do you think that civerlisation started on Mars?
jil...@hotmail.co.uk
planets in our solar system, also faces on Mars and supposed 5 sided
pyramids its no wonder Im a nit confused.
Is it true that the US have colored photos to make us think that Mars
is different to what it really is?
The buildings on Mars may very well exist, as I see it Mars may well
have been on that critical line just as we are on Earth today some time
ago. Perhaps we did start from there who knows I will be dead before
it is common knowledge, however it seems clear to me that some things
about the findings on Mars are very low key and burn out quickly in the
news and media.
As I am house bound my thoughts wander from time to time about mankind
being on the second time around.
Technology today may have been surpassed in times long ago, we may have
blown our selves sky high and have moved to Earth to start again.
Science soon catches up with science fiction.
I do wonder what we will find on Mars but if there was anything
significant why are we not sending more probes? Or are we? We may be
mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed on BS) to the highest and more
informed. The common people as they say need not know.
Im glad I found this site thank you all very much
jill
Brad Guth
Think icy proto-moon via Sirius.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
jillh10
jillh10
Ok thats done my head in but thank you for waking me up!
jill x
Brad Guth
You are quite welcome.
Anything you've got to contribute as to icy proto-moons would certainly
be of interest, although I wouldn't exactly exclude those smaller
remainders of Mars moons from their once upon a time having been icy
proto-moons because, where else would those Mars oceans and of the life
sequestered within have been derived?
Chris
photosynthesising carbon growths, (life?) but no animals. It is mainly a
red desert and definitely no civilisations. No people.
However life exists whereever the conditions allow it to it is ubiquitious,
it is everywhere.
Life on Earth is abundant and very diverse because of the rich recourses of
light, water, carbon and chemicals but everywhere there is an energy source
and sink and the presence of water, carbon and the other chemicals it will
and douse occur, everywhere in the Universe.
Mars has scarce resources and life there is fragile and scarce and not very
diverse, life elsewhere, like Jupiter and its moons is abundant and is
everywhere.
Each instance of life is independant and different, future astrobiolists
will classify this rich and diverse subject into a myriad of classes. Even
in this solar system there are several instances of indipendantly arising
life forms, all different.
The planet Earth is by far the richest life bearing place in the solar
system. But look to Jupiter and its moons and the moons and rings of
Saturn. Saturns rings have an oxygen atmosphere. And what of those moons
with an icy crust hiding oceans and active volcanoes powering a life form
under the ice.
Even in Jupiters atmosphere the conditions are equitable at a certain depth
and organic compounds plentiful, this must surely be a place of ubandant,
intelligent lfe.
Life, but not as we know it.....! Everywhere!
Chris.
<jil...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126849565....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Brad Guth
That's actually not half bad Mars bashing. However, as usual your
contribution has been delivered along with the minor exception that
you've intentionally and thus knowingly excluded a great deal of viable
hard-science as evidence, trashed nearly all forms and formats of
observationology and, as such you've totally discounted/excluded the
other most livable other planet around that's actually damn nearby from
time to time (so much so that if it weren't already a known planet it
would become classified as a rather serious NEO) as being that of the
planet Venus (though obviously not necessarily nor even the least bit
livable by the continually dumbfounded and obviously bigoted humans),
whereas spare green/renewable energy is not even the slightest bit of a
problem and, geological as well as atmospheric elements are extremely
easy pickings.
What does your little black book have to offer as to the regular laws
of physics, as having to say about such a planet as affording so mush
spare and totally clean energy that's so easily available?
Would you perhaps like another honest pro/con side-by-side listing of
what's surmountable and of what isn't?
jillh10
Global Surveyor, seem to show new impact craters and gullies.
The agency's scientists also say that deposits of frozen carbon dioxide
near the planet's south pole have shrunk for three summers in a row.
They say these changes suggest climate change is in progress.
The newly released images also show boulder tracks at another site,
which were not there two years ago.
Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera,
stated that it was the first evidence scientists had seen of some kind
of seismic activity on the planet.
If mars were to have volcanic eruptions what do you think the
consequences would be, if any, for Earth?
jill x
jillh10
I wonder why people (media TV etc) show such nonsense? Is it just to
keep people interested in astronomy and such like? I saw the footage
of the so called five sided pyramid and the face on mars, however it
just seems to me that if there is nothing to report other than the
usual mundane, they invent things. Do they think people are stupid or
just plain old fashion bored? Not only that, it makes me feel stupid
for repeating such tripe...It would have been nice though if there had
been a few cities and such like to ponder about.
jill x
Brad Guth
The supposed "face on Mars" and a few "five sided pyramids" seem thus
far to lack a surround of any rational infrastructure. However, there
are certain aspects of Mars that seem a little to artificial and
infrastructure like to entirely ignore. This life may have been purely
happenstance or possible ET terraformed because, once upon a time Mare
wasn't so gosh darn cold and nasty.
Actually, those two little moons of Mars could also have been icy
proto-moons to start off with, or they could have been just exactly
what they are, nasty big rock remainders of whatever gauntlet
pulverised one half of Mars, except by now having been covered in a
deep composite dust.
The oceans and ice upon Earth supposedly represents approximately 1.4e9
km3 = 1.4e18 m3, thus 1.4e18/2e11 m3 snowballs = 7e6 worth of such
gigatonnage snowballs as having survived after reentry might suggest at
least 10e6 arrivals if not as many as 100e6 as having arrived just
outside of our atmosphere. That's still obviously not imposing very
much influx per km2, since just one such arriving/reentry snowball as
contributed per 2.25 km2 might have done the trick. Seemingly doable if
taking into account the merging Kuiper/Oort zones of ours and Sirius,
although in some ways this snowball fight from hell method isn't
looking as the one and only nor even the best all around solution for
icing down a given hot and nasty planet in the making, whereas a
sufficiently massive icy proto-moon seems a wee bit more likely as a
viable ice collector in the first place and, certainly affording the
best all around interstellar transporter of such Kuiper/Oort zone ice,
especially since there'd be sufficient gravity and even a sufficient
surround of an atmosphere keeping that ice relatively safe and thereby
available for final delivery. For the task of icing mother Earth via
proto-moon, I might have suggested upon a 4000 km size of icy
proto-moon for accomplishing that job, and perhaps for the likes of
Venus is where the 1800 km icy orb of Sedna as being of more of ice
than rock could be just about right unless we somehow manage to miss
the mark.
BTW; if in fact something Mars like pulverised Earth into busting one
heck of nasty molten zit/pustule worth of our moon into existence, then
it's obliviously just every bit as possible that an arriving proto-moon
of nearly the exact core size and of having such an incoming orb as
having been accommodating the somewhat greater initial mass of an icy
proto-moon, as having bounced itself off our mutual atmospheres, thus
aerobreaking and thereby terrifying the holy crapolla out of whatever
primitive humanity (if any) while even if having indirectly impacted
(glanced off one another) should have summarily deposited the necessary
volumes and tera tonnage of the all essential salty ice in the process.
For example; A 4000 km icy proto-moon should represent 1.15e19 m3 worth
of raw ice and otherwise a nifty pulverised remainder of a core that's
3474 km, suggesting a 262 km thick icy covered proto-moon that could
otherwise have been ET pulverised while in a somewhat closer orbit
about Earth, thus having affected the orbit while indirectly
transferring additional tonnage of mostly ice upon Earth, seem within
perfectly good logic and the known laws of physics.
Obviously Earth and of it's acquired moon at 1 AU hasn't been situated
within any natural snow and ice collection zone of it's own. Thus one
of my original snowball related questions remains;
What's the density worth of relatively uncompacted H2O/snow, as well as
for that of CO2/snow density as having been situated within the near
vacuum of space while essentially coexisting upon such a micro if
hardly any gravity environment such as Tempel-1, or especially upon
something that's even smaller?
Bone dry fluff density of naturally compacted snow upon the surface
Earth isn't all that much at 160 kg/m3. Take away most of the gravity
factor and what do we have to work with?
Chances are that at most, whatever space snowballs (unless we're
talking those having moon size cores) are not going to represent much
better off than 1 kg/m3 near the top surface and I'd hardly think
capable of achieving 100 kg/m3 as sequestered within or upon whatever
rocky core. Not only is that snow not contributing much mass, but it's
also not contributing all that much potential volume of H2O. Thus even
millions upon millions of such snowballs as arriving unscaved from
heaven or hell isn't conceivably what iced down mother Earth and
subsequently materialized into oceans as teaming with life, that which
their DNA/RNA simply couldn't have survived the gauntlet of such space
travel without their having 50+tonnes as situated between themselves
and that of the big, bad and ugly aspects of the lethal outside
universe.
Within a good vacuum of whatever's conducive towards 1e6~1e9 atoms/m3,
as for something as small as Tempel-1 having to collect/accumulate and
somehow manage to retain such snow and ice upon a gravity of 0.00004 or
less seems rather unlikely unless Tempel-1 was once upon a time a
portion of whatever had been at least initially a rather substantial
core of a greater proto-moon like density to start off with. Whereas a
moon size item of a sufficiently solid core that's clearly representing
a great deal of surface area and gravity (thus a touch of perhaps Titan
like atmosphere) is what seems a fundamental requirement of getting
said ice safely from point "a" to point "b", point "b" being Earth.
Brad Guth
Not all that much impact for Earth, not even if little Mars entirely
vaporised into less than dust would affect Earth by any measurable
degree, although perhaps our tidal forces might eventually shift by a
tenth of an inch or less, and you'd have to think that we'd have a good
reason to perceive that eventually a measure of Earth getting pulled a
wee bit closer to the sun could start to happen in a few thousand
years.
Although, messing around with Venus could get real interesting since
it's already passing within 100 fold the distance of our moon, and it's
certainly a whole lot bigger than our moon.
jillh10
Why have you not thought of getting some of your work published??
The more I read of your work the more appealing it becomes. I have
become addicted I think. I am reading your writing on The Venus
Township. All I can say is, I am impressed. It is very well written
and very clearly put. Thank you very much for some very interesting
literature. It makes very good reading and is enjoyable. I have
checked up on a few things you have made refference to and I am sorry
for this as I am not questioning your knowledge of the subject matter,
but having done so you are correct in much you say. Your theories are
such that many other astronomers and cosmologists agree.
Once again Brad well done and thank you for hours of enjoyment.
May you carry on and excel.
Jill x
Brad Guth
Thanks for the mostly positive feedback. However, if you are thinking
that I'm worth getting published, then perhaps you're at least half as
dyslexic as I am, capable of deciphering my somewhat reverse methods of
deductive reasoning, and certainly as to appreciating the
observationology of pixel processing that's as much accomplished within
my head as with any given PhotoShop software alternative because, I
observed and interpreted pretty much exactly what I've since software
processed for assisting others to better visualize upon what I believe
looks so much artificial as obtained from the very same radar image,
and that's been as of more than 5 years ago. Each time I PhotoShop
process that image it seems that I get it just a wee bit better by
using less of what potentially distorts and more of what essentially
enlarges and then sharpens whatever those original pixels have to
offer.
I obviously got myself a little frustrated with the wossy and quite
negative responses from our NASA and several of those as having been
involved with interpreting those Magellan radar images. Ever since I
have learned a whole lot more than I'd thought possible about their
science, physics and as of my having been looking into what NASA has
certified as OK/acceptable Apollo pictures it seems that I now realize
that it's highly unlikely that anyone from Earth has walked upon our
moon (orbited is a strong maybe but not actually proven by whatever I
can find), though observing and remote controlling an orbiting mission
from the back seat (-62,000 km) safety pocket of coasting within the
mutual Earth/moon gravity-well zone is perfectly doable and certainly
more than humanly close enough considering the radioactive and highly
reactive nature of our moon, and there certainly was no technological
limitations as to the orbiting portions of those missions as having
proceeded along quite nicely as purely robotic task, of course with the
exception of the soft landing much of anything seems a bit skewed
because we can't seem to manage a fly-by-rocket task of deploying so
much as a 1-kg probe of any sort safely upon the surface of Earth much
less that of the moon unless it was R&D for specifically surviving the
sort of nasty impact that should have been at the very least 2.5 km/s
unless involving some degree of controlled/modulated retro-thrusting
and/or aerobreaking.
As to your comment(s);
>It is very well written and very clearly put.
I'm not all that convinced that I've managed to get all that much of
anything into a worthy book format that's "well written", much less
"clearly put", at least not on the first try or even second go around,
as usually it takes several tries and a few entirely new and improved
alternative efforts as to resolving way too many thoughts down to any
dull roar of my being sufficiently focused and thus potentially more
clearly put on most any given topic.
Since you haven't asked specific questions about Venus, our moon or
that of the Sirius star system, I can only assume that you're not
really all of what you've suggested, although I'll glady take whatever
positive criticisms that I can get, especially of the sorts that on the
surface seem as though willing to at least morally support what I've
managed to have uncovered thus far. I might ask, is there more that you
can provide?
Unfortunately, most of us (myself included) are more than willing to
judge a given book by it's cover, therefore any cover that's having a
knock your socks off worth of eye candy impact and as such enclosing
the fanciest of wordings throughout is all that really matters to most
of us that want foremost to be entertained. Becoming informed of
whatever's truth and thus hammering down upon what hasn't been true is
not even an important criteria, since most us seem to have established
and thus formulated our mindset of essentially knowing all there is to
know about nearly everything that only further reinforces upon that
mindset, be it about social, religious, political and/or
science/astronomy is pretty much set in stone regardless of whatever
anyone else has to say. Since I'm one of those darn fools on the hill
(one of the messengers from hell that just will not go away) which do
not know all there is to know and, since having learned a few new and
improved things along the way, it seems that I've inadvertently made
more than my fair share of mistakes, and as such how would you have
gone about writing this sort of informative book that's basically going
to have to imply that we've all been badly snookered by our own kind?
In the past I've tried informing those that are apparently unlike
yourself, as to try reading from the bottom up, at least it makes more
sense to me after I've checked back from time to time in order to see
why so many folks can't seem to grasp the fundamental concepts as to
what I've interpreted, though subjectively as to that which certainly
looks sufficiently artificial as having been situated upon Venus, as
otherwise surrounded by what's perfectly natural as looking potentially
geologically hot and nasty as perhaps it should, and darn if I haven't
found lots of those regular laws of physics that seem to support a good
many other hard-science facts about this Venus environment which would
have been supportive of that sort of hot and nasty environment
sustaining other life. Yet the mainstream flak against anything I've
had to offer was nearly always and remains as rather insurmountable.
Therefore, for myself to be imposing upon others as to their having to
accept upon any notions that a thing or two has been overlooked about
Venus hasn't exactly been going over nearly as well as you'd think.
The fact that day by day I'm becoming more technically correct than
not, in that much that I have to say is sufficiently true is a proper
analogy about my form research because, in addition to my poor grammar
and various dyslexic syntax related factors that have only somewhat
improved, that plus I'm often making more than my fair share of those
unintentional math errors, however I'm still not by any means
sufficiently all-knowing. Therefore without the help and guidance of
those which at least claim as being near wizards and all-knowing lords
of their realm of whatever expertise, as a result I've managed to have
misinterpreted upon a good many items that I hope to eventually learn
enough about so as to get those sorts of errors corrected before
publishing, which in my case that's been a whole lot easier said than
accomplished.
Outside of observationology, that of my photographic expertise and a
certain amount of electronics and hydraulics experience, it seems that
a good amount of what I'm suggesting is essentially based upon
deductive reasoning as having been extracted from the hard-science and
thus expertise of others I'd trust, and of having applied the regular
laws of physics of which unfortunately I comprehend perhaps all of 1%
of what's actually needed has only further supported my initial
conjectures as to what's been potentially surviving upon Venus. Thus
until someone with a given talent and/or science expertise is willing
and able to pitch in, chances are going to remain fairly good that I'll
continue making those unfortunate mistakes until I manage to get it
right. However, in the reams of science and astronomy, even if you
don't make a single grammar, syntax or math mistake in delivering
whatever goods, chances are that unless you're well connected there's
not going to be any light at the end of your tunnel, other than the
headlight that's mounted on another mainstream locomotive that's
arriving from hell.
As I manage to learn on this exploratory need-to-know basis, and I
manage to update/edit my external pages upon a great many topics, as
such I could always use the freelance expertise of others for their
moral support and best of all for whatever they can contribute with
regard to our nearby Venus and even closer moon that was once upon a
time an icy proto-moon, that plus some expertise upon the stellar
motions associated between us and the Sirius star system would
certainly come in real handy. You name it, I've got a topic or a viable
notion about all of the above that could use your input or even that of
your honest questions.
jillh10
Let me first say...I am getting over an accident I had that has left me
with severe brain damage so I find it difficult to carry out certain
basic tasks, however my cognitive functioning is fine, I am just slower
than I used to be so the questions about venus etc will come to me and
it is you that I will ask.
If I find anything to bolster your submissions and theories I will post
them here.
I used to work as a biological psychologist and have a Masters in space
science and astronomy which I taught at university. The accident has
taken it toll and I am just gaining enough confidence to get back into
the swing of things.
One question that I do have though is why is it that the powers that be
are so interested in Mars more than Venus?
Astronomers refer to Venus as Earth's sister planet. Both are similar
in size, mass, density and volume. Both formed about the same time and
condensed out of the same
Nebula However, during the last few years scientists have found that
the kinship ends here. Venus seems very different from the Earth. It
has no oceans or any sign of where oceans once lay and is surrounded by
a heavy atmosphere composed mainly of carbon dioxide with virtually no
water vapor and its clouds are composed of sulfuric acid if I am
correct At the surface, the atmospheric pressure is 92 times that of
the Earth's at sea-level. So is this why there are no signs of sea
beds? Because of the pressure?
And why is Venus hotter than Mercury? I seem to have lost the plot on
much I have learned.
Four of the most successful missions in revealing the Venusian surface
I believe are: NASA's Pioneer Venus mission (1978), the Soviet Union's
Venera 15 and 16 missions (1983-1984), and NASA's Magellan radar
mapping mission (1990-1994). As these spacecraft began mapping the
planet a new picture of Venus emerged. Still no sign of ocean beds.
Venus' surface is relatively young geologically speaking. It appears to
have been completely resurfaced 300 to 500 million years ago.
Scientists debate how and why this occurred. Still all is
controversial, but is this a probable cause for the lack of Ocean beds?
Sending robot lander to Venus would have been more appropriate in my
view in the quest of knowing from where we originated. Even if all
they come back with is a bucket of fools gold.
Hugh lava flows, extending for hundreds of kilometers, have flooded the
lowlands creating vast plains. More than 100,000 small shield volcanoes
dot the surface along with hundreds of large volcanos. Flows from
volcanos have produced long sinuous channels extending for hundreds of
kilometers, with one extending nearly 7,000 kilometers (4,300 miles).
So digging these areas may uncover ocean beds I dont know how far down
they would have to drill but I think there must have been some water
before Venus got to where it is today.
I say this as I think that once upon a time...our solar system looked
different. The planets may have been in a totally different place from
where they are today. Who knows?
The Sun could have had a sucssesion of explosive events that had
catastophic concequences on the situation of the planets and so today
Earth lays where once Venus was, teaming with life on the critical line
in our solar system.
Thats all I can muster today
All the best
jill x
Brad Guth
>One question that I do have though is why is it that the powers that be
>are so interested in Mars more than Venus?
However, Mars is a terrific do-everything safety net. It has been
providing a perfectly good though unnecessary focus of our talents,
resources and media upon what's just sufficiently of what's humanly
unobtainable, so that jobs and benefits are fixed for life.
If you're going to wag another dog to death, the Mars dog is certainly
a good one.
>Astronomers refer to Venus as Earth's sister planet. Both are similar
>in size, mass, density and volume. Both formed about the same time and
>condensed out of the same
There's no way that we were created at the same time. Perhaps hundreds
of million if not a billion or so years apart, perhaps thereby not even
birthed within the same solar system.
>its clouds are composed of sulfuric acid
Wherever there's "sulfuric acid" there's lots of easily available H2O.
Go figure otherwise.
>At the surface, the atmospheric pressure is 92 times that of
>the Earth's at sea-level. So is this why there are no signs of sea
>beds? Because of the pressure?
Whatever the pressure is somewhat of a non-issue. If anything pressure
is a good sort of thing to be having more than your fair share of,
rather than not enough. Actually, at nearly -5km it's more like pushing
113 bar by day and perhaps as great as 120 bar by night, and the
atmospheric soup of the day that's all the way down there is most
certainly worth far greater than 10% the density of water (terrific
buoyancy and only 90.5% gravity to boot). There are ongoing/recent
channel/canyon erosion patterns and of most likely recent mud and
obviously a few more than it's fair share of lava flows to consider.
Have you per chance taken notice of the extremely large fluid arch?
There are what looks as large basins that certainly could have been
extremely large area though shallow lakes or perhaps the remains of
small oceans from a time prior to Venus entering our solar system, or
from having been iced down by an icy proto-moon that simply didn't
take.
By night Venus is certainly remaining a whole lot hotter than Mercury
by night, though I haven't checked the records with any great effort,
I'd imagine by day Mercury can hold nearly its own against Venus
because of being so much closer to the hot-damn stove. Those thick
clouds of Venus do manage to sequester a great deal of the geothermal
energy. However, Venus has been clearly losing more energy than it's
obtaining from the sun, thus global-warming via atmospherics is by most
of what modern research is not the case, merely a contributing factor
that's not even all that much.
>Still no sign of ocean beds.
>Venus' surface is relatively young geologically speaking.
I'm not entirely good on your first point but, it's certainly a whole
lot less old than Earth, just like Mars is clearly a bit older than
Earth, and the Mars core has apparently been quite dead as a door nail
for the past several million years. It's almost as though Mars lost one
of it's moons.
>It appears to have been completely resurfaced 300 to 500 million years ago.
I guess that I'm not up to speed as to how one tells the geological age
from an image, especially when there's no viable refference to work
against. We certainly can't utilize Earth, Mars or even Mercury as any
guide, or even that of our moon remains as off-limits
taboo/nondisclosure because????????
>Sending robot lander to Venus would have been more appropriate in my
>view in the quest of knowing from where we originated.
Robots have in the past and will in the future beat anything mann by
more than 1000:1, a million to one if we expect to get folks back
alive, and them robots will have accomplished a much better job to
boot.
I agree that robots can do as good if not better than man/woman,
especially of where it's so gosh darn hot and nasty?
Perhaps we need to have the TRACE-VL2 platform established so that
those surface robots (interactive kiosks) have something much better to
relay their messages through.
I totally agree that solar systems are not going to be the exact same
from birth to grave, and especially of having an extremely powerful
solar systems like that of the nearby Sirius star system, that by way
of all the regular laws of physics should have been pulling us along
for the ride quite nicely and, from time to time causing our solar
system to orbit about that of the Sirius star system to a such a near
encounter where we may have been closer than 0.1 light year (say 0.086
light year) while at the close end of each elliptical route that I
believe transpires roughly every 105,000 (+/- 5,000) years.
I also have a planetary merging thought where the arrival of Venus was
once situated much closer to Earth, where the icy-proto-moon of Venus
was essentially taken by Earth. At least that's how my super-computer
ran the model.
Of course, I believe that we're still going to orbit Sirius. Although,
now there's no available red-giant or of it's extra nifty IR energy,
just an extremely blue-white hot Sirius-a and little yet powerful
UV-b&c worthy Sirius-b that obviously used to be that red-giant, plus
whatever planets as having survived that transition, plus all and all
as having one hell of a nasty Oort zone/cloud to boot.
I'd certainly appreciate an independent rough draft/plot as to the
mutual stellar motions of us and the Sirius star system. Is there any
chance that you could pull such nifty little tidbits together?