U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-25-2018, 12:41 PM
 
33,821 posts, read 17,312,451 times
Reputation: 18556

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canaan-84 View Post
From NASA:https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...iation-on-mars

“Fortunately for us, Earth’s natural protections block all but the most energetic of these particles from reaching the surface. A huge magnetic bubble, called the magnetosphere, which deflects the vast majority of these particles, protects our planet. And our atmosphere subsequently absorbs the majority of particles that do make it through this bubble. Importantly, since the International Space Station (ISS) is in low-Earth orbit within the magnetosphere, it also provides a large measure of protection for our astronauts.”
NASA is right.

 
Old 06-25-2018, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Houston, Texas
1,178 posts, read 1,354,618 times
Reputation: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
NASA is right.
Thank you, and isn’t it also true that Mars lost its atmosphere eons ago due to it having a very weak to non existent magnetic field? If so, it shows how important the magnetic field is in deflecting solar radiation and solar winds.
 
Old 06-27-2018, 06:35 PM
 
Location: PRC
3,250 posts, read 3,365,783 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Thank you, and isn’t it also true that Mars lost its atmosphere eons ago due to it having a very weak to non existent magnetic field? If so, it shows how important the magnetic field is in deflecting solar radiation and solar winds.
Mars lost its atmosphere...but why or how it came about, no-one quite knows at the moment.

It appears from some of the images sent back from the rovers, that there has been a massive war on the surface. However, some people reject this idea as ridiculous. Others claim to see stone carvings, pillars, and other more mechanical shapes which might be pieces of ancient(?) technology in the images.

As further evidence we already have scientists in written published papers, who are proposing 2 massive nuclear blasts on Mars and the evidence for this is radioactive isotopes found only from the use of nuclear weapons and not naturally occurring. However again, this is not accepted as fact by other scientists, even though they cannot explain it away naturally.

So, I guess the jury is still out on the reason why there is not much of an atmosphere.
 
Old 07-02-2018, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Mars City
5,536 posts, read 2,412,499 times
Reputation: 8162
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Others claim to see stone carvings, pillars

LOL. Like the "face on Mars" that was big in the media? All of which was just a poor imaging artifact and nothing real. Everyone sure ran off with that one!

As further evidence we already have scientists in written published papers, who are proposing 2 massive nuclear blasts on Mars

Evidence huh? LOL Just saying something - no matter how ridiculous - is now easily accepted.
Comments above
 
Old 07-02-2018, 03:21 PM
 
33,821 posts, read 17,312,451 times
Reputation: 18556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canaan-84 View Post
Thank you, and isn’t it also true that Mars lost its atmosphere eons ago due to it having a very weak to non existent magnetic field?
My reading has so far not covered that, so - can't comment.
 
Old 07-03-2018, 11:27 PM
 
Location: PRC
3,250 posts, read 3,365,783 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
Evidence huh? LOL Just saying something - no matter how ridiculous - is now easily accepted.
Thats so true, particularly NASA scientists who should know better. They often give one opinion and then a few weeks later say something completely opposite in another article. Surely they, of all people, should know what they are talking about. How can we believe anything any scientist says if there is no 'authority' in having scientific papers published.

I think the trouble is that there are so many 'scientific' publications and all have differing standards. The problem with that is - new science often overturns the accepted mainstream view and so these more radical papers never get published in the more orthodox magazines because the peers who review them are still rather dusty and staid.
 
Old 07-04-2018, 09:30 AM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,270 posts, read 936,140 times
Reputation: 12519
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
As further evidence we already have scientists in written published papers, who are proposing 2 massive nuclear blasts on Mars and the evidence for this is radioactive isotopes found only from the use of nuclear weapons and not naturally occurring. However again, this is not accepted as fact by other scientists, even though they cannot explain it away naturally.
This is just too entertaining!

So I had to look this up. Here's what I found:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...hn-Brandenburg

First, let's be clear. These claims were made in lectures, not in 'written published papers', which we're all supposed to infer means 'peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals'. The peddler of this whackery (Is the another? Probably. There always is!) is John Brandenburg, who has cited the papers of others (who want nothing to do with his wild-eyed claims) as supporting him. But the only publishing he has done in this area is in books he has written. They are not peer-reviewed. Also, he used to be a science fiction writer but has apparently discovered that there's more money to be made is peddling pseudoscience.

Second, this:
Quote:
The plasma physicist claims “anyone who can read a map” can see the the nuclear explosion sites.
I can read a map, as taught to me by the United States Army. To this day, I use them to occasionally navigate through trail-less backcountry. Brandenburg is basically asserting that round areas on a map are obvious craters left by groundbursts and that this cannot reasonably be questioned. That's classic con-man nonsense.

Third, the isotopes of xenon-129 and xenon-132 in the Martian atmosphere - which Brandenburg claims are the telltale aftersignature of nuclear weapons use - are indeed naturally occurring. Both are stable. Neither are fission byproducts. So you got that part wrong. You clearly heard or read Brandenburg's tale of fancy, didn't understand it, and are now garbling the re-telling. Brandenburg's point appears to be that xenon-129 is a decay product of iodine-129, which itself is a fission byproduct, and that the ratio of xenon-129 to xenon-132 on Mars is greater than on Earth, therefore Mars War III went nuclear about half a billion years ago. But the ratio of those two isotopes widely varies in meteorites as well. Do you think that there were nuclear wars on all those meteorites that have xenon isotope ratios that don't match the ratio on Earth? For one thing, and this is so painfully obvious that Brandenburg should be embarrassed (I presume his shamelessness is a result of his burgeoning bank account due to the inflow of royalties), different bodies in the solar system were formed of different ratios of elements, or have gained or lost certain elements in the interceding billions of years or have had those elements/isotopes differently distributed throughout the planet. One mechanism for this is the presence of plate techtonics on Earth, which allows for the sequestration of certain elements and isotopes in the mantle, whereas on bodies without plate tectonics (such as Mars) outgassing will eventually distribute them in the atmosphere. And there's always the possibility that there was a naturally occurring nuclear reactor on Mars (just like there was on Earth - google 'Oklo') that produced iodine-129 billions of years after Mars' formation. This is just a sampling of the explanations for why extraterrestrial ratios of xenon differ from that of Earth. Either Brandenburg is a lousy physicist or (more likely) he was counting on an audience that so poorly understands physics that they wouldn't know any better.

[Mod cut: personal attack]

Last edited by elnina; 07-05-2018 at 02:07 AM..
 
Old 07-04-2018, 10:03 AM
 
7,168 posts, read 3,920,595 times
Reputation: 6765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
Comments above
They even made a (crappy) movie based on the premise of that Mars “face”
 
Old 07-04-2018, 10:45 AM
 
12,333 posts, read 3,249,816 times
Reputation: 8207
Anyone see the old movie "Capricorn One'?

I watched this last night, it was about NASA faking a mars landing to ensure continued public interest and further funding.
 
Old 07-04-2018, 03:00 PM
 
7,168 posts, read 3,920,595 times
Reputation: 6765
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Anyone see the old movie "Capricorn One'?

I watched this last night, it was about NASA faking a mars landing to ensure continued public interest and further funding.
Yes, it’s what fed the whole moon landing hoax to begin with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:04 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top