Mars, destroyed by war?!

[BigBlueHead]

I shall quote a peculiar passage from the <a href="http://www.craterchains.com/ns/nspage.html">Crater Chains</a> website:

Occums Razor meaning the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. Making Occums Razor sometimes the hardest to accept.

This should really be fixed. Let's look at the actual wording of Ockham's razor:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

This quote is from <a href="http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html">this page</a>, which is a pretty good overview and should really be read by anyone who is going to throw "Occums razor" around. (Quick tip: It's not a law.)

BUT

In short, what does it really mean? "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" means that you shouldn't invent new things to explain something that can possibly be explained by extant things.

SO FOR INSTANCE

If you can't find evidence of ET's anywhere, you shouldn't use them as evidence because that would be adding them to a context where they were not previously considered in order to conveniently explain something - hence, multiplying entities beyond necessity.

If you are going to follow this theory, try to make your arguments as logical and waterproof as possible.

Edit: Also, when you say "Collaborative Evidence" do you mean "Corroborating Evidence"?

And - I think someone else on Sciforums is posting your picture of the copper mine in Peru and claiming that it's a strip mine on another planet. Can't remember who though.

 

[Stryder]

Theres something else to add to this:

I use to weld some time ago, and sometime droplets of whitehot molten metal might fall to the ground, those droplets would be such an intense heat they would cause the cement to explode leaving little depressions.

You can tell a work surface floor was littered with such depressions.

If a meteor broke into fragments, the likelihood is that every piece that came off it would be at an extremely high temperature from entering Mars atmosphere, those fragments would first crash into the ground making a small depression, and then from the heat the ground would start exploding like the cement. (since Sandstone is very similar)

It would make an already sized impact hole, look a lot larger.

 

[SkinWalker]

So far the arguments presented have turned up no NEW ideas, plausible theories, or information we don?t already have, or have at least considered. If any had actually looked at all the pictures we have on the research site,

The quoted material below comes from the link CraterChains provided. If there's any concern that the content or context has been altered, see the original at http://www.craterchains.com/cct.html.

The reason we are questioning the accepted theory.
"The example used to illustrate the tidal disruption forces has been the comet Shoemaker Levy 9 (SL9) that broke apart and impacted Jupiter in 1994."
"Crater chains of the type we are investigating and questioning are not varied in size, [as in the SL9 breakup) are not thousands of kilometers apart and did not impact over days. The very complexity of uniform size, trajectory, alignment, and timing isn't coming from a comet that broke up."

In order to support that contention, CraterChains has to assume that the "Tidally Disrupted Comet theory" is the only explanation (other than intelligent intervention) that can account for crater chains or aligned craters of meteorite impacts.

William F. Bottke of Cornell University has suggested that crater chains can occur when an object passes so close to a planet as to nearly "scrape" the planet's surface (Monastersky, 1998). "At that intimate distance, it would pass through the atmosphere and fall prey to an array of destructive influences, such as intense air friction, that could combine to shatter the object."

CraterChain's research doesn't seem to take this into account. Nor is there any modeling of the effect that the Mars atmosphere would have on such low-trajectory, low-altitude objects. Therefore part 3 of the CraterChain contention can be ignored as uniformity of impact in spacing, width, magnitude and alignment cannot be demonstrated as unlikely under the conditions presented to the objects of impact. Quite simply: Mars and Jupiter are two vastly different planets with two vastly different forces at work on objects of impact.

Geologist are examining the possibility of crater chains on earth, but one also has to consider that the surface of Earth is more active in both depositional forces and plate tectonics than that of Mars. The Monastersky reference cited above describes on-going research, albeit less than fruitful, in that area.

But crater chains do exist on other bodies in the Solar System. Three chains have been observed by Voyager on Ganymede and Callisto has eleven (Astronomy, 1997). In the Mare Nubium, west of Ptolemaeus on the Moon's nearside, is an apparent chain 50 km long known as the Davy crater chain (Astronomy, 1994) as well as a second possible chain in the northern rim of Abulfeda, just east of Ptolemaeus. The problem with finding chains on the Moon may well be successive impacts.

What CraterChain (the person) would have us believe then, is that wars were waged on Callisto, Ganymede, the Moon, Mars, and perhaps several other bodies in the Solar System on the basis that nature doesn't create patterns. Nevermind that there is no evidence or artifacts to support the "war" hypothesis.

The Conclusion.
Picture 50 dice thrown, landing uniformly in line, same numbers in all directions. We
can only do that by hand or with robotics, and only by intent, by purposefully aligning them.
Uniform nonrandom impacts are not likely to occur with the known comet breakup
trajectories (sic).

The evidence says otherwise. I'll concede that the theory of naturally forming crater chains is not demonstrated conclusively, but it seems clear that the preponderance of evidence is for a natural explanation and against an ET intelligence one!

There are hundreds of this "type" of catina that are far too uniform to be natural. What other explanation is needed than to simply admit it was caused by intelligence. Often the simplest explanation is the right one.

The simplest in this case is the contention that one or more cosmic events occurred within Mars' orbit or perhaps even orthogonal to it which predicated the chains of craters on the planet's surface. That an intelligent life evolved on Mars, then waged war upon itself is far more complicated than asteroids, comets, moons and planets colliding. One need only look at Demos and the asteroids not far from the Mars orbit to see that.

References:
Astro News, (Sep., 1994). Great comet crashes on the moon? Astronomy, Vol. 22, Issue 9

Astro News, (Apr. 1997). Do crater chains exist on earth? Astronomy, Vol. 25, Issue 4

Monastersky, Richard, (May 16, 1998) Geologists Link A Chain Of Craters Science News, Vol. 153, Issue 20

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Anybody wonder if some get paid by how much they type?
Here is a picture of what a comet SPLATTER would look like if it broke up just seconds before impactin

The type we are not investigating, this is a Bottke Chain on the lower part of this photo of Europa.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

When SkinWalker finishes washing hands from all that mud, after that little experiment maybe we will get web cam photos of the crater chains created? I think some where we mention dice or a cookie sheet with soft material and to toss marbles, we will give the benefit of the doubt as all the marbles are going to be the same size. Unlike a true broken comet. Hell, toss them one at a time for all I care,, it aint gonna create a CS type of crater chain and I do have my doubts that any are gonna form a line of craters as accurately as a comet supposedly did. Besides scientists agree that all the craters in a chain formed simultaneously. So maybe you should toss all fifty marbles at once?

 

[SkinWalker]

Face it... you gave it a shot, but your model has flaws. Big ones. In fact, dice & marbles aren't a model. Show me a computer model that takes into account the gravity, trajectory, altitude, atmospheric influences, etc. of an object that is breaking up on re-entry at a very oblique angle, and perhaps you'll be more convincing.

But all this talk about dice and marbles has little bearing on the effect of crater chains. "50 dice thrown, landing uniformly in line, same numbers in all directions" has nothing to do with an object or objects that may or may not have been comets impacting planets and moons in the Solar System. There is no correlation in probability and there is no correlation in materials and the forces acting upon those materials.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

FOCL,and how much air on our moon, callisto, ganneymead, europa, phobos, and so on? uhmmm ae you sure that is mud you were using?

Hey guy, look up here, what friction?

 

[Persol]

Persol
Congratulations you also identified the anomaly of the seemingly tapered ends to many of these chains. We to find that interesting and are developing the theoretical why.
Don't be stupid. We already provided you the 'why'. It's seperation by gravity and friction.

The leap to ET is completely unfounded, has no supporting evidence and ignores the simple explanations.

 

[SkinWalker]

FOCL,and how much air on our moon, callisto, ganneymead, europa, phobos, and so on?

Very true. So perhaps the atmospheric influences are important in that crater chains are more pronounced with a light to no atmosphere. Perhaps the lack of friction of atmosphere preserves the objects trajectoral and structural integreties.

But without a proper research model, one is left to blind conjecture.

You are the one that has "researcher" as an occupation in your profile. Surely you are aware of this.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

in deep space SL9 continued separating farther and farther apart,, damn I really do wish you people would read up on all this crap first,,,, chuckles and smiles.

 

[Ellimist]

in deep space SL9 continued separating farther and farther apart,, damn I really do wish you people would read up on all this crap first,,,, chuckles and smiles.

Wow. Of course some are going to separate farther and farther apart. There is no way every scenario is the same. You are really reaching here. Feel the futility.

 

[Persol]

I really wish YOU understood that this is a different case. SL9 seperated because of gravitational tidal forces... NOT atmospheric effects.

 

[SkinWalker]

And you assume that SL9 or comets are the only objects that impact other objects.

 

[Ellimist]

Craterchain:
Besides, we have to read up? You are making the claims. You have no support. We have already taken out your arguments. I want to see you try to publish an article in a scientific journal, I would not be able to wait to read the satire from the scientific community. It would be amazing. Go ahead, please, publish your hypothesis.

I have found that all kooks who try to claim and prove things in forums, almost always have a website, and they try to substantiate their claims there, and never try to be taken seriously. So, because of that, I think that is enough proof for me that you know you won't be taken seriously, because you know the ideas are flawed and will never hold up in any rational arena.

Otherwise, please, astound the world, get published in a reputable journal. Like Astronomy or Science.

Or, if you refuse, make up an excuse about how you can't. Come on, do it.

 

[SkinWalker]

He probably doesn't agree with "conforming to the standards of the biased establishment."

But he won't mind using their work if it suits his contention.

 

[Ellimist]

Of course, they'll say anything to evade it.

Much like Sylvia Browne and nitpicking and not showing up for the 1 million dollar Randi challenge...

I have noticed this pattern all across pseudo-science.

 

[SkinWalker]

See my critique of Graham Hancock in the Were we visited before? thread.

He is the epitome of pseudoscience and uses many of the predictable fallicies.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

FOCL,and how much air on our moon, callisto, ganneymead, europa, phobos, and so on? uhmmm ae you sure that is mud you were using?

Hey guy, look up here, what friction?

In all honesty, we have been getting our hands on all the data concerning anything about crater chains and potential causes over the past two years. In further honesty, only two possible explanations, caused by intent, or happened by chance. We offered the dice, as it is 6 sided giving the necessary number of equations plus having been sent on a trajectory by tossing. The computer model must give the same. Try and read all that we say first, then develop your arguments. We KNOW a comet will break up in atmosphere and that it DOSNT break up into 50 evenly sized pieces that by chance align like what we see impacting simultaneously. Really think about that!

 

[SkinWalker]

So why can't two objects collide then one breakup and its parts remain loosely together, while the trajectory takes it to a collision path with a moon or planet?

Given the number of impact craters throughout the solar system along with billions of years inertia, this is still a far more likely scenario than ET intelligence/catastrophic wars on other worlds.

I realize that one gets attached to a theory, even if far-fetched (particularly after playing with it for over "the past two years"). But it's time to face facts and understand... your hypothesis doesn't hold up.

 

[Ellimist]

we have been getting our hands on all the data concerning anything about crater chains and potential causes over the past two years.

Crater - you didn't answer me. Publish your data and years of research, or stop lying.