Exploding_Necquim
Registered Member
Hey those are the sled marks of Santa Claus!
Mercury CraterChains - Alien or Natural?
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
I just loved this statement about the mathmaticaly POSSIBLE way a crater chain could form, IF they were all the same sized pieces, but it dosnt happen that way.
"Discussion: As it was mentioned above the length of the crater chains distinguished in this work as comet tracks ranges values from 30 to about 100 km. Schenket al. [3] predicted a comet chain length of about 1500km at Mercury for a 2-km diameter comet passing within 1.5 solar radius of the Sun. This discrepancy remains unexplained."
In other words, broken up space debris didnt do them. PROVEN mathmaticaly.
Duh?
"Discussion: As it was mentioned above the length of the crater chains distinguished in this work as comet tracks ranges values from 30 to about 100 km. Schenket al. [3] predicted a comet chain length of about 1500km at Mercury for a 2-km diameter comet passing within 1.5 solar radius of the Sun. This discrepancy remains unexplained."
In other words, broken up space debris didnt do them. PROVEN mathmaticaly.
Duh?
There is no "if" there. They don't need to be same sized pieces....craterchains (Norval said:
Short memory, eh?
You two were the ones claiming that the size of the craters in the chain made them special. We pointed out that you couldn't tell by the resolution of your pictures. Then someone actually calculated the size error.
But I guess you forgot all that, huh?
Actually the true subject is this.
Mercury CraterChains - Alien or Natural?
And, the crater / pit chain is not an image fault, but a true topographical feature. As I am sure Dr. P. Christensen would have said something. Duh?
As, also, we have stated that Pete here at scifoolems forums has now discovered an even longer one. But yes, crater chain research is over.
Hi persol.
Mercury CraterChains - Alien or Natural?
And, the crater / pit chain is not an image fault, but a true topographical feature. As I am sure Dr. P. Christensen would have said something. Duh?
As, also, we have stated that Pete here at scifoolems forums has now discovered an even longer one. But yes, crater chain research is over.
Hi persol.
Are people really arguing with Norval because of <a href="http://www.craterchains.com/ns/cstheorem.html">this??</a>
This page states the Cunningham / Smart Theorem. It demonstrates no apparent knowledge of science, no apparent knowledge of logic, and use as "proof" photographs which do not remotely demonstrate the conditions required by the theorem. If, as a University student, you were asked to state even a well-established theorem and yet did it in this way, you would get a resounding 'F' from your professor.
(Emphasis mine.)
Back to the "Theorem":
A straight-ish line of closely spaced craters can be seen on the surface of a distant world. What does science say at first glance about this line of craters that takes into account the apparent non-randomness of the craters? Only this: that they were generated by a single event. Someone who claimed that the line was formed by an accidental and coincidental series of random collisions would be considered as mad by the rational viewpoint, as those who see intelligent action where none is needed (by Ockham). Obviously, therefore, such a line of craters must have been formed as part of a single astronomical event - similar to the break-up of Shoemaker Levy 9, perhaps, although I personally don't see the need for a body to specifically have been broken up by tidal forces - much more likely the first impact broke the object up, but of course I don't have the maths to make that kind of analysis.
This page states the Cunningham / Smart Theorem. It demonstrates no apparent knowledge of science, no apparent knowledge of logic, and use as "proof" photographs which do not remotely demonstrate the conditions required by the theorem. If, as a University student, you were asked to state even a well-established theorem and yet did it in this way, you would get a resounding 'F' from your professor.
Occam's Razor implies that the simplest explanation is likely to be true, but in actual fact it does not state that. Upon clicking the <a href="http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html">link</a> you provided, it is evident that you didn't even read or understand it.
(Emphasis mine.)
Back to the "Theorem":
Fallacy no. 1. That line of O's appears in front of me as a result of technology: the Internet, my computer and the electrons hitting my monitor screen. But that is not the same medium as craters appearing in rock, so let's say all the technology is irrelevant. In which case your line of O's could have been made by a chimpanzee, or a mouse. The equal size and equal spacing are simply a result of the conditions under which the O's were produced, which was highly artificial. Nontheless, no intelligence was required to produce the Os in a line as they are.
followed by pictures of crater chains. The pictures are not remotely comparable to a line of O's produced on a computer monitor by a keyboard. The craters are not equal sized, they are not equally spaced and the line isn't even that straight.
A straight-ish line of closely spaced craters can be seen on the surface of a distant world. What does science say at first glance about this line of craters that takes into account the apparent non-randomness of the craters? Only this: that they were generated by a single event. Someone who claimed that the line was formed by an accidental and coincidental series of random collisions would be considered as mad by the rational viewpoint, as those who see intelligent action where none is needed (by Ockham). Obviously, therefore, such a line of craters must have been formed as part of a single astronomical event - similar to the break-up of Shoemaker Levy 9, perhaps, although I personally don't see the need for a body to specifically have been broken up by tidal forces - much more likely the first impact broke the object up, but of course I don't have the maths to make that kind of analysis.
Here we go again..... 
Crater chains on Phobos!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_enl_1100186977/img/1.jpg
Now, I'd just love Norv et al to explain why an alien civilisation needed to nuke a ball of rock just 27km by 19km!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_enl_1100186977/img/1.jpg
Now, I'd just love Norv et al to explain why an alien civilisation needed to nuke a ball of rock just 27km by 19km!
Ask Mars (the god of war?), but probably just a small planetary defense base there on Phobos? Just a thought.
Wars usually produce an abundance of left over ammo,, but DURRING the war, we expend amo like YOU are paying for it. Three times in the Nam I was on details to blow up old ammo. All kinds of the stuff. Kind of fun too. But I doubt that what we see is from blowing up left over ordinance.
Norval, not all weapons were explosives. Some are chemical agents that either cause direct respiratory failures or are designed to increases the paranoia of those that breath/ingest it, the ultimate goal in those instances was to cause a breakdown of the chain of command or cause people to just not want to fight.
'Nam wasn't the first usage of such chemical weaponry, the First World War contained the usage of Mustard Gas which caused men to drown from their own blood. It was the main reason why legislation started to come about against such weapons but this didn't really stop pathogen development. (Notibly refined varients of Ergot and chemical chains similar to LSD)
There is then the factor that ex-soldiers have alot to deal with when attempting to intergrate back into the "civilized" world, since they are no longer following orders but out fending for themselves, not to forget to mention that what they did in the field isn't ncessarily allowed in civilization. (For instance "Killing for your country" is a little different to "Killing because someone cheated you" etc.)
In fact there are documents after documents of the psychological traumas that some ex-military types have suffered. Some can bear the weight of what effects war has had on them, while others are dangerous without the conformaties of a chain of command. (You could suggest that perhaps such people would be better off continuing to have a chain of command so they aren't overwhelmed by having to make decisions for themselves).
So my question to you here would be a personal one and therefore I don't expect an answer, do you think that you could have been too near some chemical spray?
Another point which is far beyond whats written above is that the world has certain legislation attempting to ban space weaponry (something the U.S. Defense Dept hates) If we ban weapons from space because we see what damage it can do, don't you think that "alien races" would also in their enlightened state realise how wrong they would be to take weapons and war into space?
'Nam wasn't the first usage of such chemical weaponry, the First World War contained the usage of Mustard Gas which caused men to drown from their own blood. It was the main reason why legislation started to come about against such weapons but this didn't really stop pathogen development. (Notibly refined varients of Ergot and chemical chains similar to LSD)
There is then the factor that ex-soldiers have alot to deal with when attempting to intergrate back into the "civilized" world, since they are no longer following orders but out fending for themselves, not to forget to mention that what they did in the field isn't ncessarily allowed in civilization. (For instance "Killing for your country" is a little different to "Killing because someone cheated you" etc.)
In fact there are documents after documents of the psychological traumas that some ex-military types have suffered. Some can bear the weight of what effects war has had on them, while others are dangerous without the conformaties of a chain of command. (You could suggest that perhaps such people would be better off continuing to have a chain of command so they aren't overwhelmed by having to make decisions for themselves).
So my question to you here would be a personal one and therefore I don't expect an answer, do you think that you could have been too near some chemical spray?
Another point which is far beyond whats written above is that the world has certain legislation attempting to ban space weaponry (something the U.S. Defense Dept hates) If we ban weapons from space because we see what damage it can do, don't you think that "alien races" would also in their enlightened state realise how wrong they would be to take weapons and war into space?
Stryder, the only chemical spray I got near that was harmful, was the cheap perfume the nurses wore.
But you neglected the other very potent weapon of war. Crater chain producing weapons is another, but there is one even better.
The word. Be it typed, or spoken, words can be a mighty potent weapon. Properly used they can do more damage and of a long lasting nature that can be far worse than death.
The only thing YOU Stryder have to do is simply this.
Remember, I, Norval, told you so.
But you neglected the other very potent weapon of war. Crater chain producing weapons is another, but there is one even better.
The word. Be it typed, or spoken, words can be a mighty potent weapon. Properly used they can do more damage and of a long lasting nature that can be far worse than death.
The only thing YOU Stryder have to do is simply this.
Remember, I, Norval, told you so.
You mean the fact that his words are so horribly ineffective?