that it leads to a lot of random thinking.. borderline paranoid, but growing up with an insane parent, I like to think I forced myself to be aware of myself.. to keep tabs on myself to make sure I wasn't insane. I have one hell of an imagination, but I never let it control me. I think a lot of it has to do with what the gurus would call the 'ego', which is just your emotions.. and I am pretty severed from my emotions. Those that aren't, a lot of times attribute emotions to their imagination.. making them feel like it is real. When I say critical thinking.. I guess I mean.. just thinking? I mean, don't ever stop.. If dude says "thorium hotspots" and you stop cause it backs up what you want to believe, you stopped thinking. If you were to be critical of yourself, you'd think about what thorium is.. see that you don't really know much about it, and then research and think on that. If you would of continued thinking about those airburts, you'd have put two and two together and realized that, at least according to the theory, Mars most certainly did have an atmosphere capable of airbursting a comet. And just for the record, YOU are the one bringing this theory to the science forum.. you are the one presenting it. You have been defending it because it can't be falsified yet.. but what you are doing is exactly the same as a theist with a religious belief. You might not even actually believe this theory, just that you think it's a cool idea or something.. but nonetheless you are taking a theistic approach. You present the theory, receive a natural explanation.. and then ignore it. When in reality, you should have presented it.. and not plug your ears when given a natural explanation. If you truly want to follow Occam's razor, you would give the explanation with the least amount of assumptions that most consideration for being accurate.. which would be that there is a natural cause, one assumption that needs to be searched out. Instead, you run with a theory that requires numerous assumptions.. and that is far from the correct usage of Occam's razor. Now, if you're truly open to hearing a natural explanation of things.. pick out whatever it is that you could use a natural explanation for. Real quick, xenon-129 is made when iodine-129 decays.. and iodine-129 is made by supernovas.. and supernovas seed new solar systems with material. Our solar system was made from a huge mix of remnants of the past.. including from supernovas. So any xenon-129 found could very well have come from iodine-129 made billions of years ago in supernovas that seeded our solar system and was carried in by comets after our solar system formed. That's how the universe is.. made up of itself.. including yourself. Atoms in you that were created inside stars and their deaths..
Im pretty sure sam was attempting to describe my behavior, I might be wrong? Having said that, it caused you to open up about emotional events of your past, which in my opinion is an essential element of a human being, part i think i struggle with because of events in my childhood. As a defensive mechanism I think I have ended up being almost immune to the effects of certain emotions. Something I should probably spend more time sorting out, because I like the person I was as a child and feel like im not a complete human being so long as i dont experience these emotions. I commend you for opening up, being vulnerable and honest. I keep having to remind myself that we are all a result of our ability to adapt and survive our situations in life, but I have a few hard time empathizing emotionally. I describe my emotions as 'rational emotions' by which I mean it seems my emotions are delt with in the same part of my brain that thinks, not feels. Having said that I will do my best to be more civil and I apologize for any harm my antics may have caused. One objection I have and will address is your assumption that I adhere to the standard theory of nucleosynthesis. I side with Lerner that in order for it to be true, 13.7billion years is insufficient for stars to form, explode, then form new stars. I wont argue it because I havent spent the time necessary to fully understand it. But you know my views of the BBM and its ad hoc hypothesis. If we dont assume the universe is 13.7 billion years old, which we agree on that I think, then we may need to reexamine how stars and galaxies form, because the nucleosynthesis theory assumes the BBM.
Atomic fission naturally occurred on planet Earth in the past. This fission occurred over a very long length of time too - for as long as one million years. This article does a very good job at explaining it. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/07/13/natures-nuclear-reactors-the-2-billion-year-old-natural-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/ Because fission naturally occurred on Earth, something similar might have happened on Mars. This means that fission on Mars isn't necessarily proof of intelligent life.
A nuclear explosion requires no oxygen. You could set off a nuke in the vacuum of space. In fact, that's what the sun is doing continuously, though its a very slow nuclear fusion reaction. The energy density at the sun core is only about 280 watts per cubic meter - about the energy given off by a compost pile! The power we see and feel are cause by the sheer volume of that core and the rest of the sun, not the ferocity of its hydrogen fusion.
You are right. The authors point is that natural nuclear reactors cannot account for all of the data (such as the xenon). Natural reactions can account for some of what we see but not all of the indicators. 'Proof' is too strong of a term. Science falsifies. The data seems to falsify a natural reactor, so he hypothesizes an artificial explanation may be necessary. So we wont prove it was artificial, we will falsify one of the two explanations leaving one explanation unfalsified. One being unfalsified, and other explanations being falsified, just means its more probable the unfalsified hypothesis/theory is correct, it does not prove its correct.