Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: Nice try, yourself. And I don't smoke... Prefer a clear mind, thanks.

re: Nice try, yourself.
Michael Gmirkin — (archived)

No, I suppose I don't know who Nick is... But regardless, I still hate it when people bandy about random numbers without giving references to how or where they got them. that was my main point. If Wikipedia has taught me anything it's about notability, and rules of evidence. IE, ya' can't just make unsourced statements and expect people to buy into them.

Granted, the same thing could be said of my last post, but that's neither here nor there. I'm just saying that current theory has a rather large blind spot, thus it makes predictions that might well be based on faulty assumptions.

If the same features used in "classical" theory for dating (IE craters, "channels", etc.) can be carved in a fraction of the time via non-classical processes (IE, electrical arcing), its POSSIBLE that "classical" dating could be wrong.

IE, the current theory as I understand it is that dating is done based on a model of how long it would take Mars to accumulate all of its so-called "impact" craters, and how long it would take for water or wind erosion to carve the channels and gules we see. If one takes the age of mars from that perspective, it's been around for billions and billions of years.

However, if one accepts Mars as a charged body at some point in its history, then much of the cratering, and gouging of channels could have been created over a MUCH shorter time frame. Electrical arcs, especially catastrophic ones, can occur in seconds, or several over the course of minutes. If electrical arcing is the cause and not this vague unfounded "impact cratering" and wind/water erosion system currently in place. Mars may be a lot younger than we think, and the timeframe over which it's been scarred may be a lot SHORTER than we think.

To the contrary of Nick's position, I have done a bit of reading on subjects relating to the issues I've discussed. Obviously I have more reading to do, but in my readings I've become quite unconvinced by the "classical" interpretation.

Specifically, a number of features on Mars have a distinctly "over hill and dale" behavior that appears to contradict known [gravity/fluids] physics if one tries to interpret it via "classical" mechanics. However, said features make sense in an electrical interpretation (electricity doesn't care about topography, it cares about conductivity and charge, and that's about it; it has no problem arcing/wandering over hill and dale, whereas fluids do have a problem called gravity). That current physics turns a blind eye to the largest problems its theories face astounds me. And the fact that ad hoc explanations keep getting more and more jumbled and doesn't trigger alarm bells thatsomething is wrong with current theory. Well, it just seems like current theory has become dogma rather than science. And dogma is exactly what science was intended to replace. At what point does current theory accept falsifiability and give in to the fact that it can't explain some of the most anomalous features of Mars?

That's my main point of wondering. That and how folks can get away with unsourced statements and just throw numbers around without stating how they came to them. I don't mean to be confrontational or anything. So, sorry if I came across that way. I just see major glaring holes in current theory. Sometimes it takes a certain naivete to look at a problem through new eyes and see the problem for what it is without the burdens of current dogma.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (86 posts)