149 replies to this topic

[Siguy]

Be careful how you use the word theory. Remember that "theory" is as close as you can get to fact in true science!

[AaronJer]

Okay, assume that my semantics in my post are as follows. When I say 'theory' I mean 'baseless theory' or 'theory with no feasible method of testing.'

Next time I will state whether I'm using the scientific or common usage of the word 'theory'. In the case of black holes, most of the theories aren't even based on an observation. They are commonly based off other theories that are ALSO not based on an observation. Many of them barely even qualify as being scientific at all. Theories that are based on the assumption that another theory (even a theory that is useful enough to be practical) is correct without any of it's own observational evidence can lead to some very bad science and large masses of people believing things that have little or no evidence to support them.

I fully realize that it's difficult to discover new things if you don't try out a lot of virtually baseless theories. The problem is that people don't like to change, and once you have 10 theories stacked on top of each other, it becomes impossible to argue that the one at the bottom is actually wrong. If someone were to discover a theory far superior to the current theory of gravity, for instance, nobody would even listen to it.

Edited by AaronJer, 15 May 2008 - 08:01 PM.

[Russ]

You know, I think scientists just found some significant evidence for Hawking radiation. I'll look into it.

[Red Phazon]

Y'all gotta remember that almost everything we 'know' about black holes is still theory. The only thing that is sufficiently proven is that they're really, really heavy. Other than that we have theories going every which way about how they function and whether or not anything can escape from them. Some theories state that nothing escapes, another theory states that they leak 'hawking radiation'.

Note on Hawking Radiation, it occurs at the event horizon, not withing it, where it would still be possible for matter/energy to escape.

[Rocksfan13]

Alright. New subjects today.

Article number 1:

Discussion on the probability of life on Mars. Again. This time they concentrate their efforts on the polar regions. They also still believe that the valleys were carved by water. I say, who's to say that it couldn't have been something else? Something much like water. There are other liquids that flow besides water. Isn't it a little niave to hypothysise that it was once water? Discuss..

Article number 2:

The red dwarf star EV Lacertae lets off a huge flare in April and they just now tell us? What gives?
Anyway, this obviously was somewhat bigger than what is normal for this type of star. Surely, they are basing this star on how our solar sytem was in it's youth, but this star is much smaller than ours. So, how can you be so certain? True, magnetic variations can make the difference, but still. Discuss...

[Eurysilas]

They also still believe that the valleys were carved by water. I say, who's to say that it couldn't have been something else? Something much like water. There are other liquids that flow besides water. Isn't it a little niave to hypothysise that it was once water? Discuss..

I was actually intrigued by this question, and did a bit of Wikipedia research. Combining this from what little I remember about Mars from various other sources, I can say that they base the assertion on what they know of earth geology, and what landforms that were carved by water on earth looked like. Which would normally be foolish, were it not for the more convincing evidence that one of Mars' poler caps contains enough frozen ice water to cover the entire planet to a depth of 11 meters. Since Mars was volcanically active in the past (would HAVE to have been, it's a part of planet formation), I think it a safe bet that water did flow on Mars, and that it was liquid thanks to volcanism (one of the factors that keeps Earth's water liquid). What we can't really be sure about is what percentage of the landscape was carved by water, and what by other factors. So rocksfan13's point still stands, in a sorta-kinda way.

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

[Russ]

So, Mars did once have flowing water. Interesting. I wonder if there is some kind of fossilized life on Mars then. And, because Mars no longer has a magnetic field, will Earth end up like Mars when our field goes out. Scary thoughts.

[AaronJer]

Well, it can only be assumed that the Earth will end up a as a lifeless rock at some point or another. It would be a lot stranger for it to last infinitely. Either the sun dies out, or blows up, or we discover The Terrible Secret of Space. Lots of inevitable things would result in everything dying.

[Eurysilas]

And, because Mars no longer has a magnetic field, will Earth end up like Mars when our field goes out. Scary thoughts.

Most likely, although I don't know whether that happens before or after the sun engulfs us.

[Russ]

Most likely, although I don't know whether that happens before or after the sun engulfs us.

Well, either way, we're fried. But, I won't be here anymore, so I have nothing to worry about.

[Red Phazon]

I've spent the last five to six hours at the University of Arizona for the celebration for the landing of the Phoenix lander, so I'm about ready to reply to these posts.

Discussion on the probability of life on Mars. Again. This time they concentrate their efforts on the polar regions. They also still believe that the valleys were carved by water. I say, who's to say that it couldn't have been something else? Something much like water. There are other liquids that flow besides water. Isn't it a little niave to hypothysise that it was once water? Discuss..

Naive to hypothesize that it was water? Look how abundant water is here on our planet Earth. Look how at how much Mars and Earth are geographically similar. No there is no liquid water left on Mars, but the poles are covered with ice, which is where Phoenix is going to go dig past the surface.

So, Mars did once have flowing water. Interesting. I wonder if there is some kind of fossilized life on Mars then. And, because Mars no longer has a magnetic field, will Earth end up like Mars when our field goes out. Scary thoughts.

Fossilized life would be quite a shock! It's the fate of all the terrestrial planets and moons for their cores to cool completely. The larger the planet the longer the cooling process takes. You can see that the moons of the first four planets (almost all known moons actually) have cooled, so are pretty dead. Mars now has a solid core, who knows what's going on with Venus, and Mercury is still running I think due to it's larger than expected core and most eccentric orbit (tidal forces.)

Mars's core ran out of energy, it's equator dried up, the water drained to the poles of the planet and froze. Earth will probably be the last to go, but it will go some day.

Most likely, although I don't know whether that happens before or after the sun engulfs us.

More likely that the Earth's core freezes before the sun dies. I think.



I'm pulling this out of my head, so sorry if there's any incorrect information.

[Eurysilas]

Look how at how much Mars and Earth are geographically similar.

Surely there are other liquids besides water that could have made those features. They seem to be forgetting one important fact; to wit, IT'S AN ALIEN PLANET. Therefore, not everything that applies on Earth will apply there.

Personally, I do accept the water theory. I just think that it's preposterous to say "Oh...Look! This feature from X planet looks like feature from Y planet.....Exactly the same processes must have made both!". What convinced me was the fact about its poles that I quoted...To me that's far stronger evidence than what's often presented to the public, which is the similarity of features fact.

By the way, you're lucky, Red Phazon...I live in an area where everybody but me thinks the space program is a waste of tax dollars.

[AaronJer]

I don't see how something that's 100% vital to the survival of the human race can be a waste of tax dollars. Them people just ain't thinkin'. Also, let's start advertising global warming as a good thing, because it would counteract a cooling core.

Edited by AaronJer, 30 May 2008 - 04:44 AM.

[Rocksfan13]

Here's an article I found quite intriguing. Apparently now they know what Cass A was before it blew up 300 years ago. All because of the echoes it left behind.
Another point in the article is the gamma rays that a magnetar set off when it exploded 20,000 lights years away could have been fatal to our planet.
Interesting how things we cannot see can quite possibly kill us all.

Here's the article.

[Rocksfan13]

My, what happened to this thread?

I was just rummaging around the science and tech part of msn and found this little piece about the Fallacy of a "full" moon. Article.

Also, I've been keeping up with the Mars rover too. All it's findong of something white. What do you all think it is? Salt or Ice?
I think it's salt.

Another thing I've been reading is the discovery of 3 super Earths. I honestly think it specatacular that they can find these things. But man, it's takes 'em so long to conclude this stuff. Kinda makes me wish we had the abitity of light speed or even superluminal speeds. 46 lights years away. If I'm mistaken that would take 46 years to get to at the speed of light. Not too out of sight, if we could move that fast.
That being said, do you think it's possible to achieve luminal speed? Or even superluminal speeds?
I've seen the thesi on this and I do believe it very possible if not for one factor that either doesn't exist or just hasn't been discovered yet.

Discuss.