jordan Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 I wish you were on Mars right now. Would that mean we've found intelligent life on other planets or not?
Sayonara Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 Only if we know where he lands, and even then we'd have to take core samples to be sure.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 If he was on mars, we'd know there was life on mars, but not intelligent life.
ExtraSense Posted August 19, 2004 Author Posted August 19, 2004 So, geniuses, nasafools are now investigating rock Clovis, which seem to be exposed to water And just so happens that it is in the same place where running water was photographed during Martian summer! ES
Sayonara Posted August 19, 2004 Posted August 19, 2004 You know, I can't help but notice that nobody has eaten their hat yet.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 19, 2004 Posted August 19, 2004 So' date=' geniuses, nasafools are now investigating rock Clovis, which seem to be exposed to water And just so happens that it is in the same place where running water was photographed during Martian summer! :-p ES[/quote']Did you know that they can tell between water damage from yesterday and water damage form 133421234 years ago? Water damage from 123491243 years ago will have all sorts of pockmarks from dust, but not if it's from yesterday. GET A CLUE!
ExtraSense Posted August 19, 2004 Author Posted August 19, 2004 Did you know that they can tell between water damage from yesterday and water damage form 133421234 years ago? Water damage from 123491243 years ago will have all sorts of pockmarks from dust, but not if it's from yesterday. It is ridiculous how ignorant you are. In this case measurements were done on samples from inside the rock. What possible "pockmarks from dust" you are talking about??
J'Dona Posted August 19, 2004 Posted August 19, 2004 What possible "pockmarks from dust" you are talking about?? Perhaps it has something to do with geology, a field which is critical when researching Martian rocks and one which, by all indications, you know nothing about. And if measurements were done inside the riock, how could they at all be related to running water on the surface of the rock in your summer? I ask because, apparently, you think that water damage from yesterday could affect the interior of a rock, and that water damage from many, many years ago could not.
ExtraSense Posted August 19, 2004 Author Posted August 19, 2004 .. And if measurements were done inside the riock, how could they at all be related to running water on the surface[/i'] of the rock in your summer? I ask because, apparently, you think that water damage from yesterday could affect the interior of a rock, and that water damage from many, many years ago could not. So you have immediately forget about unfortunate "pockmarks". Fine. Now you ask about things that you've just invented and I've never said, and say that they are incorrect. I agree. You have invented something that does not make sense. ES
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 19, 2004 Posted August 19, 2004 So you have immediately forget about unfortunate "pockmarks". Fine. Now you ask about things that you've just invented and I've never said' date=' and say that they are incorrect. I agree. You have invented something that does not make sense. :D ES[/quote']Let me clarify: How can water running yesterday affect the INTERIOR of a rock? Water doesn't penetrate through rocks. Maybe if the water had been running for millions of years and doing damage all along, but not if there was a civilization that caused the water. Plus the indication is that the water STOPPED AND WENT AWAY. Obviously it didn't just start up again.
J'Dona Posted August 19, 2004 Posted August 19, 2004 Nope, you were the one who suddenly forgot about the pockmarks. I simply stated that your ignoring them showed a lack of required knowledge for the conclusions your drawing on your website. What possible "pockmarks from dust" you are talking about??Look familiar? And as for your next point about things I've invented and you never said, of course I wouldn't do that; that would be a strawman tactic. But you did directly imply those things: nasafools are now investigating rock Clovis, which seem to be exposed to water And just so happens that it is in the same place where running water was photographed during Martian summer! In this case measurements were done on samples from [b']inside the rock.[/b]You have just testified that the interior of a rock was exposed to running water.
ExtraSense Posted August 19, 2004 Author Posted August 19, 2004 You have just testified that the interior of a rock[/i'] was exposed to running water. Is not it funny As a strange coincidence, years ago as physicist I was involved in the research of water-mineral interactions. And I tell you, you should shut up with your immature comments, water penetrates deep even in the most tough minerals. ES
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 Physicists don't work on water-mineral interactions. Chemists and geologists do. DUH And quit insulting people who know a lot more than you do.
ExtraSense Posted August 20, 2004 Author Posted August 20, 2004 Physicists don't work on water-mineral interactions. Chemists and geologists do.DUH. So you know I was working with geologists, true. And the process involves diffusion, which is subject of physical modeling.
MolecularMan14 Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 Extrasense how old are you?? b/c u actually are starting to sound much like a very cocky friend of mine, who likes to challenge other people's intelligence by providing rather shaky facts in a sort of un-needed debate
J'Dona Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 water penetrates deep even in the most tough minerals. And the process involves diffusion' date=' which is subject of physical modeling.[/quote']So then, being an expert, you would have no trouble in explaining how billions of tons of water "diffused" into the crust and left no liquid traces at some time between last summer and the arrival of the Mars rovers? Here's another point to consider. At every point in time for the past few decades Mars has probably been monitored by amateurs across the globe (independant of the so-called NASA conspiracy) and infrared spectroscopy (and indeed colour and albedo) would instantly give away water and water vapour on Mars. The images of running water you're talking about are from last summer, you say? Or the last year at least? Oh, and as for the "shutting up about immature comments" part, you wouldn't be getting any of that if you so much as showed the slightest bit of respect for the scientific method. One does not just take photographs of rocks with a slight likeness to Earth animals and plants and make wild conclusions based upon them (involving the destruction of virtually all previous science to accompany them) and expect a positive response from us. I don't believe you have any qualifications at all; if you did, your lack of scientific objectivity suggests why you no longer conduct team research, but rather post indefensible conclusions on free web space and troll forums to get attention.
ExtraSense Posted August 23, 2004 Author Posted August 23, 2004 This one is not pretty, it is actual head of a Martian. They apparently bury their dead with head out, since it is always cold out there??? The same thing in 3D, for those who have 3D glasses: ES
ExtraSense Posted August 23, 2004 Author Posted August 23, 2004 ... I know, I know.. Biologist does not believe anything he did not put his knife in ES
Sayonara Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 I know, I know.. Biologist does not believe anything he did not put his knife in Yeah, I remember the last time I stuck my knife into a Lotka-Volterra model, that was right before I started believing in it. You're so wise.
Thales Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 Lol, Just read through this thread. ES are you taking the piss? You can't seriously believe these vague resemblences of terrestial cretins actually signify life on mars? Someone said it earlier but you really need to get yourself a book that explains scientific method, and read it... Or is your extra sense a lack of logic?
MolecularMan14 Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 wow, uve got it nailed Extrasense, I SO WANT TO BELIEVE U, or maybe i just want to stick a knife in u lol
Sayonara Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 Someone said it earlier but you really need to get yourself a book that explains scientific method' date=' and read it...Or is your extra sense a lack of logic?[/quote'] Why would he bother, when he can just wait until the actual scientists find a single plasmid on Mars? Then he will dance around singing "told you so, I am right" with dribble flying out of his mouth.
fuhrerkeebs Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 Is not it funny As a strange coincidence' date=' years ago as physicist I was involved in the research of water-mineral interactions. And I tell you, you should shut up with your immature comments, water penetrates deep even in the most tough minerals. ES[/quote'] First of all, you have to be about 12 years old. No one believes you were a physicist. If you were, then would you please direct to me a paper of yours? And quit posting this stupid crap, it's obvious these are pictures of rocks, and you'd have to be posting these from the computer in your special ed. class to believe otherwise.
ExtraSense Posted August 23, 2004 Author Posted August 23, 2004 First of all, you have to be about 12 years old. No one believes you were a physicist. If you were, then would you please direct to me a paper of yours? And quit posting this stupid crap, it's obvious these are pictures of rocks, and you'd have to be posting these from the computer in your special ed. class to believe otherwise. Rocks? Actually everyone who is professionally writing on the matter is not sure about it. But you are sure, you are positive that they all are rocks Very smart, mister amature ES
Recommended Posts