Potential ruins on martian surface. Odyssey's news.
Angel Garcia
commented from recent Odyssey releases.
highways & roads, profile of martian boy, hexagonal craters or amcient
ponds, rectangular foundations... and the 'too geometric' cross in the
students' caption of 19-mar-2002:
http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/id6.html
possibly (but not probably) all may be explained as natural (random)
geological features.. but from Cydonia view-point very likely they
are just very ancient ruins from martian ETI activity. Enjoy it.
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Cydonia and index of book "TETET-98: Generacion del Hombre en Marte" by Prof.
Dr. D.G. Lahoz (leader on ETI and Cosmogony) can be studied at URL:
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887 ***************************
Ron Miller
martian boy [!]", "roads", etc. and then say that these are what they must be. At
least you're honest enough to admit that "possibly (but not probably) all may be
explained as natural (random) geological features", although how in advance of
any supporting evidence you can use the word "probably" is rather beyond me. At
least you admit to the possibility that all of your "highways" and "profiles"
might just be products of your own imagination. Well, seeing canals all over Mars
made Lowell famous, so perhaps you may end up in the history books as a similar
footnote.
RM
Angel Garcia
> What amazing circular arguments--you name these things "highways", "profile of
> martian boy [!]", "roads", etc. and then say that these are what they must be.
has absolutely nothing to do nor with reality nor with any kind of
logical argument, dear 'poor logics-student'. Now: what can it be those
nicely curved white 'highways' at left of Terra Sirenum? They are inside
of a huge crater with no signs of 'sand' but rather sharp rocky mountains.
Yet the white lines ARE of CONSTANT WIDTH for hundreds of km and form a
net as we have on Earth-road systems. A logical explanation, considering
the positively identified (via Cydonia) ETI of superior class, is that
They are in need of mineral resources and 'mine' and 're-mine' even
RECENTLY all sites which are at hand. Such rocky crater may have valuable
ore and deserved a well developed road-system which the IR may have
detected. Does any good geologist explain hundreds of km, WITH CONSTANT
WIDTH, 'apparent highways'?
>> ponds, rectangular foundations... and the 'too geometric' cross in the
>> students' caption of 19-mar-2002:
>>
>> http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/id6.html
>>
that 'cross' has extremely perpendicular arms to be natural..
Ron Miller
Angel Garcia wrote:
> Ron Miller (rmi...@crosslink.com) writes:
> > What amazing circular arguments--you name these things "highways", "profile of
> > martian boy [!]", "roads", etc. and then say that these are what they must be.
>
> One notices a probable anomaly and, AS A REFERENCE, he names it. Naming it
> has absolutely nothing to do nor with reality nor with any kind of
> logical argument, dear 'poor logics-student'.
Your names aren't just names--they are clearly descriptions of what you believe
these things are.
> Now: what can it be those
> nicely curved white 'highways' at left of Terra Sirenum?
See? They are not "highways" just because you decide to use that name. That's where
you are deluding yourself.
RM
Eric Crew
<rmi...@crosslink.com> writes
>What amazing circular arguments--you name these things "highways", "profile of
>martian boy [!]", "roads", etc. and then say that these are what they must be.
>At
>least you're honest enough to admit that "possibly (but not probably) all may be
>explained as natural (random) geological features", although how in advance of
>any supporting evidence you can use the word "probably" is rather beyond me. At
>least you admit to the possibility that all of your "highways" and "profiles"
>might just be products of your own imagination. Well, seeing canals all over
>Mars
>made Lowell famous, so perhaps you may end up in the history books as a similar
>footnote.
>
>RM
>
which may have been the tracks of tunnels causing infrequent indications
on surface frost of H2O or CO2. These tunnels could have been made to
distribute water and communication generally. Self charging robotic
machines could have been used for the excavation over a long period.
We on Earth are gradually learning the technology, but obviously we
still have a long way to go. We have not long given up the idea that the
Earth is stationary at the centre of the solar system.
No doubt the cranks will say this is all imagination and that everything
on Mars is a natural feature.
>Angel Garcia wrote:
>
>> I have collected all 'anomalies' which we have, so far, observed and
>> commented from recent Odyssey releases.
>> highways & roads, profile of martian boy, hexagonal craters or amcient
>> ponds, rectangular foundations... and the 'too geometric' cross in the
>> students' caption of 19-mar-2002:
>>
>> http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/id6.html
>>
>> possibly (but not probably) all may be explained as natural (random)
>> geological features.. but from Cydonia view-point very likely they
>> are just very ancient ruins from martian ETI activity. Enjoy it.
>> --
>> Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
>> Cydonia and index of book "TETET-98: Generacion del Hombre en Marte" by Prof.
>> Dr. D.G. Lahoz (leader on ETI and Cosmogony) can be studied at URL:
>> http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887 ***************************
>
--
Eric Crew
Jonathan Silverlight
<er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> writes
The cranks are the people who insist that there is a system of faint
lines on Mars.
No such lines have been seen by the Hubble Space Telescope, by any Mars
probe, or by skilled observers such as Antoniadi. Antoniadi's drawings
show a correlation between surface features and the positions of canals,
but many observers wouldn't even go that far.
Ron Miller
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> The cranks are the people who insist that there is a system of faint
> lines on Mars.
> No such lines have been seen by the Hubble Space Telescope, by any Mars
> probe, or by skilled observers such as Antoniadi. Antoniadi's drawings
> show a correlation between surface features and the positions of canals,
> but many observers wouldn't even go that far.
To carry what you said even further: the "canals" were seen by only a vanishingly
small number of astronomers. The fact is that even a century ago, the vast majority
of astronomers failed to detect the canals and very much doubted their reality. And,
of course, this opinion was proven to be justified.
RM
Eric Crew
<rmi...@crosslink.com> writes
>
>
Moore in a book about Mars states that after careful study the system of
"lines" do not correspond with known surface features. Do not be too
eager to jump to conclusions about this interesting subject especially
in view of other apparent artifacts on Mars.
--
Eric Crew
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
>
> >To carry what you said even further: the "canals" were seen by only a
> >vanishingly
> >small number of astronomers. The fact is that even a century ago, the vast
> >majority
> >of astronomers failed to detect the canals and very much doubted their reality.
> >And,
> >of course, this opinion was proven to be justified.
> >
> >RM
> >
> >
> Of course there are no "canals". No one doubts that now. But Patrick
> Moore in a book about Mars states that after careful study the system of
> "lines" do not correspond with known surface features. Do not be too
> eager to jump to conclusions about this interesting subject especially
> in view of other apparent artifacts on Mars.
> --
> Eric Crew
What Patrick Moore book about Mars? Sounds like something he wrote in the 50s and
was refering to the "classical" canals of Lowell and Co. In any event, do I take
from your statement that you are assuming there is a "system of lines", other than
the traditional canals? Or am I mistaken?
I have taken a look at just about every "apparent artifact" people have thought
they've found on Mars and everything only seems to be unnatural after a hefty
application of wishful thinking and an overabundance of imagination.
RM
Angel Garcia
> Of course there are no "canals". No one doubts that now. But Patrick
> Moore in a book about Mars states that after careful study the system of
> "lines" do not correspond with known surface features. Do not be too
> eager to jump to conclusions about this interesting subject especially
> in view of other apparent artifacts on Mars.
Schiaparelli's and followers 'canali' are not surface features... and
who knows what they depicted... Mars may have changed. But now we have
a surface feature inside that crater (left of Terra Sirenum, IR by
Odyssey) and nobody can explain the CONSTANT WIDTH, very long and
with perfect sinuosities, sort of 'apparent highways'. With visible
continuity cover a very large area... how can geologists explain it?
hhttp://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/id6.html
Jonathan Silverlight
<er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> writes
I notice you've snipped your own text where you just said there _are_
canals. But there's no evidence of "other apparent artifacts" either. If
there was, they would be building the ship for the first manned
expedition right now.
Eric Crew
Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> writes
consider there may be faint surface lines in frost of H2O or CO2 from
time to time, just visible in terrestrial telescopes. Lowell's
observations were over a 10 year period. I have seen distinct lines over
underground ducts in my own garden and elsewhere and my paper on this
was published in the Meterological Journal. Your last para seems very
confused. If there is a system of tunnels it may have been made
thousands or millions of years ago.
--
Eric Crew
Jonathan Silverlight
<rmi...@crosslink.com> writes
>
>
Eric didn't say which book, but the one I was using to make the point
about Antoniadi was his "Patrick Moore on Mars", published in 1998. He
quotes Antoniadi, R S Richardson and A Dollfus as seeing canals -
Dollfus saw "thread-like, perfectly black, and artificial-looking"
canals which he believed were produced by an effect in the eye. It's
interesting to compare Antoniadi's drawings of Elysium with modern maps
and images.
David Knisely
> You are mistaken. I did not state "there are canals". Who did?
You did. In your response to Ron Miller, you posted:
> >RM: Well, seeing canals all over Mars made Lowell famous, so perhaps you may end up in the
> >RM: history books as a similar footnote.
> >
> >RM
> >
> These 'canals' were a system of faint lines seen by several observers
> which may have been the tracks of tunnels causing infrequent indications
> on surface frost of H2O or CO2. These tunnels could have been made to
> distribute water and communication generally. Self charging robotic
> machines could have been used for the excavation over a long period.
> We on Earth are gradually learning the technology, but obviously we
> still have a long way to go.
Thus, whether you intended to or not, you clearly implied it. The
"canals" on Mars were a product of certain observers seeing fine faint
markings on the Martian disk. A large number of competent professional
planetary observers at the time also did not see the "canals", so their
existance was rather questionable even back before spacecraft visited
the planet and showed the truth of the matter.
--
David Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.4w.com/pac
Hyde Memorial Observatory:
http://www.blackstarpress.com/arin/hyde
******************************************************
* Attend the 9th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* August 4-9, 2002 http://www.nebraskastarparty.org *
******************************************************
Bill Nelson
> Thus, whether you intended to or not, you clearly implied it. The
> "canals" on Mars were a product of certain observers seeing fine faint
> markings on the Martian disk. A large number of competent professional
> planetary observers at the time also did not see the "canals", so their
> existance was rather questionable even back before spacecraft visited
> the planet and showed the truth of the matter.
Matter of fact, Lowell was very strongly ridiculed by fellow astronomers
at the time about his claims of seeing canali.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
> You are mistaken. I did not state "there are canals". Who did?
I would say that you did, by the implication inherent in your phrase "other
apparent artifacts".
> I
> consider there may be faint surface lines in frost of H2O or CO2 from
> time to time, just visible in terrestrial telescopes. Lowell's
> observations were over a 10 year period.
Lowell also saw almost exactly the same sort of linear features on Mercury and
Venus.
RM
Eric Crew
<KA0...@navix.net> writes
>You posted:
>> You are mistaken. I did not state "there are canals". Who did?
>
>You did. In your response to Ron Miller, you posted:
>
>> >RM: Well, seeing canals all over Mars made Lowell famous, so perhaps you may
>end up in the
>> >RM: history books as a similar footnote.
>> >
>> >RM
>> >
>> These 'canals' were a system of faint lines seen by several observers
>> which may have been the tracks of tunnels causing infrequent indications
>> on surface frost of H2O or CO2. These tunnels could have been made to
>> distribute water and communication generally. Self charging robotic
>> machines could have been used for the excavation over a long period.
>> We on Earth are gradually learning the technology, but obviously we
>> still have a long way to go.
>
>Thus, whether you intended to or not, you clearly implied it. The
>"canals" on Mars were a product of certain observers seeing fine faint
>markings on the Martian disk. A large number of competent professional
>planetary observers at the time also did not see the "canals", so their
>existance was rather questionable even back before spacecraft visited
>the planet and showed the truth of the matter.
>
observer and it might have required a long observation time for the
chance of seeing lines, as it does on Earth. Eye defects are extremely
unlikely. I certainly did not support the idea of "canals" on Mars.
Tunnels have the big advantage of shielding from the radiation and
particles from space and reducing loss of water by evaporation. They can
be constructed automatically by self-charging mechanical/electrical
robots and a few centuries for this may be acceptable to an advanced
civilisation.
There is an article in today's paper, The Guardian (UK) about the
suggestion by Prof. Barrie Jones and Nick Sleep of the Open University
that there may be a billion planets like Earth in our galaxy. This
increases the probability that some may have had civilisations capable
of sending visitors to other stellar systems (perhaps robotic) to
prepare for eventual colonisation. Keep this in mind when you hear about
possible artifacts on the Moon and Mars and ancient traces of advanced
technology on Earth. Only cranks will insist that these are all
imaginary.
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
> Agree - some doubt about the lines, but Lowell was recognised as a good
> observer and it might have required a long observation time for the
> chance of seeing lines, as it does on Earth. Eye defects are extremely
> unlikely.
No one has ever really suggested that Lowell suffered from eye defects. What he did
suffer from was an overdeveloped propensity--which we all have to some degree--to
find patterns in random data. This was one of the reasons he found linear features
on just about everything he observed, including Venus and Mercury. In fact, I think
this is one of the strongest arguments for his Martian "canals" being entirely a
product of his mind. For a superb analysis of Lowell's observations I'd recommend
"Planets & Perception" by Walter Sheehan.
> There is an article in today's paper, The Guardian (UK) about the
> suggestion by Prof. Barrie Jones and Nick Sleep of the Open University
> that there may be a billion planets like Earth in our galaxy. This
> increases the probability that some may have had civilisations capable
> of sending visitors to other stellar systems (perhaps robotic) to
> prepare for eventual colonisation. Keep this in mind when you hear about
> possible artifacts on the Moon and Mars and ancient traces of advanced
> technology on Earth. Only cranks will insist that these are all
> imaginary.
Why not, when I've not seen one single instance where one of these "artifacts" did
not appear to be either a natural feature or a product of someone's overactive
imagination and preconceptions? I won't say that there might not be alien (or
native) artifacts on Mars or other worlds, but there's certainly not been any
evidence so far (depending, of course, on the level of one's credulity).
RM
Eric Crew
<bi...@spock.peak.org> writes
--
Eric Crew
Eric Crew
<rmi...@crosslink.com> writes
>
>
>Eric Crew wrote:
>
>> You are mistaken. I did not state "there are canals". Who did?
>
>I would say that you did, by the implication inherent in your phrase "other
>apparent artifacts".
>
belief that there are no artifacts on Mars.
>> I
>> consider there may be faint surface lines in frost of H2O or CO2 from
>> time to time, just visible in terrestrial telescopes. Lowell's
>> observations were over a 10 year period.
>
>Lowell also saw almost exactly the same sort of linear features on Mercury and
>Venus.
>
>RM
>
>
could see lines on Mars.
--
Eric Crew
Velda
Eric Crew wrote:
> >Lowell also saw almost exactly the same sort of linear features on Mercury and
> >Venus.
> >
> >RM
> >
> >
> This is puzzling but perhaps it is because he was so convinced that he
> could see lines on Mars.
I think the simpler and more logical explanation is that Lowell had a prediliction
for making orderly patterns--in this case lines--out of any random patterns he saw,
whether they were on Mars, Venus or anywhere else. (It may have been something
instrinsic in his own nature and/or it may have had something to do with the fact
that his formal training was in mathematics, not astronomy.) I really would suggest
you take a look at the book I recommended.
RM
Velda
Eric Crew wrote:
> >Matter of fact, Lowell was very strongly ridiculed by fellow astronomers
> >at the time about his claims of seeing canali.
> >
> Astronomers have ridiculed other ideas which are now generally accepted.
> --
> Eric Crew
That's the most disingenuous of all arguments. It puts all ideas, from the
plausible to the ridiculous, on the same plane. Bluntly: not all ideas are
equal. Scientists also ridiculed the idea of the hollow earth and Horbiger's
World Ice Theory and astrology--that doesn't put them on the same level with,
say, the theories of continental drift or relativity.
RM
Eric Crew
<ve...@bonestell.org> writes
my waiting-to-read list: Percival Lowell by David Strauss (Harvard
University Press, 2001). There is still a lot we don't yet know about
Mars.
My formal training is in electrical engineering, not astronomy. Does
this mean you will never take note of my views on solar physics?
See http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Eric Crew
<ve...@bonestell.org> writes
ridiculed some ideas which are now generally accepted.
--
Eric Crew
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
> In article <3CB76727...@bonestell.org>, Velda
> >
> >I think the simpler and more logical explanation is that Lowell had a
> >prediliction
> >for making orderly patterns--in this case lines--out of any random patterns he
> >saw,
> >whether they were on Mars, Venus or anywhere else. (It may have been something
> >instrinsic in his own nature and/or it may have had something to do with the
> >fact
> >that his formal training was in mathematics, not astronomy.) I really would
> >suggest
> >you take a look at the book I recommended.
> >
> >RM
> >
> This seems to me rather improbable.
What seems to you to be improbable? That Lowell had a prediliction for finding
patterns in everything he saw? Certainly the evidence suggests this is so--no one
else in the world saw the linear features he found on Venus and Mercury. If he saw
such things on worlds where no such features exist, why not also on Mars?
> It reminded me that I have a book on
> my waiting-to-read list: Percival Lowell by David Strauss (Harvard
> University Press, 2001). There is still a lot we don't yet know about
> Mars.
The point being what? That I should accept the possibility of anything, however
unlikely or unsupported?
> My formal training is in electrical engineering, not astronomy. Does
> this mean you will never take note of my views on solar physics?
> See http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm
I might take note of them but I'd certainly be inclined to take them more seriously
were you an astrophysicist . . . unless I'm missing a connection between solar
physics and electrical engineering I'm not aware of. For all I know, you are gifted
amateur in the field of solar physics, but this really has no bearing on Lowell
that I can see. Lowell built a hugely elaborate scenario regarding Mars--some of
which absolutely defied common sense)--based on what was little more than an
optical illusion (take a look at his drawings of Mars: the perspective of many of
the "canals" don't even follow the curvature of the planet). Are you
suggesting--and I hope not--that your views on solar physics are based on the same
kinds of evidence, reasoning and logic that Lowell applied to his theories
regarding Mars?
RM
Eric Crew
<rmi...@crosslink.com> writes
>
>
physicists and the published papers of the late C E R Bruce, DSc., FIEE,
FInst.P and the book of the Hungarian astronomer Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy
'The Electric Universe' reviewed in the website noted above. The study
of electrical engineering is very relevant to solar physics, but few
astronomers realise this at present.
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
> Are you
> >suggesting--and I hope not--that your views on solar physics are based on the
> >same
> >kinds of evidence, reasoning and logic that Lowell applied to his theories
> >regarding Mars?
> >
> >RM
> >
> Of course not. They are based on extensive reading of books by solar
> physicists and the published papers of the late C E R Bruce, DSc., FIEE,
> FInst.P and the book of the Hungarian astronomer Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy
> 'The Electric Universe' reviewed in the website noted above. The study
> of electrical engineering is very relevant to solar physics, but few
> astronomers realise this at present.
> --
> Eric Crew FRAS
Glad to hear all this. It's clear that you're a better scientist than Lowell, who
evolved the existence and history of an entire civilization from evidence so flimsy
that most contemporary--and more experienced--astronomers discounted its reality.
RM
randyj
"Eric Crew" <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D4PlBRAj...@brox1.demon.co.uk...
Got any evidence for that claim?
just give an example, please.
rj
Angel Garcia
>> Astronomers have ridiculed other ideas which are now generally accepted.
>> --
>> Eric Crew
>
> Got any evidence for that claim?
> just give an example, please.
Copernicus and Galileo had very bad times due to their ideas.
In 1600 Giordano Bruno was burn in public square of Rome after
many years in a dungeon. His crime?... just defending against
very incompetent astronomers of tbose years that Earth was not
center of universe. One of the tribunal who set him to death is
now a Saint ( a jesuit) who had tought the crazy idea of
a heavy dome covering the flat Earth.
Cydonia, for some strange reason, is now undergoing similar battle.
Sort of stupid 'church' (geologists, anthropologists, etc.) who
don't want change to 'status quo': Darwin and his idea of an
african ape which generated H. Sapiens just 30 Ma ago.
http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/index.html
http://eltasico.tripod.com/face-mars/index.html
Henry Spencer
Angel Garcia <bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> Got any evidence for that claim?
>> just give an example, please.
>
>Copernicus and Galileo had very bad times due to their ideas.
Uh, no. Copernicus's ideas got eager acceptance far and wide, including
from the Church (note that the prefatory material in his book includes a
letter of praise from an influential Cardinal); it was only his own
timidity that made him postpone formal publication until after his death.
Galileo's case is much more complicated, but the one-sentence summary is
that what got him in trouble was his arrogance and total lack of tact, not
his ideas. He was tried because he pissed off the Pope at a politically
unfavorable time, and the court clearly had orders to give him a good
scare but let him off lightly (for example, it pointedly ignored his
blatant perjury).
>In 1600 Giordano Bruno was burn in public square of Rome after
>many years in a dungeon. His crime?... just defending against
>very incompetent astronomers of tbose years that Earth was not
>center of universe.
Uh, no. His crime was religious non-conformism with a strong
anti-establishment slant, and it was the state and the Church, not the
astronomers, who had it in for him. He mentioned heliocentric astronomy
only as a minor supporting argument for his eccentric religious beliefs,
and he clearly didn't understand it very well, and it did not feature in
his trial. It's a matter of record that Kepler thought him a pitiable
lunatic. The idea that he was another Galileo and was executed for his
astronomy is a modern myth.
In fact, Galileo got in hot water partly because a lot of people -- who
hadn't actually read his books -- mistakenly thought *he* was another
*Bruno*, an anti-establishment religious agitator, and put pressure on the
Pope to make an example of him.
--
In order to improve computer security, | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
the CEO must care. --Bruce Schneier | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
Chris Franks
"Angel Garcia" <bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
> Cydonia, for some strange reason, is now undergoing similar battle.
The reason is not strange, it is simple. I do not take "Cydonia"
seriously because I have seen no evidence that there is anything artifical
in the area, and that includes your using numerology to a much greater
precision than is justifiable by the resolution of the photographs. You
use various mathematical relationships between different numbers, and the
mathematics that you use is true. What you have no evidence for is that
any of this math applies to the objects on the surface. I can take a
bunch of darts and launch them at a dart board and spend the next 5 years
measuring the distance between the points and squaring this and multiplying
by that but I cannot see how that will prove that the darts are
extra-terrestrial.
> Sort of stupid 'church' (geologists, anthropologists, etc.) who
> don't want change to 'status quo': Darwin and his idea of an
> african ape which generated H. Sapiens just 30 Ma ago.
I think you will find it was not 30 Mega years, closer to 3. And
many churches STILL , to this day, teach that the entire Universe is only
6000 years old. John, an engineer here believes it, believes that all of
the "evidence" that we have accumulated was faked by God to test his
[John's] faith. I told him that I have trouble believing in such a
devious god.
Angel Garcia
> In article <a9mkbs$5om$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> Angel Garcia <bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>> Got any evidence for that claim?
>>> just give an example, please.
>>
>>Copernicus and Galileo had very bad times due to their ideas.
>
> Uh, no. Copernicus's ideas got eager acceptance far and wide, including
> from the Church (note that the prefatory material in his book includes a
> letter of praise from an influential Cardinal); it was only his own
> timidity that made him postpone formal publication until after his death.
>
Which 'church?. Not the catholic!. Imprimatur came from 'protestant' church.
And in intro. it is said that his theory is AGAINST the teachings of
church Thus warning against its acceptance.
> Galileo's case is much more complicated, but the one-sentence summary is
> that what got him in trouble was his arrogance and total lack of tact, not
> his ideas. He was tried because he pissed off the Pope at a politically
> unfavorable time, and the court clearly had orders to give him a good
> scare but let him off lightly (for example, it pointedly ignored his
> blatant perjury).
Galileo just defended earnestly that Earth 'rotated' ("e pur si
muove!') and nobody in astronomical advisary to Pope could go
with it BECAUSE St. Augustin had said that 'every morning
God (=Jesus) was giving motion to sun around Earth'.
The EGO of the Church and not Galileo is to blame!. Even now
they say: "I believe in God, Creator OF Earth and Heaven".
No God ever created the Earth!... it should be said:
"I believe in God Creator IN Heaven and IN Earth!"
Conservativism... yes, but with caution.
>
>>In 1600 Giordano Bruno was burn in public square of Rome after
>>many years in a dungeon. His crime?... just defending against
>>very incompetent astronomers of tbose years that Earth was not
>>center of universe.
>
> Uh, no. His crime was religious non-conformism with a strong
> anti-establishment slant, and it was the state and the Church, not the
> astronomers, who had it in for him. He mentioned heliocentric astronomy
....
Read Giordano!: a great physicist who CORRECTLY distinguished between
the real God ' of History' (Bible) and the 'Soul of the Cosmos'.
He ridiculed the worshipers of the SECOND while prising God.
Again St. Augustin had PISSED by confusing both 'Jesus CREATOR of the
UNIVERSE'. Thus Giordano was aginst St. Augustin and deserved death!.
Very sad: now Jonh II has finally made an apology. That is not
to say that te Church is ALL wrong. It is just too slow in learning
science, but still represents te best of God on Earth. Little by
little and USING many sources we are approaching to te truth.
Keith F. Lynch
> In 1600 Giordano Bruno was burn in public square of Rome ...
Henry Spencer <he...@spsystems.net> wrote:
> He mentioned heliocentric astronomy only as a minor supporting
> argument for his eccentric religious beliefs, and he clearly didn't
> understand it very well, ...
I thought Bruno was the first to say that the stars are other suns,
with planets of their own. If so, it sounds like he was way ahead
of his time.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Angel Garcia
> "Angel Garcia" <bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
>
>> Cydonia, for some strange reason, is now undergoing similar battle.
>
> The reason is not strange, it is simple. I do not take "Cydonia"
> seriously because I have seen no evidence that there is anything artifical
> in the area, and that includes your using numerology to a much greater
> precision than is justifiable by the resolution of the photographs. You
> use various mathematical relationships between different numbers, and the
> mathematics that you use is true. W
Math. that I use is true... certainly. There are two levels of precision:
a 8-digit precision for 'Basic Diagram' and 7th. concept (All Diagrams
to East of Fort) AND an 11-digit(+) precision for Diagrams to West of
Fort (the 'MOUND SYSTEM').
True that nobodt can measure distances and angles on the spacecraft
images to more than 2 (may be 3) decimal places EVEN between sharp
tiny mounds. So prof. Horace Crater MEASURED:
(Ac,Bc)= x and (Ec,Ac)= x * 1.41...
Crater said: "1.41... looks as sqrt(2)=1.41421.."
and CORRECTLY hhe made the pilosophy 'INDUCTION' that the sqrt(2)
was intended EXACTLY. Similarly Lahoz in his dozens of inductions.
If just one of them had been wrongly assumed then no 'superuman'
conundrums would have appeared.
The very difficult 'soft link' in page. id18.html starts with
Hoagland's induction PF= 2*(F,Af). Such becomes only APPROXIMATE
once re-definition is made at sta=(A14,A~)=1.0361005011 EXACTLY:
one can calculate backwards from (S,Nc) to (F,Af) USING the
new lengths and angles. The 'BASIC DIAGRAM' remains totally
untouched with FE=ET=JG=JR=..=1 EXACTLY (and all its angles
as well). ONLY the 'soft link' becomes damaged to:
PF= 1.9936.. * (F,Af)
I'm sure that Hoagland will not be anoyed to replace his WILD
induction of 2 by just 1.9936..!!!.
No INTELLIGENCE without 'inductions'. These are never 'truly
logical' because conclusion is WIDER tan premises... but
ANY physical law (Newton, Maxwell, Helmhiltz, Einstein...) is
just a MODEST induction from observed facts.
Henry Spencer
Angel Garcia <bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> Uh, no. Copernicus's ideas got eager acceptance far and wide, including
>> from the Church (note that the prefatory material in his book includes a
>
>Which 'church?. Not the catholic!.
The Catholic Church. The letter in the beginning, dated 1536, is from
Cardinal Schoenberg, who was the right-hand man of three successive Popes.
"I beg you most emphatically to communicate your discovery to the learned
world..." It seems likely -- although unverifiable -- that he wrote at
the request of the Pope.
Moreover, there is an inscription in a Greek manuscript (otherwise of no
interest) of the right vintage indicating that it was a gift from the
previous Pope, Clement VII, in 1533, to his Secretary in appreciation of a
lecture explaining Copernicus's theory.
(The general idea of Copernicus's theory, without details and supporting
calculations, was in wide informal circulation long before it was finally
published.)
Contrary to popular belief, the Church was not (then) averse to hearing
about new findings indicating that Church dogma might have to be changed.
That had happened before. What did matter, though, was how the new
findings were stated: until the Church officially reversed itself, the
old dogma remained the Official Truth, and so new theories which
contradicted it could not be asserted as fact, only as hypotheses.
When the Church finally got around to officially recalling Copernicus's
book for revisions, nearly a century after its publication, the only
changes demanded were small wording amendments to change a few overly-bold
assertions of its truth to proposals that it might be true. Some of those
amendments were to the Cardinal's letter, by the way.
Angel Garcia
> In article <a9nrhd$pvv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> Angel Garcia <bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>> Uh, no. Copernicus's ideas got eager acceptance far and wide, including
>>> from the Church (note that the prefatory material in his book includes a
>>> letter of praise from an influential Cardinal)...
>>
>>Which 'church?. Not the catholic!.
OK. I cannot dispute what you say below. My understanding is that
Copernicus' "De revolutionibus.." was printed thanks to open mind
of 'Protestant' Church (Lutheran, I think) who gave 'Imprimatur'
but with 'caveat' in introduction. Of course Catholic had and has
good and even scientific minds.. but the disasters around 1600
is good example of how humble and 'open minded' has to be everybody
when it comes to assess new and revolutionary concepts in science.
--
Angel Garcia
> "Chris Franks" (chris_...@agilent.com) writes:
>> "Angel Garcia" <bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
>>
>>> Cydonia, for some strange reason, is now undergoing similar battle.
>>
>> The reason is not strange, it is simple. I do not take "Cydonia"
>> seriously because I have seen no evidence that there is anything artifical
>> in the area, and that includes your using numerology to a much greater
>> precision than is justifiable by the resolution of the photographs. You
>> use various mathematical relationships between different numbers, and the
>> mathematics that you use is true. W
>
> Math. that I use is true... certainly.
Certainly! except when I make mistakes or typos as the one below.
> There are two levels of precision:
> a 8-digit precision for 'Basic Diagram' and 7th. concept (All Diagrams
> to East of Fort) AND an 11-digit(+) precision for Diagrams to West of
> Fort (the 'MOUND SYSTEM').
> True that nobody can measure distances and angles on the spacecraft
> images to more than 2 (may be 3) decimal places EVEN between sharp
> tiny mounds. So prof. Horace Crater MEASURED:
>
> (Ac,Bc)= x and (Ec,Ac)= x * 1.41...
>
> Crater said: "1.41... looks as sqrt(2)=1.41421.."
> and CORRECTLY he made the philosophy 'INDUCTION' that the sqrt(2)
> was intended EXACTLY. Similarly Lahoz in his dozens of inductions.
> If just one of them had been wrongly assumed then no 'superhuman'
> conundrums would have appeared.
Note that in estimating 'compound probability' of 'being coincidence'
for those 9 or 10 superconundrums at image in intro. to page id18.html
care must be taken in that those superconundrums are 'statistically
independent". Not all of them are in there: the (A1,A3)=2*(A1,A2)
makes ONE only of such pair as independent; but only about 1/400
of 'palindromes' becomes set of 'pairs' when multiplied by 2.
It is said in there that "probability is much smaller than 10^(-30)."
That is correct for calculated 'compound probability'... actually
smaller than 10^(-40) !!!. THAT IS THE REAL PROOF OF ETI IN CYDONIA:
nobody in our current terrestrial culture can or could 'fabricate' those
FORMIDABLE 0.77777777676.. irrational numbers and palindromes out of
simple geometry; not now nor in foreseable 100 years from now!.
>
> The very difficult 'soft link' in page. id18.html starts with
> Hoagland's induction PF= 2*(F,Af). Such becomes only APPROXIMATE
> once re-definition is made at sta=(A14,A~)=1.0361005011 EXACTLY:
> one can calculate backwards from (S,Nc) to (F,Af) USING the
> new lengths and angles. The 'BASIC DIAGRAM' remains totally
> untouched with EF=ET=GJ=JR=..=1 EXACTLY (and all its angles
> as well). ONLY the 'soft link', namely the unique 'ad hoc'
> length (F,Af), becomes damaged to:
>
> PF= 1.9936.. * (F,Af)
Warning: there is minor mistake in above relation; it should say:
FP= 1.9996101984277.. * (F,Af)
[[with my broken keyboard and slopy calculus and without taking care
about writing FP (instead of PF, following alphabetical rule as
Lahoz does), I committed above little error. Now, corrected, everything
is fine as said and in exact agreement with TETET-96 @ pag.101]].
Note, furthermore, that the 'link' (F,Af) does not belong nor to
'Basic Diagram' nor to 'Extended Diagram'; thus its value does not
count at all for any purpose except, of course, for the epistemological
purpose of 'detecting' the string of superconundrums as Lahoz did.
Once such role has been fulfilled one can ignore the segment (F,Af)..
but due recognition has to be mentioned to those Hoagland's WILD
statements which, not always, but sometimes hit correctly, indeed.
>
> I'm sure that Hoagland will not be anoyed to replace his WILD
> induction of 2 by just 1.99961..!!!.
>
> No INTELLIGENCE without 'inductions'. These are never 'truly
> logical' because conclusion is WIDER than premises... but
> ANY physical law (Newton, Maxwell, Helmholtz, Einstein...) is
Eric Crew
<rje...@ufl.edu> writes
(or an attic)? You want ONE example of ideas which have been ridiculed
and now generally accepted?
I thought everyone knows about Wegener, the continental drifter. The
late (Sir, Professor) Fred Hoyle wrote about his views "How a continent
composed of rock some 35 km thick could contrive to move is something
that has never been explained, and until some plausible reason is
offered in its support we need scarcely take the notion of 'drifting
continents' at all seriously" ('Frontiers of Astronomy' Heinemann, 1970.
First published 1955). It is now generally accepted that tectonic plates
drift and this is caused by convection currents in the magma. However my
late friend David Slade and I claim (in SIS publications) that the
movement is due to tidal effects but this view has been ignored so far
by professionals. Perhaps a professor will have the same idea and give
it some publicity.
Henry has disputed the Galileo and Bruno candidates, but my reading of
science hisory leads me to dispute Henry's views. This newsgroup is not
the place to enlarge on this.
There are many other examples. Charles Darwin's assertion that we have a
common ancester with apes was ridiculed, but is only opposed now in some
backward parts of the USA.
The molecular theory of gases was ridiculed and although it still
puzzles me it is generally accepted. If you spill some ammonia liquid at
one end of a long corridor an observer at the other end will soon detect
ammonia molecules by smell. They must travel at high speed...
There are many other examples, eg with reference to heavier-than-air
flight machines.
I would like to make a prediction that is more applicable to this
newsgroup. In the future the theory of a magnetic dynamo and magnetic
'tubes' bursting out of the Sun will seem as ridiculous as the epicyclic
theory of orbits. More details in
http://brox1.demon.co.uk/solar/solarphysics.htm
Good luck!
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Angel Garcia
>
......
> There are many other examples. Charles Darwin's assertion that we have a
> common ancester with apes was ridiculed, but is only opposed now in some
> backward parts of the USA.
>
erred miserably in the matter which is most famous for... By ignoring
TOTALLY the humanistic aspect of 'HUMAM KNOWLEDGE' he engaged in
arrogant despise of the FACTS: miracle and prophecy. So he wrongly
claimed Religion to be pure invention of primitive terrestrials
without any input from Above; and he consequently claimed terrestrial
origin for H. Sapiens: THAT IS WRONG !. H. Sapiens was truly somehow
CREATED on Earth by God: God originated in Mars and via travel from
Mars to Earth imprinted in His descent on Earth several (if not all)
basic Religions to convey His idea of Ethics and Moral. He could not
have done so without Authority born from His Act of Creation.
We are not dinosauroids, nor darwinistic monkeys... the final stage
of Creation (perhaps as recent as less than 500 thousand years) is
Homo Cromagnon essentially equal to current H. Sapiens.
Logically God had to set a series of 'hominids' similar to apes
(Lucy, and various "..pithecus") to show with humility the FACT
of evolution IN MARS. It was in martian surface where true,
darwinistic, macroevolution took place.. our real ANCESTORS are
DEPICTED in Cydonia: HP (=Homo Primigenius), marla and scholaris
at epochs between -700 Ma up to near -2 Ga in a wet and green
martian surface. This is pure logic induction from what Cydonia
shows.
http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/index.html
as marvelously recreated by Art of a great artist and architect
Mr. Ferran Rodriguez and others in very first pages of above URL:
HP does not look as 'ape' at all with his HEAVY nose; marla with
large mammary glands; and scholaris with more mouth than brain.
Actually was Hoagland who first spotted his bulky mandible and cheek
as artificial construction in a mountain.. but it was Mr. D. Elphick
in Australia who SAW the whole magnificent half-body of scholaris
(standing and oriented with South up). Who is so artistically stupid
to not see what Elphick described in those untouched (very light
contrast) as imaged by MGS in 1998 ???.. Please, honesty!: everybody
sees that scholaris is a genuine Art-work impossible to be duplicated
by any geologic phenomenon. An so it is the WONDERFUL untouched
left eye of twistfa (also imaged in 1998 by MGS in the same strip).
Jonathan Silverlight
<er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> writes
Was that a new edition or just a reprint (and showing its age)? Twenty
years later he was happy to include a description of continental drift
in his "Astronomy Today" (Heinemann, 1975). Of course by than we had
direct evidence that the continents move, from laser ranging methods and
the discovery of magnetic reversals in sea-floor sediments.
>However my
>late friend David Slade and I claim (in SIS publications) that the
>movement is due to tidal effects but this view has been ignored so far
>by professionals. Perhaps a professor will have the same idea and give
>it some publicity.
>
Perhaps you will publish in peer reviewed journals with some evidence to
back you up.
>Henry has disputed the Galileo and Bruno candidates, but my reading of
>science hisory leads me to dispute Henry's views. This newsgroup is not
>the place to enlarge on this.
>
>There are many other examples. Charles Darwin's assertion that we have a
>common ancester with apes was ridiculed, but is only opposed now in some
>backward parts of the USA.
>
>The molecular theory of gases was ridiculed and although it still
>puzzles me it is generally accepted. If you spill some ammonia liquid at
>one end of a long corridor an observer at the other end will soon detect
>ammonia molecules by smell. They must travel at high speed...
>
They do. About 7000 meters per second for ammonia. I'm only a dumb
biologist but I was able to work that out for myself, given a few
numbers. Do you have an alternative theory?
Martin Hardcastle
Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <FBTv9BAp...@brox1.demon.co.uk>, Eric Crew
><er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> writes
>>puzzles me it is generally accepted. If you spill some ammonia liquid at
>>one end of a long corridor an observer at the other end will soon detect
>>ammonia molecules by smell. They must travel at high speed...
>
>They do. About 7000 meters per second for ammonia.
Um, a) that looks wrong at room temperature by an order of magnitude
or so, and b) you may want to consider the concept of mean free path.
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol
A little learning is a dangerous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the
Pierian spring; / There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain ...
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me
Eric Crew
<bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
Darwin was ridiculed when he first expounded his theory of evolution but
scientific opinion now supports his views. His opponents, like Angel,
are a very small minority.
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Angel Garcia
> In article <a9uitc$sq0$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, Angel Garcia
> <bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>>Eric Crew (er...@brox1.demon.co.uk) writes:
>>>
>>......
>>> There are many other examples. Charles Darwin's assertion that we have a
>>> common ancester with apes was ridiculed, but is only opposed now in some
>>> backward parts of the USA.
>>>
>> That is NOT a good example. Darwin was certainly a good scientist but
>>erred miserably in the matter which is most famous for... By ignoring
>>TOTALLY the humanistic aspect of 'HUMAM KNOWLEDGE' he engaged in
>>arrogant despise of the FACTS: miracle and prophecy. So he wrongly
>>claimed Religion to be pure invention of primitive terrestrials
>>without any input from Above; and he consequently claimed terrestrial
>>origin for H. Sapiens: THAT IS WRONG !. H. Sapiens was truly somehow
>>CREATED on Earth by God: God originated in Mars and via travel from
>>Mars to Earth imprinted in His descent on Earth several (if not all)
>>basic Religions to convey His idea of Ethics and Moral. He could not
>>
>> http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/index.html
> Darwin was ridiculed when he first expounded his theory of evolution but
> scientific opinion now supports his views. His opponents, like Angel,
> are a very small minority.
> --
He was damned and ridiculed by religious believers, although
evolution was already in the air of french and german writers.
Currently Catholics accept evolution for animals and only
'evolutio punctuata' (or in stages) for H. Sapiens. That seems
to us at UNIAM to be the correct position.
It is EXTREMELY stupid nowadays to dismiss 'miracles' (read ETI
tricks): more than 50 thousand people including University professors
and atheist reporters assisted at noon of 13oct1917 to a real meeting
with ETI predicted with 3 months of anticipation to the world by 3
children (Francisco 7, Jacinta 6, Lucia 10). A 'grand' UFO entertained
the crowd during 15 minutes: mimicking the sun (hidden behind thick
curtains of clowds) and dancing in zig-zag, changing all rainbow
colors and approaching the wet ground with horrendous heat which
dried clothing of the crowd.
Jacinta and Francisco died within 3 years as they were said so by
the Vision (in name of Virgin Mary). Lucia is still alive in her 90's
and her (and their) 3 prophecies have been all 3 already fulfilled:
1) "Vision of Hell": people burning in 'transparent' fire... meaning
the holocaust at Hiroshima.
2) "Conversion of atheist Rusia": Gorbachev and current Christian Rusia.
3) "Killing of the Pope": Jacinta was sorry for the 'poor Pope' (she said)
being killed or so seemed to the visionaries. That was the nearly
deadly bullet to John Paul II who has recognized the written prophecy
handed to Papacy (in secret) more than 30 years ago; now that bullet
has been put in the crown of an image of Virgin Mary at Fatima.
That is to say: There is FOR SURE a currently existing ETI Who cares
for mankind and Religion in particular. All God's revelations (mainly
to children and simple-minded people) are in 'figure of speech' style,
OF COURSE, it cannot be otherwise. By contrast: Cydonia is for
assessment of the BEST scientific minds who, more than anybody else,
needed such reassurance against current rampant atheism in Academia.
Jonathan Silverlight
<m.hard...@xxx.xxx.xxx> writes
>In article <q5nqtmzq...@jsilver.freeserve.co.uk>,
>Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <FBTv9BAp...@brox1.demon.co.uk>, Eric Crew
>><er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>The molecular theory of gases was ridiculed and although it still
>>>puzzles me it is generally accepted. If you spill some ammonia liquid at
>>>one end of a long corridor an observer at the other end will soon detect
>>>ammonia molecules by smell. They must travel at high speed...
>>
>>They do. About 7000 meters per second for ammonia.
>
>Um, a) that looks wrong at room temperature by an order of magnitude
>or so, and b) you may want to consider the concept of mean free path.
>
>Martin
Oops. You're right, of course. I ignored the mean free path because Eric
seemed to have trouble with the whole idea of molecules moving at high
speed, but dropping decimal points was just silly.
Eric Crew
opportunity of correcting his statement. It is an example of a
scientific idea now accepted which was ridiculed.
>>However my
>>late friend David Slade and I claim (in SIS publications) that the
>>movement is due to tidal effects but this view has been ignored so far
>>by professionals. Perhaps a professor will have the same idea and give
>>it some publicity.
>>
>
>Perhaps you will publish in peer reviewed journals with some evidence to
>back you up.
Not a hope! A paper will have to come from an academic, not qualified
engineers. I should have said the 'tidal effects' are the twice daily
raising and falling of the solid crust of Earth due to tidal forces of
Moon and Sun. Over millennia this is like a vibration which causes
tectonic plates to separate and drift apart. The details of the process
are described in the paper. It seems far more realistic than the
'generally accepted' theory of convection currents in the magma.
>
>>Henry has disputed the Galileo and Bruno candidates, but my reading of
>>science hisory leads me to dispute Henry's views. This newsgroup is not
>>the place to enlarge on this.
>>
>>There are many other examples. Charles Darwin's assertion that we have a
>>common ancester with apes was ridiculed, but is only opposed now in some
>>backward parts of the USA.
>>
>>The molecular theory of gases was ridiculed and although it still
>>puzzles me it is generally accepted. If you spill some ammonia liquid at
>>one end of a long corridor an observer at the other end will soon detect
>>ammonia molecules by smell. They must travel at high speed...
>>
>
>They do. About 7000 meters per second for ammonia. I'm only a dumb
>biologist but I was able to work that out for myself, given a few
>numbers. Do you have an alternative theory?
>
>
>
No, Jonathan, I do not have an alternative theory, but I am puzzled by
the force which causes the velocity of molecules. what limits the
acceleration and value of the steady mean velocity? How does an increase
of temperature (i.e. input of energy) cause an increase of velocity? The
physics text books consulted have not been of much help.
A velocity of 7km/sec does not allow for multiple molecular collisions,
or it would only take 1/100th sec to travel along a 70 meter corridor. I
am interested in the time taken for a stream of electrons to emerge from
the core of the Sun to the surface and beyond. See
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/solar/Solarphysics.htm
--
Eric Crew
Jonathan Silverlight
<er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <q5nqtmzq...@jsilver.freeserve.co.uk>, Jonathan
>Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>
>>back you up.
>
>Not a hope! A paper will have to come from an academic, not qualified
>engineers. I should have said the 'tidal effects' are the twice daily
>raising and falling of the solid crust of Earth due to tidal forces of
>Moon and Sun. Over millennia this is like a vibration which causes
>tectonic plates to separate and drift apart. The details of the process
>are described in the paper. It seems far more realistic than the
>'generally accepted' theory of convection currents in the magma.
I never understand why there's an idea that journals are prejudiced
towards academics. It's true that a few will only accept papers from
members of the society that funds them, and that only academics in
institutions have the resources to do most research, but a really
original idea backed by sound theory (and ideally a few observations)
would get a hearing by "Nature", I would think.
OK, "Nature" isn't strictly peer reviewed, but it's prestigious enough
for most people :-)
>>
>>>Henry has disputed the Galileo and Bruno candidates, but my reading of
>>>science hisory leads me to dispute Henry's views. This newsgroup is not
>>>the place to enlarge on this.
>>>
>>>There are many other examples. Charles Darwin's assertion that we have a
>>>common ancester with apes was ridiculed, but is only opposed now in some
>>>backward parts of the USA.
>>>
>>>The molecular theory of gases was ridiculed and although it still
>>>puzzles me it is generally accepted. If you spill some ammonia liquid at
>>>one end of a long corridor an observer at the other end will soon detect
>>>ammonia molecules by smell. They must travel at high speed...
>>>
>>
>>They do. About 7000 meters per second for ammonia. I'm only a dumb
>>biologist but I was able to work that out for myself, given a few
>>numbers. Do you have an alternative theory?
>>
>>
>>
>No, Jonathan, I do not have an alternative theory, but I am puzzled by
>the force which causes the velocity of molecules. what limits the
>acceleration and value of the steady mean velocity? How does an increase
>of temperature (i.e. input of energy) cause an increase of velocity? The
>physics text books consulted have not been of much help.
>
>A velocity of 7km/sec does not allow for multiple molecular collisions,
>or it would only take 1/100th sec to travel along a 70 meter corridor. I
>am interested in the time taken for a stream of electrons to emerge from
>the core of the Sun to the surface and beyond. See
>http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/solar/Solarphysics.htm
If you saw my exchange with Martin Hardcastle you will know I dropped a
decimal point there, and I also ignored the idea of mean free path (an
air molecule only moves a tiny distance in a straight line, about 10^-8
cm, before it hits another atom and changes direction)
But why should a stream of electrons ever be able to leave the core of
the Sun? The core is a plasma, much denser than water. In fact the Sun's
average density is more than that of water.
Eric Crew
I saw it after I posted my reply.
>But why should a stream of electrons ever be able to leave the core of
>the Sun? The core is a plasma, much denser than water. In fact the Sun's
>average density is more than that of water.
Because the temperature is very high (~14Mk) and the 'thermal' velocity
of electrons is at least 40 times that of the simplest (hydrogen) atom
or proton. Even when the density is twice that of lead metal, an
electron occupies a space equivalent to a tennis ball in a large concert
hall. See review in my website above. When a stream of electrons is
ejected it is an electric current and its magnetic field will produce a
filament similar to lightning. There is a growing number of observations
which support this view.
>
>
--
Eric Crew
Henry Spencer
Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I never understand why there's an idea that journals are prejudiced
>towards academics. It's true that a few will only accept papers from
>members of the society that funds them, and that only academics in
>institutions have the resources to do most research, but a really
>original idea backed by sound theory (and ideally a few observations)
>would get a hearing by "Nature", I would think.
In practice, an idea/theory which isn't backed up by experimental evidence
has got to be pretty remarkable to get published -- it would have to be
conspicuously better at explaining existing evidence than current theory.
(Just explaining it equally well is not good enough.) That's unlikely to
happen except in specialized areas where the experimental work is running
ahead of the theory.
The more usual pattern, which is what most journals would want to see, is
a theory that makes a testable prediction by which it can be distinguished
from existing theory, plus data on a careful and thorough experimental
test of the prediction.
In all cases, proposing a new theory that supersedes an existing theory
simply will not be credible unless you clearly understand the existing
theory in detail, and can explain exactly why it fails and why the
existing evidence which appears to support it really doesn't.
>OK, "Nature" isn't strictly peer reviewed, but it's prestigious enough
>for most people :-)
"Nature" is *very* strictly peer reviewed, as is "Science". The news
coverage isn't, but that's written by staff; if *you* want to publish a
paper in Nature or Science, it gets a rather searching peer review. Those
two journals have a reputation for publishing first-rate papers, which is
why they tend to attract the "headline news" papers reporting major new
scientific results.
Jonathan Silverlight
<he...@spsystems.net> writes
I didn't put that well. What I meant to say was that Nature has a rather
unusual system, and it's my understanding that the editor has a good
deal of discretion about what goes in.
In the past, Nature has published some odd and controversial papers
(scotophobin, memory effects in water, and remote viewing come to mind)
and it is still doing so, with a paper on GM maize in Mexico.
Henry Spencer
Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>OK, "Nature" isn't strictly peer reviewed, but it's prestigious enough
>>>for most people :-)
>
>I didn't put that well. What I meant to say was that Nature has a rather
>unusual system, and it's my understanding that the editor has a good
>deal of discretion about what goes in.
In most any peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers have considerable input,
but the editor ultimately has to decide whether the paper is in or out.
It's true, though, that there is considerable variation from journal to
journal (and from editor to editor) in how readily the editor will ignore
bad reviews if he himself likes the paper.
>In the past, Nature has published some odd and controversial papers
>(scotophobin, memory effects in water, and remote viewing come to mind)
>and it is still doing so, with a paper on GM maize in Mexico.
Science does likewise at times, e.g. the recent paper on sonoluminescence
fusion. I'd suspect that the editors of "flagship" journals actually have
more leeway in such things, because their journals have solid reputations
that aren't much affected by an occasional weird paper. (And an
occasional controversial paper may actually be good for circulation.)
--
In order to improve computer security, | Henry Spencer
the CEO must care. --Bruce Schneier | he...@spsystems.net
Eric Crew
Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> writes
You'll find a Nature paper on my website
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk.htm
--
Eric Crew
Eric Crew
<he...@spsystems.net> writes
Review approval is fallible. Desmond King-Hele FRS wrote "....because
scientific papers are sent to referees, [who are] good sound scientists
who will veto anything revolutionary: otherwise their own reputations
would be in jeopardy if the new ideas turned out to be wrong, as they
usually are; and, even worse, their own work would be devalued if the
new ideas turned out to be right...." (Observer Feb. 1975 "Truth and
Heresy Over Earth and Sky"). Publication in a refereed journal of an
'approved' paper does not ensure existing wrong theories are soon
rejected. The new ideas need to spread at student level, regardless of
the continued teaching of the old doctrines. I hope students reading
this will take note of
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/solar/Solarphysics.htm
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Eric Crew
<er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> writes
excuse for this error is that it is a Sunday paper I've just been
reading.
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Joe Jefferson
>
> <snip>
> A logical explanation, considering
> the positively identified (via Cydonia) ETI of superior class, is that
> They are in need of mineral resources and 'mine' and 're-mine' even
> RECENTLY all sites which are at hand.
Excuse me. Positively identified ETI? I haven't been watching the news
for the past few days. Was there a NASA press release that I missed?
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp
Site Updated November 25th, 2001
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4
Angel Garcia
Yes. POSITIVELY identified ETI !. The news were out there already in
the preface of
"The cosmogonic Chart on Phobos" (UNIAM, Toronto-1981) by
Dr. D.G. Lahoz
What does it NASA to have ANY authority whatsoever to identify and
announce news about ETI ?. NASA is an anonymous body of (mostly)
engineers and some good scientists in astro- : these are WELL PAID
and consequently too conservative regarding anything which goes outside
of their field of competence and requires mathematical and logical
effort. We cannot blame them for that, namely, for keeping quiet and humble
about well published and posted news about "POSITIVE MARTIAN ETI".
That is not to say that the very few who have been STUPIDLY VOCIFEROUS
about denial of ETI in MARS (Cydonia), for instance, be it silly employees
of NASA ot otherwise,.. do not deserve a good spank and be sent to
their proper place in this sad world of too many battles.
If you or anybody else has the reasonably well trained and competent
qualifications then read my posts:
http://eltasico.tripod.com/face-mars/index.html
http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/index.html
the NEWS with conclusive evidence are there... if it is not 'conclusive'
to you then leave it alone, but be prudent and keep quiet as most NASA
good heads are doing.
Ron Miller
apparently, are ready to believe anything. They certainly have their own, ah,
rather special agenda.
RM
Angel Garcia
> On 13 May 2002 05:44:02 GMT, in sci.astro, bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA........
>>
>>Yes. POSITIVELY identified ETI !. The news were out there already in
>>the preface of
>>
>> "The cosmogonic Chart on Phobos" (UNIAM, Toronto-1981) by
>> Dr. D.G. Lahoz
>>
>>What does it NASA to have ANY authority whatsoever to identify and
>>announce news about ETI ?. NASA is an anonymous body of (mostly)
>>engineers and some good scientists in astro- : these are WELL PAID
>>and consequently too conservative regarding anything which goes outside
>>of their field of competence and requires mathematical and logical
>>effort. We cannot blame them for that, namely, for keeping quiet and humble
>>about well published and posted news about "POSITIVE MARTIAN ETI".
>>That is not to say that the very few who have been STUPIDLY VOCIFEROUS
>>about denial of ETI in MARS (Cydonia), for instance, be it silly employees
>>of NASA ot otherwise,.. do not deserve a good spank and be sent to
>>their proper place in this sad world of too many battles.
>
> What subject did he receive his degree?
Short bio-data about Dr. Lahoz in
http://www.interlog.com/~uniam
People becomes mystified about 'technology' and NASA is great about
it. But engineering and technology is just 'Applied Physics'. The curves
of 'Intelligence' versus population are descriptively only:
_
/ \ _______
/ | / \
/ \,, / \,,,,,,,,,
--------------|------------- ---------------------------|-
Engineering Physics & Math
Engineers have a bulk of very intelligent sharp gaussian. Physicist have
a flat gaussian with LONG tails at 'low intelligence' and at 'highest
Intelligence'. The very BEST brains are located in that rarefied
long tail to the right for physicists. No electrical engineers without
the genius of physicists Maxwell, Helmholtz. These are driven by 'fame
and glory' while engineers focus their work in being useful AND well paid.
Thus one cannot expect GREAT and REVOLUTIONARY discoveries and announcements
from NASA. NASA is certainly the 'sine qua non' Institution who drives
the martian discovery saga via rockets and even good cartography work.
But the ETI discovery belongs to Physics and Dr. Lahoz who has spent
26 years and written some 15 books about hard core on ETI. The taxi-cab to
Mars has NASA as the driver and Dr. Lahoz riding in the back. It is not
the driver but the authority of 33 years as student what makes the
difference.
>> If you or anybody else has the reasonably well trained and competent
>>qualifications then read my posts:
>>
>> http://eltasico.tripod.com/face-mars/index.html
>> http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/index.html
>>
>>the NEWS with conclusive evidence are there... if it is not 'conclusive'
>>to you then leave it alone, but be prudent and keep quiet as most NASA
>>good heads are doing.
>
> What I see is someone grasping at straws and scant data. you are
> trying to find anything that supports a myth which you have created.
>
What you see does not matter: arrogance in insulting martians and Dr.
Lahoz is totally irrelevant.
> Most of your work with the Face and Cydonia are done with over
> processed images.
'Intelligenti, pauca'. New images will change absolutely nothing
about the basic decoding of Cydonia which is ALREADY FINISHED.
Only details and overwhelming confirmation of what above has been
published.
Ron Miller
Angel Garcia wrote:
>
> Thus one cannot expect GREAT and REVOLUTIONARY discoveries and announcements
> from NASA.
I see . . . like nothing has come from the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra,
theVoyagers, Galileo . . . hell, look up the list yourself.
RM
Michael L Cunningham
-- Michael L. Cunningham So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT e-mail boge...@earthlink.net web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/ Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre Sept. 11, 2001 Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war! Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum! "There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure of the former". Albert.
Angel Garcia
OK, dear students. Do you want me to apologize about such sentence?..
then I will have to erase REVOLUTIONARY. Of course NASA has made great
achievements and will continue to do so Deo volente. But everybody has to
RESPECT the works of others and the idiocy of these NASA employees and
yourself who steadily have made mockery of Dr. Lahoz's REVOLUTIONARY
(27 year long !!!) work has no proper label except IDIOCY!.
NASA has been far more realistic and MODEST before death of Dr. G.A.
Soffen: he was an effective moderator and provider of 'common sense'
sticking to the clean skepticism of 'Revolutionary NEWS require
hard core evidence'. That is OK: prudence in Science!... but 'hard
core evidence' is what Dr. Lahoz has presented regarding martian ETI
in his 15 consecutive BOOKS.
The nature of NASA is not, 'per se', to make revolutionary discoveries.
It is JUST to HELP to bring to the TABLE the facts which TECHNOLOGY
can provide in order for scientists around the globe to examine and
assess them. Technology is NOT the ultimate goal in science: it is
merely a medium, a helper, for Science.
Respect and you will be respected!
Ron Miller
Angel Garcia wrote:
> Ron Miller (rmi...@crosslink.com) writes:
> > Angel Garcia wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Thus one cannot expect GREAT and REVOLUTIONARY discoveries and announcements
> >> from NASA.
> >
> > I see . . . like nothing has come from the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra,
> > theVoyagers, Galileo . . . hell, look up the list yourself.
>
> OK, dear students. Do you want me to apologize about such sentence?..
Well, yes, of course.
> then I will have to erase REVOLUTIONARY. Of course NASA has made great
> achievements and will continue to do so Deo volente. But everybody has to
> RESPECT the works of others and the idiocy of these NASA employees and
> yourself who steadily have made mockery of Dr. Lahoz's REVOLUTIONARY
> (27 year long !!!) work has no proper label except IDIOCY!.
I see. The longer somebody labors over their pseudoscientific theories, the more
validity they have? That's an interesting criteria.
> NASA has been far more realistic and MODEST before death of Dr. G.A.
> Soffen: he was an effective moderator and provider of 'common sense'
> sticking to the clean skepticism of 'Revolutionary NEWS require
> hard core evidence'. That is OK: prudence in Science!... but 'hard
> core evidence' is what Dr. Lahoz has presented regarding martian ETI
> in his 15 consecutive BOOKS.
Oh, yes, and I mustn't forget that the more books one publishes about one's pet
theory, the more this adds to its validity. And we mustn't forget that these are
CONSECUTIVE books, too! Though I must admit that what significance ought to be
attached to the fact that Lahoz wrote his books one right after the other escapes
me.
Just out of curiosity, what academic press publishes these remarkable tomes?
RM
Michael L Cunningham
OK, dear students. Do you want me to apologize about such sentence?..
then I will have to erase REVOLUTIONARY. Of course NASA has made great
achievements and will continue to do so Deo volente. But everybody has to
RESPECT the works of others and the idiocy of these NASA employees and
yourself who steadily have made mockery of Dr. Lahoz's REVOLUTIONARY
(27 year long !!!) work has no proper label except IDIOCY!.
NASA has been far more realistic and MODEST before death of Dr. G.A.
Soffen: he was an effective moderator and provider of 'common sense'
sticking to the clean skepticism of 'Revolutionary NEWS require
hard core evidence'. That is OK: prudence in Science!.... but 'hard
core evidence' is what Dr. Lahoz has presented regarding martian ETI
in his 15 consecutive BOOKS.
Kinda puts him in the same class as L Ron Hubbered and Scientology.
The nature of NASA is not, 'per se', to make revolutionary discoveries.
It is JUST to HELP to bring to the TABLE the facts which TECHNOLOGY
can provide in order for scientists around the globe to examine and
assess them. Technology is NOT the ultimate goal in science: it is
merely a medium, a helper, for Science.
Respect and you will be respected!
Joe Jefferson
>
> Joe Jefferson (jjst...@mindspring.com) writes:
> > Angel Garcia wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> A logical explanation, considering
> >> the positively identified (via Cydonia) ETI of superior class, is that
> >> They are in need of mineral resources and 'mine' and 're-mine' even
> >> RECENTLY all sites which are at hand.
> >
> > Excuse me. Positively identified ETI? I haven't been watching the news
> > for the past few days. Was there a NASA press release that I missed?
>
> the preface of
>
> "The cosmogonic Chart on Phobos" (UNIAM, Toronto-1981) by
> Dr. D.G. Lahoz
>
> What does it NASA to have ANY authority whatsoever to identify and
> announce news about ETI ?. NASA is an anonymous body of (mostly)
> engineers and some good scientists in astro- : these are WELL PAID
> and consequently too conservative regarding anything which goes outside
> of their field of competence and requires mathematical and logical
> effort. We cannot blame them for that, namely, for keeping quiet and humble
> about well published and posted news about "POSITIVE MARTIAN ETI".
The primary purpose of NASA is to maintain itself in existence and
increase its funding to the maximum extent possible - just like any
other government agency. Nothing, and I do mean NOTHING would serve that
purpose better than announcing that intelligent extraterrestrials had
left ruins on Mars. Proof, or even substantial evidence of intelligence
on Mars would be far and away the greatest thing that had ever happened
to NASA. Regardless of who made the discovery, NASA would be deluging
every news agency in the world with word of the find - and a call for a
bigger budget so they could send a crewed mission to explore it. The
only plausible reason why they haven't done so already is that they know
it isn't true.
> If you or anybody else has the reasonably well trained and competent
> qualifications then read my posts:
>
> http://eltasico.tripod.com/face-mars/index.html
> http://cydonion.tripod.com/cydonia/index.html
All I see on those sites are photos of rather ordinary looking rocks on
which somebody has drawn pictures of faces. What does that prove, beyond
the fact that you know how to use Photoshop?
Bill Nelson
>>
>>I see . . . like nothing has come from the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra,
>>theVoyagers, Galileo . . . hell, look up the list yourself.
>>
>>RM
>>
> Not to mention the Orbiter itself which is providing the images! Angel
> is off his meds again.
You misspelled "rocker".
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Rodney Blackall
How is their age measured?
--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)
London, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC with ANT INS and Pluto 2.04b
Joe Jefferson
>
> How old are the Cydonia monuments (error bar?)?
I believe it was first seen in the mid-1970's, so at least that old.
Beyond that you have to start making assumptions about the way things happened.
> How is their age measured?
The rock itself can be dated by the decay of any radioactive elements it
might contain - once you procure a sample. If there does prove to be any
artificial shaping that's probably undatable unless it contains writing
in some terrestrial language. There are a few experimental techniques
for dating rock carvings on earth, but they won't be useful on Mars
until we learn a great deal more about the local environment.
Mark Hittinger
>> How old are the Cydonia monuments (error bar?)?
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@mindspring.com> writes:
>The rock itself can be dated by the decay of any radioactive elements it
>might contain - once you procure a sample. If there does prove to be any
>artificial shaping that's probably undatable unless it contains writing
>in some terrestrial language. There are a few experimental techniques
>for dating rock carvings on earth, but they won't be useful on Mars
>until we learn a great deal more about the local environment.
Oh come on! Clearly you need to get up to speed on the giant monument date
stamping techniques of the giant monument builder guys!
All the earthly giant monuments of any merit are always astronomically
aligned with some sort of precession dependent alignment. This gives the
giant monument decryptor guys the ability to determine site plans (but not
construction) within earth's 26k year precession cycle. No depth of oxygen
penetration into volcanic shards needed!
It is intuitively obvious that the Cydonia rock piles will be astronomically
aligned with Martian precession date stamping. This is right out of the
giant monument builder guy handbook!
:-) :-) :-) :-)
Later
Mark Hittinger
bu...@pu.net
Joe Jefferson
>
> >Rodney Blackall wrote:
> >> How old are the Cydonia monuments (error bar?)?
> >> How is their age measured?
>
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >The rock itself can be dated by the decay of any radioactive elements it
> >might contain - once you procure a sample. If there does prove to be any
> >artificial shaping that's probably undatable unless it contains writing
> >in some terrestrial language. There are a few experimental techniques
> >for dating rock carvings on earth, but they won't be useful on Mars
> >until we learn a great deal more about the local environment.
>
> Oh come on! Clearly you need to get up to speed on the giant monument date
> stamping techniques of the giant monument builder guys!
>
> All the earthly giant monuments of any merit are always astronomically
> aligned with some sort of precession dependent alignment.
Well I will agree that a clever investigator can always find some
significant astronomical alignment for any ancient monument. (Or pretty
much any other object.)
> This gives the
> giant monument decryptor guys the ability to determine site plans (but not
> construction) within earth's 26k year precession cycle. No depth of oxygen
> penetration into volcanic shards needed!
>
> It is intuitively obvious that the Cydonia rock piles will be astronomically
> aligned with Martian precession date stamping. This is right out of the
> giant monument builder guy handbook!
Unfortunately that's not too useful on Mars because the cycles repeat
periodically and we don't know which iteration is the correct one.
Ron Miller
Bob Officer wrote:
> >Just out of curiosity, what academic press publishes these remarkable tomes?
>
> According to the Web page, the "academic press" owned and operated by Dr.
> Lahoz.
Why did I somehow expect this? So much for Angel's "experts".
RM
Eric Crew
<bobof...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>
A very snooty comment. There are examples of self-publishing scientists
who have subsequently been approved by the establishment. They could use
a typewriter and a pay a publisher. If most of them are 'kooks or
cranks' it is stupid to condemn all of them.
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Ispwest News
Nasa would release these photos if they had them! And have you noticed how
they dont release all of the photos that they have all at once. They release
a few at a time. I believe that if they found anything it would be secret.
Bill
"Ron Miller" <rmi...@crosslink.com> wrote in message
news:3CE272BC...@crosslink.com...
Joe Jefferson
>
> I am not defending this person in his beliefs, But I doubt seriously that
> Nasa would release these photos if they had them! And have you noticed how
> they dont release all of the photos that they have all at once. They release
> a few at a time. I believe that if they found anything it would be secret.
> Bill
What possible reason would they have for keeping something secret that
has such an enormous potential to increase their own funding?
Matthew F Funke
>I am not defending this person in his beliefs, But I doubt seriously that
>Nasa would release these photos if they had them! And have you noticed how
>they dont release all of the photos that they have all at once. They release
>a few at a time. I believe that if they found anything it would be secret.
Images sent from space typically need time to "clean up" -- that is,
image processing needs to take place so that sense can be made of the
data. If they didn't do this, and presented the images in their raw
format, they'd be incomprehensible to the public they beseech for
support.
If they actually *had* photos like this, though, I expect that they
would be issued PDQ. After all, NASA is currently our best option for
getting something out there and investigating more deeply; they *must*
know that releasing information on this would cause more money in their
bank accounts and clearer directives from TPTB (both of which they
desperately need and want). Like it or not, NASA runs on PR, and I'm sure
news on extraterrestrial intelligence would generate plenty of it.
What is your reasoning for thinking that they would prefer not to
release this information if they had it?
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke (m...@hopper.unh.edu)
Mind Splatter
>
> Ispwest News wrote:
> >
> > I am not defending this person in his beliefs, But I doubt seriously that
> > Nasa would release these photos if they had them! And have you noticed how
> > they dont release all of the photos that they have all at once. They release
> > a few at a time. I believe that if they found anything it would be secret.
> > Bill
>
> What possible reason would they have for keeping something secret that
> has such an enormous potential to increase their own funding?
Why would the discovery of artifacts on Mars necessarily increase NASA's
funding level? In actuality it could just as easily go the other way,
given the religious implications of hard proof of life on other planets.
By way of comparison, my father often told me that the dinosaurs bones
and other fossils found were simply put there by God to confound and
confuse modern scientists. This was the only plausible way to explain
how these things could exist, since the earth and the universe as a
whole is only ~6,000 years old. Can you imagine going to him and
telling him his tax dollars were going to research artifacts on another
planet which would "prove" that we were not the only intelligent life in
the universe?
Regardless of what you feel about my father's point of view, it is not a
foregone conclusion that the vast majority of people would welcome
ACTUAL demonstration of extra-terrestrial life or would be willing to
support a dramatic increase in NASA funding which would only serve to
undermine their own belief system. Given the recent increase in
supposed religious fervor everywhere on the planet the implications of
such a finding are much greater than domestic issues of something so
mundane as NASA funding. Suppose the Arab countries decided that such
information was intolerable and cut off our oil supplies as punishment?
Such an outcome is not out of the realm of possibility given their other
actions and decisions and given the general tendency of totalitarian
regimes to act non-linearly to information which undermines their
position. If you were NASA, I gotta believe you would think about such
things.
Do you have any evidence of any official policy on the discovery of
alien artifacts on the part of the US government or NASA? How about an
unofficial policy?
Matthew F Funke
>Joe Jefferson wrote:
>> Ispwest News wrote:
>> >
>> > I am not defending this person in his beliefs, But I doubt seriously that
>> > Nasa would release these photos if they had them! And have you noticed how
>> > they dont release all of the photos that they have all at once. They release
>> > a few at a time. I believe that if they found anything it would be secret.
>> > Bill
>>
>> What possible reason would they have for keeping something secret that
>> has such an enormous potential to increase their own funding?
>
>Why would the discovery of artifacts on Mars necessarily increase NASA's
>funding level? In actuality it could just as easily go the other way,
>given the religious implications of hard proof of life on other planets.
Are you implying that NASA is a religious organization? Or that
Congress, which funds NASA, is a religious organization? Frankly, I find
both ideas laughable.
>By way of comparison, my father often told me that the dinosaurs bones
>and other fossils found were simply put there by God to confound and
>confuse modern scientists. This was the only plausible way to explain
>how these things could exist, since the earth and the universe as a
>whole is only ~6,000 years old. Can you imagine going to him and
>telling him his tax dollars were going to research artifacts on another
>planet which would "prove" that we were not the only intelligent life in
>the universe?
He may not like it, I'll grant you. But I don't think he'd be in the
majority, just as I don't think he's of the majority opinion about
dinosaur bones. And Congress sways with the opinion which they feel
represents the desires of the majority, for the most part.
For that matter, does the fact that some oppose the burning of fossil
fuels keep Congress from spending money to keep this technology
affordable? The fact that some oppose war from spending on national
defense? The fact that some oppose medicine (e.g., Christian Scientists)
prevent them from subsidizing medical research and MediCare?
I could go on, but I think you see the point. Congress would approve
more funding for NASA if it felt that the majority of public opinion
supported it.
>Regardless of what you feel about my father's point of view, it is not a
>foregone conclusion that the vast majority of people would welcome
>ACTUAL demonstration of extra-terrestrial life or would be willing to
>support a dramatic increase in NASA funding which would only serve to
>undermine their own belief system.
Welcome it? Perhaps not. Become curious about it? Possibly.
Demand that space technology be ramped up to the point where
extraterrestrial intelligences would not pose a threat to the American way
of life? Almost definitely.
Funding doesn't just coem from inquiring minds, you know. NASA
enjoyed its best funding when people were scared. Similarly base
emotions -- fear of the unknown; greed and desire to exploit new peoples,
knowledge, wealth, resources, and technologies; and so on -- could well
drive a desire from the masses to see what's up with this stuff that looks
like evidence of extraterrestrials.
>Given the recent increase in
>supposed religious fervor everywhere on the planet the implications of
>such a finding are much greater than domestic issues of something so
>mundane as NASA funding.
On what do you base this "recent increase in supposed religious
fervor everywhere on the planet"? What *is* "*supposed* religious
fervor"[emphasis mine]? What on Earth does this *mean*?
>Suppose the Arab countries decided that such
>information was intolerable and cut off our oil supplies as punishment?
Why would they do this? When have other discoveries caused Arab
nations to cut off out oil supplies? Surely the discovery that mountains
are not there to keep the Earth from moving, and do not hold it fast with
anchors and cables (as the Koran teaches), should have been enough to
cause them to cut off our oil. It's much more likely that religious
authorities would re-interpret the extant texts to allow room for this new
truth, arguing that previous interpretations were obviously too biased and
narrow.
>Such an outcome is not out of the realm of possibility given their other
>actions and decisions and given the general tendency of totalitarian
>regimes to act non-linearly to information which undermines their
>position.
"Non-linearly"? If by that you mean that religious people tend to
behave erratically, I think that you can take away the qualifier. :)
And how would this undermine the position of those in power in a
totalitarian regime?
>If you were NASA, I gotta believe you would think about such
>things.
Not for very long. The people who would be eager to exploit this new
information would likely be beating the walls down. And you've completely
ignored the issue of international and domestic *support*. After all, as
I mentioned in another post, NASA is currently the agency best poised to
do something with that information.
>Do you have any evidence of any official policy on the discovery of
>alien artifacts on the part of the US government or NASA? How about an
>unofficial policy?
Given that NASA is, in part, actively engaged in SETI (at least the
Ames Center is), I'd expect that they'd be happy to show the taxpayers a
return on their investment.
Chris Franks
"Matthew F Funke" <m...@hypatia.unh.edu>
>
> Given that NASA is, in part, actively engaged in SETI (at least the
> Ames Center is
The SETI Institute says that they receive absolutely no financial
support from NASA. They have just asked me for $45 to help defray their
expenses.
Ispwest News
"Matthew F Funke" <m...@hypatia.unh.edu> wrote in message
news:acb2j5$n6g$1...@tabloid.unh.edu...
Bill Nelson
> Mars rotation axis was once at a different position than at present,
> and then the "Face" was located on the Martian equator and oriented
> upright.
> [P.H. Schultz, Polar wandering on Mars', Sci.Amer. 253 (Dec.), pp.
> 94-102 (1985)]
How does he know this? I doubt if the rotational axis has shifted,
unless Mars was hit by a planet sized object.
Now the magnetic pole, if any, could certainly move.
> I have not checked out this reference so i don't know how old that
> would make it, 3 to 4 million years perhaps.
So how do you know that it supports your statement?
> Video Webcast, Artificial Structures on Mars
> Originally broadcast live on Thursday, April 5, 2001
> (approx 11 minutes into the video Flandern gets some computer
> problems, you can fast forward there to position 00:20:30.)
> http://www.connectlive.com/events/metaresearch/
A webcast - certainly an outstanding and authoritative resource.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
John Doe
<bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote:
>John Doe <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Mars rotation axis was once at a different position than at present,
>> and then the "Face" was located on the Martian equator and oriented
>> upright.
>
>> [P.H. Schultz, Polar wandering on Mars', Sci.Amer. 253 (Dec.), pp.
>> 94-102 (1985)]
>
>How does he know this?
According to Flandern it has to do with certain carachteristics
occuring only at the poles, annual freazing and melting of the
snowcaps etc... http://shorl.com/gabapygredrivi It's all in the
video.
>I doubt if the rotational axis has shifted,
>unless Mars was hit by a planet sized object.
I see Valles Marines as evidence that Mars was once hit by, something.
>Now the magnetic pole, if any, could certainly move.
>
>> I have not checked out this reference so i don't know how old that
>> would make it, 3 to 4 million years perhaps.
>
>So how do you know that it supports your statement?
If i remember correctly, i think Flandern mention something like this
in the video, so it's his statement, not mine.
>> Video Webcast, Artificial Structures on Mars
>> Originally broadcast live on Thursday, April 5, 2001
>> (approx 11 minutes into the video Flandern gets some computer
>> problems, you can fast forward there to position 00:20:30.)
>> http://www.connectlive.com/events/metaresearch/
>
>A webcast - certainly an outstanding and authoritative resource.
No need to cry about that, there is a realplayer plug-in for netscape
and linux too ;-)
Chosp
"Ispwest News" <ke4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:accmq...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> For certain reasons I cannot go into detail. Sorry
Utterly and pathetically useless reply.
You will never regain credibility.
Plonk.
Matthew F Funke
>"Matthew F Funke" <m...@hypatia.unh.edu> wrote:
>> Given that NASA is, in part, actively engaged in SETI (at least the
>> Ames Center is
>
> The SETI Institute says that they receive absolutely no financial
>support from NASA. They have just asked me for $45 to help defray their
>expenses.
Perhaps I should clarify.
Simply because NASA's Ames Center is actively engaged in the
*enterprise* of SETI does not mean that they *subsidize* every group
*interested* in SETI.
Therefore, it is quite possible for a branch of NASA to engage in
SETI while, at the same time, providing no funds for the SETI Institute's
efforts.
Joe Jefferson
It would only undermine the religious beliefs of a small minority of
people. There are other religions do believe in extraterrestrial
intelligence. But the majority of Americans would not see any particular
religious implications whatsoever. Many of them would demand a crewed
mission ASAP in order to satify their curiosity, others out of the hope
that exraterrestrial technology would benefit them somehow, and still
others out of fear that this might represent some kind of threat to the
earth. Taken together, the people who wanted to go to Mars would vastly
outnumber those who didn't - at least in the United States.
> Given the recent increase in
> supposed religious fervor everywhere on the planet the implications of
> such a finding are much greater than domestic issues of something so
> mundane as NASA funding. Suppose the Arab countries decided that such
> information was intolerable and cut off our oil supplies as punishment?
For most of the Arab countries we would barely even notice. Note the
recent cutoff of oil by Iraq for example. If Saudi Arabia stopped
selling oil, three things would happen:
1) American oil prices would rise for a time while the transition is
made to other sources of supply - Siberia probably picking up the lion's
share of the business.
2) Within 24 hours the goverment of Saudi Arabia would fall.
3) The European nations which are far more dependent upon middle eastern
oil than the US is would send "peacekeeping troops" to make sure the oil
keeps flowing.
> Do you have any evidence of any official policy on the discovery of
> alien artifacts on the part of the US government or NASA? How about an
> unofficial policy?
Sure. Just look at their behavior recently in regards to the Martian
meteors and the possibility of life there. Not exactly what I'd call
keeping secrets.
Rodney Blackall
Rodney Blackall <rbla...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> How old are the Cydonia monuments (error bar?)?
> How is their age measured?
The reason I asked this was that if "the Face" is of a human, then it must
be no older than the appearance of the first anthropoid apes. We know that
this was 4004 BC, the creatonists say so!
--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)
London, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC with ANT INS and Pluto 2.04c
Bill Foley
on Mars. Maybe all the way back to 4005 BC.
Or perhaps Bishop Ussery was full of it after all and life HAS been around on
Earth for billions of years....
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
> >Why do you suppose most people resort to self publishing?
> >
> >
> Because, in the words of D.G.King-Hele, FRS, "Actions subversive of
> scientific orthodoxy are forcefully resisted.... because scientific
> papers are sent to referees, good sound scientists who will veto
> anything revolutionary: otherwise their own reputations would be in
> jeopardy if the new ideas turned out to be wrong, as they usually are;
> and, even worse, their own work would be devalued if the new ideas
> turned out to be right."
> Einstein said "the foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of
> truth."
> Self-publishing is often the only way to publicise 'unorthodox'
> scientific views.
> http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk
> --
> Eric Crew FRAS
And without any sort of review process (let alone professional editing) it's also
the best way to publicize carloads of utter nonsense. It's ironic, I suppose, that
you quote Einstein to support your argument given that his revolutionary
theories--which according to you would have been thoroughly censored by all those
"good sound scientists"--were published by refereed professional journals.
RM
Eric Crew
<rmi...@crosslink.com> writes
trouble in getting his 'unorthodox' views published. There are many
examples of self-publishing of sound ideas. I agree that most are
probably "utter nonsense" as you declare. However, the few good ideas by
self-publishers (such as my booklet about Electricity in Astronomy)
would be a loss to science if they were not published.
It was not me - it was King-Hele, FRS, who wrote scathingly about "good
sound scientists", but he made a good point about the problems of the
referee process.
--
Eric Crew FRAS
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
> No need to get cross, Ron. The quote from Einstein indicates he had some
> trouble in getting his 'unorthodox' views published. There are many
> examples of self-publishing of sound ideas. I agree that most are
> probably "utter nonsense" as you declare. However, the few good ideas by
> self-publishers (such as my booklet about Electricity in Astronomy)
> would be a loss to science if they were not published.
>
> It was not me - it was King-Hele, FRS, who wrote scathingly about "good
> sound scientists", but he made a good point about the problems of the
> referee process.
Didn't mean to sound cross (mainly the fault of the impersonality of this type of
correspondence). While there certainly is something to what you say, I think that
in this particular case, there can't be too much doubt as to why the author in
question has been forced to self-publish his work.
RM
Eric Crew
<rmi...@crosslink.com> writes
>
>
a great mistake. I forgot to add that after I produced (and sold) a few
copies of my booklet, I had a paper published in Nature. ('Electricity
in Astronomy' - see my website) I believe that was the former editor's
decision, with no reference to referees because I had pestered him for
several years. And of course, this is another obstacle to the
publication of new scientific ideas. The editors may decide not even to
ask referees for their report, in case the publication of such papers
may lose some of the journal subscribers, especially in educational
establishments with a natural bias in favour of the orthodoxy they have
been teaching for several decades.
It would be a valuable step in supporting scientific progress if editors
published a brief account of any rejected work with contact information
for the authors of the papers. Any subsequent private correspondence
concerning unorthodox ideas might eventually lead to the submission of a
revised paper which would be published. To a certain extent the
development of the internet has achieved a similar result.
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
> OK, but you seemed to disparage all self-publishers and I think that is
> a great mistake.
I agree. I think it's just that while there have been some outstanding exceptions,
such as your work, the vast weight of the evidence goes toward supporting the idea
that by far most self-published scientific works are questionable at best. I think
what lends some credence to Dr. Lahoz' work being rather far out on the fringe is
that apparently nothing whatsoever of what he has written about Mars has been
published by anyone other than himself. Surely, he would have found a home for at
least one paper if his work had any merit at all.
I think that if I've reiterated a stereotype of self-publishers being cranks, there
is likewise the stereotype of a cabal of hide-bound scientists consistently
squelching revolutionary ideas and discoveries. While this has surely happened,
there are also the thousands of revolutionary ideas and discoveries that have been
published in established and respected journals that counter that stereotype.
RM
Ron Miller
Eric Crew wrote:
Bob's comment was snooty . . . but look at it this way: of all the major scientific
breakthroughs made in the 20th century, how many were first published in professional
journals and how many were first published privately and then later accepted? There
may be examples, as you say, of the latter--but is the number at all significant?
RM