PDA

View Full Version : Re: Mars Dust


Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
July 9th 03, 11:00 PM
Ron Baalke wrote:
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/09jul_marsdust.htm
>
> Mars Dust
> NASA Science News
> July 9, 2003
>
> Using only backyard telescopes, amateur astronomers are enjoying great views
> of dust clouds on Mars
>
> July 9, 2003: Something is happening on Mars and it's so big you can see it
> through an ordinary backyard telescope.
>
> On July 1st a bright dust cloud spilled out of Hellas Basin, a giant impact
> crater on Mars' southern hemisphere. The cloud quickly spread and by the
> Fourth of July was 1100 miles wide--about one-fourth the diameter of Mars
> itself.

You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
red to pale beige.

David Knisely
July 10th 03, 02:56 AM
Hi there. You posted:

> You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
> dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
> red to pale beige.

You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
horizon. It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red". The color change of
Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
height. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

bwhiting
July 10th 03, 03:28 AM
Well put Dave....I concur...and also a reminder that currently S Cephei
really does look 'red' now....well, reddish orange...kind of reminds me
of a glowing cigarette tip at night.
Clear skies,
Tom W.




David Knisely wrote:
> Hi there. You posted:
>
>
>>You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
>>dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
>>red to pale beige.
>
>
> You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
> its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
> take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
> been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
> horizon. It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
> consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
> red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
> more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red". The color change of
> Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
> does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
> height. Clear skies to you.

Richard DeLuca
July 10th 03, 04:10 AM
In article >,
bwhiting > wrote:

> Well put Dave....I concur...and also a reminder that currently S Cephei
> really does look 'red' now....well, reddish orange...kind of reminds me
> of a glowing cigarette tip at night.
> Clear skies,
> Tom W.
>
>
>
>

Tom & Dave,

Naked eye, Mars usually appears orange to me, not blood-red as you so
often see the media describe it.

However, I am not willing to dismiss the possibly that global dust
storms may actually be detectable without optical aid, either through
slight color change and/or brightness. I wonder if there's any
empirical evidence.

Starry Skies,
Rich

Alan W. Craft
July 10th 03, 07:11 AM
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:

>David Knisely wrote:
>>
>> Hi there. You posted:
>>
>> > You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
>> > dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
>> > red to pale beige.
>>
>> You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
>> its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
>> take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
>> been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
>> horizon.
>
>Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
>miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.
>
>> It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
>> consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
>> red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
>> more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".
>
>Or Antares.
>
>Recall the name's translation?
>
>> The color change of
>> Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
>> does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
>> height. Clear skies to you.
>
>2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
>looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
>headlines shortly thereafter.
>
>Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.

Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.

Alan

Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
July 10th 03, 09:17 AM
David Knisely wrote:
>
> Hi there. You posted:
>
> > You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
> > dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
> > red to pale beige.
>
> You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
> its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
> take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
> been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
> horizon.

Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.

> It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
> consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
> red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
> more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".

Or Antares.

Recall the name's translation?

> The color change of
> Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
> does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
> height. Clear skies to you.

2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
headlines shortly thereafter.

Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.

Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
July 11th 03, 11:17 AM
Alan W. Craft wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
>
> >David Knisely wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi there. You posted:
> >>
> >> > You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
> >> > dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
> >> > red to pale beige.
> >>
> >> You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
> >> its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
> >> take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
> >> been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
> >> horizon.
> >
> >Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
> >miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.
> >
> >> It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
> >> consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
> >> red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
> >> more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".
> >
> >Or Antares.
> >
> >Recall the name's translation?
> >
> >> The color change of
> >> Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
> >> does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
> >> height. Clear skies to you.
> >
> >2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
> >looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
> >headlines shortly thereafter.
> >
> >Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.
>
> Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.
>
> Alan

Living tissue, various connective and nerve types. Skyward.

Alan W. Craft
July 12th 03, 07:18 AM
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:17:02 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:

>Alan W. Craft wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
>>
>> >David Knisely wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi there. You posted:
>> >>
>> >> > You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
>> >> > dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
>> >> > red to pale beige.
>> >>
>> >> You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
>> >> its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
>> >> take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
>> >> been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
>> >> horizon.
>> >
>> >Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
>> >miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.
>> >
>> >> It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
>> >> consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
>> >> red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
>> >> more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".
>> >
>> >Or Antares.
>> >
>> >Recall the name's translation?
>> >
>> >> The color change of
>> >> Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
>> >> does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
>> >> height. Clear skies to you.
>> >
>> >2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
>> >looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
>> >headlines shortly thereafter.
>> >
>> >Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.
>>
>> Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.
>>
>> Alan
>
>Living tissue, various connective and nerve types. Skyward.

The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.

Alan

David Knisely
July 12th 03, 08:13 AM
Richard DeLuca wrote:

> Tom & Dave,
>
> Naked eye, Mars usually appears orange to me, not blood-red as you so
> often see the media describe it.
>
> However, I am not willing to dismiss the possibly that global dust
> storms may actually be detectable without optical aid, either through
> slight color change and/or brightness. I wonder if there's any
> empirical evidence.

The last opposition when the dust storm went global, I saw little major
change in the overall color of Mars to the unaided eye. The comparison
of the HST images before and during the storm also don't show much of a
color shift except perhaps a bit to the red, as the white clouds and
polar cap were less visible than in the image taken before the storm
(may also have been the way the images were processed). In any case,
the color of Mars visually in the telescope certainly isn't "blood red"
by any stretch of the imagination. This current dust cloud in Hellas is
just a bit lighter in shade than the rest of the planet with perhaps a
hint of yellow, although it still is very close to the underlying
lighter "pink salmon" shade of the lighter regions. The color index
(B-V) of Mars as a whole is about 1.36, so its not quite as red as
Antares (B-V of 1.84), although it is noticably brighter than that star
right now. Mars is about as red as Aldebaran (B-V of 1.48) and
certainly not nearly as red as V Aquilae, which has a B-V of around
3.858. It will be interesting to compare Mars to Aldebaran next time it
gets fairly close to it on the sky. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
July 13th 03, 09:03 AM
Alan W. Craft wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:17:02 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
>
> >Alan W. Craft wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
> >>
> >> >David Knisely wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi there. You posted:
> >> >>
> >> >> > You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
> >> >> > dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
> >> >> > red to pale beige.
> >> >>
> >> >> You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
> >> >> its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
> >> >> take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
> >> >> been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
> >> >> horizon.
> >> >
> >> >Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
> >> >miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.
> >> >
> >> >> It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
> >> >> consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
> >> >> red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
> >> >> more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".
> >> >
> >> >Or Antares.
> >> >
> >> >Recall the name's translation?
> >> >
> >> >> The color change of
> >> >> Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
> >> >> does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
> >> >> height. Clear skies to you.
> >> >
> >> >2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
> >> >looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
> >> >headlines shortly thereafter.
> >> >
> >> >Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.
> >>
> >> Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >
> >Living tissue, various connective and nerve types. Skyward.
>
> The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.
>
> Alan

The mind can.

Alan W. Craft
July 13th 03, 10:29 AM
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:03:06 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:

>Alan W. Craft wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:17:02 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
>>
>> >Alan W. Craft wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
>> >>
>> >> >David Knisely wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi there. You posted:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
>> >> >> > dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
>> >> >> > red to pale beige.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
>> >> >> its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
>> >> >> take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
>> >> >> been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
>> >> >> horizon.
>> >> >
>> >> >Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
>> >> >miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.
>> >> >
>> >> >> It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
>> >> >> consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
>> >> >> red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
>> >> >> more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".
>> >> >
>> >> >Or Antares.
>> >> >
>> >> >Recall the name's translation?
>> >> >
>> >> >> The color change of
>> >> >> Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
>> >> >> does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
>> >> >> height. Clear skies to you.
>> >> >
>> >> >2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
>> >> >looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
>> >> >headlines shortly thereafter.
>> >> >
>> >> >Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.
>> >>
>> >> Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.
>> >>
>> >> Alan
>> >
>> >Living tissue, various connective and nerve types. Skyward.
>>
>> The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.
>>
>> Alan
>
>The mind can.

I agree, as the mind is not physical.

Alan

G=EMC^2 Glazier
July 14th 03, 12:19 AM
Well we don't have any Mars dust. If we had 6 pounds how much would it
be worth? Bert

Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
July 14th 03, 10:26 AM
Alan W. Craft wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:03:06 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
>
> >Alan W. Craft wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:17:02 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
> >>
> >> >Alan W. Craft wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > ...reflected:
> >> >>
> >> >> >David Knisely wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hi there. You posted:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
> >> >> >> > dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
> >> >> >> > red to pale beige.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
> >> >> >> its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
> >> >> >> take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
> >> >> >> been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
> >> >> >> horizon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
> >> >> >miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
> >> >> >> consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
> >> >> >> red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
> >> >> >> more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Or Antares.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Recall the name's translation?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The color change of
> >> >> >> Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
> >> >> >> does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
> >> >> >> height. Clear skies to you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
> >> >> >looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
> >> >> >headlines shortly thereafter.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.
> >> >>
> >> >> Alan
> >> >
> >> >Living tissue, various connective and nerve types. Skyward.
> >>
> >> The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >
> >The mind can.
>
> I agree, as the mind is not physical.

The mind is chemistry.

randyj
July 14th 03, 03:16 PM
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > wrote in message
> > >> The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.
> > >>
> > >> Alan
> > >
> > >The mind can.
> >
> > I agree, as the mind is not physical.
>
> The mind is chemistry.

No, the brain is chemistry. You can't pinpoint or locate the mind. It can be
anywhere
or everywhere.

rj

Volker Hetzer
July 14th 03, 04:04 PM
randyj wrote:
> "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > wrote in
> message
>>>>> The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> The mind can.
>>>
>>> I agree, as the mind is not physical.
>>
>> The mind is chemistry.
>
> No, the brain is chemistry. You can't pinpoint or locate the mind. It
> can be anywhere
> or everywhere.
Depends on your definition of "mind". If you think of it as "brain software"
the mind is all the weights in the dendrites and the threshold values firing
the axons.

Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

randyj
July 14th 03, 04:42 PM
"Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
...
> randyj wrote:
> > "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." > wrote in
> > message
> >>>>> The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>> The mind can.
> >>>
> >>> I agree, as the mind is not physical.
> >>
> >> The mind is chemistry.
> >
> > No, the brain is chemistry. You can't pinpoint or locate the mind. It
> > can be anywhere
> > or everywhere.
> Depends on your definition of "mind". If you think of it as "brain
software"
> the mind is all the weights in the dendrites and the threshold values
firing
> the axons.
>
> Greetings!
> Volker

Greetings,

i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and sensation.
where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined, so there must be
more than chemistry involved.

rj

Volker Hetzer
July 14th 03, 04:47 PM
> i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and
> sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined,
> so there must be more than chemistry involved.
Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show
where they are. They are in the brain.
Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just
because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot
of the holo?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

randyj
July 14th 03, 05:36 PM
"Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
...
> > i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and
> > sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined,
> > so there must be more than chemistry involved.
> Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show
> where they are. They are in the brain.
> Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just
> because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot
> of the holo?

no, i didn't mention holograms. You state that these 4 are in the brain,
but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to show
exactly where consciousness resides?

rj

Bill Sheppard
July 14th 03, 06:04 PM
>no, i didn't mention holograms. You state >that these 4 are in the
brain, but you
>don't provide evidence. Has a brain been >dissected to show exactly
where
>consciousness resides?
>
>rj

Check these sites-

www.muc.de/~heuvel/bohm/

www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

oc

G=EMC^2 Glazier
July 14th 03, 10:35 PM
I'm going to grind my Mars meteorite into a fine powder(dust) I know it
came from Mars. I could sell it for about 25 thousand dollars,as it is a
3.5 mars meteorite,but can get $500 dollars an ounce from people that
believe. I'm thinking of making the most expensive 5 minute egg hour
glass. Well NASA knows how to get big bucks,now its my turn.
Bert.

Volker Hetzer
July 15th 03, 09:51 AM
randyj wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and
>>> sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined,
>>> so there must be more than chemistry involved.
>> Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show
>> where they are. They are in the brain.
>> Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just
>> because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot
>> of the holo?
>
> no, i didn't mention holograms.
But somehow you think that nonlocal information in a hologram is different from
nonlocal information in a brain.

> You state that these 4 are in the
> brain, but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to
> show exactly where consciousness resides?
No, but it has been killed to show that it goes away then.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

randyj
July 15th 03, 02:14 PM
"Odysseus" > wrote in message
...
> randyj wrote:
> >
> > no, i didn't mention holograms. You state that these 4 are in the brain,
> > but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to show
> > exactly where consciousness resides?
> >
> Of course not. You seem to be missing the point of Volker's hologram
> analogy: consciousness may be a product -- some would say a mere
> by-product! -- of the *whole* brain, not any one site or 'organ' in it.
>
> --Odysseus

ok, i agree, it accompanies a brain in a body, and maybe even a brain apart
from a
body, if such a thing could be. But your use of "may" shows that we don't
know what
it is--rj

randyj
July 15th 03, 02:19 PM
"Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
...
> randyj wrote:
> > "Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>> i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and
> >>> sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined,
> >>> so there must be more than chemistry involved.
> >> Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show
> >> where they are. They are in the brain.
> >> Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just
> >> because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot
> >> of the holo?
> >
> > no, i didn't mention holograms.
> But somehow you think that nonlocal information in a hologram is different
from
> nonlocal information in a brain.
>
> > You state that these 4 are in the
> > brain, but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to
> > show exactly where consciousness resides?
> No, but it has been killed to show that it goes away then.

You have no way of knowing that it goes away then.
that's just conjecture on your part.

rj

Volker Hetzer
July 15th 03, 06:11 PM
randyj wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> randyj wrote:
>>> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and
>>>>> sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be
>>>>> determined, so there must be more than chemistry involved.
>>>> Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show
>>>> where they are. They are in the brain.
>>>> Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just
>>>> because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot
>>>> of the holo?
>>>
>>> no, i didn't mention holograms.
>> But somehow you think that nonlocal information in a hologram is
>> different from nonlocal information in a brain.
>>
>>> You state that these 4 are in the
>>> brain, but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to
>>> show exactly where consciousness resides?
>> No, but it has been killed to show that it goes away then.
>
> You have no way of knowing that it goes away then.
> that's just conjecture on your part.
A) You turn a "no way of knowing" into "must be more ...". That may be
a classic rethorical tactic but it's illogical nevertheless. Do you subscribe
to the "god of the gaps" philosophy?
B) We know quite a lot about the brain and one thing we know is
that whenever some part of the brain we *can* attach a function to
stops working, the function stops too. We also know that you can remove
just about everything else from the body and consciousness won't go away
while the brain is still working. The logical conclusion is that the brain (ok,
nerve tissue) is the only thing that carries consciousness.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

Volker Hetzer
July 16th 03, 03:21 PM
randyj wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
>> A) You turn a "no way of knowing" into "must be more ...". That may
>> be a classic rethorical tactic but it's illogical
>> nevertheless. Do you subscribe to the "god of the gaps"
>> philosophy?
>
> no, not saying there must be more, just saying it isn't known for
> sure;
Of course it is not known "for sure", nothing is. We could all
be the dreams of a god, but as long as we have no way of testing
this we might as well ignore that possibility. ( As soon as it makes a
difference we'd have a test.)

> can consciousness be measured, by degrees?
I think "consciousness" isn't even properly defined. Right now
the best idea we've come up with is the mirror test. If an animal
can convince an observer that it recognizes itself in a mirror
we believe it has a self consciousness. Most primates can do
that and at least one bird.

>
>> B) We know quite a lot about the brain and one thing we know is
>> that whenever some part of the brain we *can* attach a function
>> to stops working, the function stops too. We also know that you
>> can remove just about everything else from the body and
>> consciousness won't go away while the brain is still working.
>> The logical conclusion is that the brain (ok, nerve tissue) is
>> the only thing that carries consciousness.
>
> sounds logical; i concede the argument to you. thanks for the exercise
Well, the next counter argument I expected would be that consciousness
could exist without the means of convincing us of its existence, like a
soul in heaven. Only, if this doesn't doesn't have an effect on our universe,
which a means of convincing us of its existence would be, why bother?
It's a bit like trying to guess whom some imagined god wants me to kill
and whom it wants me to spare if I want to go to heaven. As long asI
have no way of finding out about what it wants I might as well not bother
and make my own decision.

Of course you might try to think of possible evidence and set up tests for
this maybe you come up with something real? You'd take a real load of the
minds of a lot
of people.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

BenignVanilla
July 16th 03, 03:25 PM
"Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
-
<snip>
> Of course you might try to think of possible evidence and set up tests for
> this maybe you come up with something real? You'd take a real load of the
> minds of a lot
> of people.
<snip>

I have always thought this to be a better question then, "Why are we here?".
I love the "Are we really here?" concept. IMHO, there is really no way to
prove that we are here. As far as I know, you are all just figments of my
imagination. Now I have to go figure out how my brain invented Bert and
Moby.

BV.

Odysseus
July 17th 03, 05:29 AM
Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
> I think "consciousness" isn't even properly defined. Right now
> the best idea we've come up with is the mirror test. If an animal
> can convince an observer that it recognizes itself in a mirror
> we believe it has a self consciousness. Most primates can do
> that and at least one bird.
>
Another interesting type of test determines whether or not a creature
can 'put itself in another's shoes', i.e. model the consciousness of
another. IIRC humans don't usually acquire this ability for two or
three years, but it has been observed in apes. A _Scientific American
Frontiers_ episode I saw had Alan Alda, dressed as a vet, playing the
role of a threatening stranger to a couple of chimpanzees. When the
entrance to the enclosure was concealed from Chimp A's cage as Alda
approached, Chimp B, who was positioned so as to see both the
entrance and the other cage, called out an alarm. But when the
partition was removed, since B then saw that A could see the threat
for herself he didn't make a fuss.

--Odysseus

Volker Hetzer
July 17th 03, 11:03 AM
Odysseus wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>>
>> I think "consciousness" isn't even properly defined. Right now
>> the best idea we've come up with is the mirror test. If an animal
>> can convince an observer that it recognizes itself in a mirror
>> we believe it has a self consciousness. Most primates can do
>> that and at least one bird.
>>
> Another interesting type of test determines whether or not a creature
> can 'put itself in another's shoes', i.e. model the consciousness of
> another. IIRC humans don't usually acquire this ability for two or
> three years, but it has been observed in apes. A _Scientific American
> Frontiers_ episode I saw had Alan Alda, dressed as a vet, playing the
> role of a threatening stranger to a couple of chimpanzees. When the
> entrance to the enclosure was concealed from Chimp A's cage as Alda
> approached, Chimp B, who was positioned so as to see both the
> entrance and the other cage, called out an alarm. But when the
> partition was removed, since B then saw that A could see the threat
> for herself he didn't make a fuss.
Sounds interesting. Can this inference be generalized to all animals
that live in groups and have individuals assigned this "watcher" role?
Do chimpanzees have watchers in their natural habitat?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

G=EMC^2 Glazier
July 17th 03, 12:26 PM
Read they can have speeds up to 125mph How high does the
dust go up? It must fill up valleys and craters,and could be a real
hazard when man walks on Mars. What causes these storms(best theory)?
Are they periotic? Could Mars dust be very fine and light? Mars having
about half the gravity then the earth would make dust half as heavy. I
don't think there is any water in the Mars atmosphere (to cold)
A CO2 atmosphere low to the ground could push dust off Mars surface
because it is a heavy(dense) gas. Could it move in waves(like our ocean
waves) Well hot and cold keeps our air moving. On Mars when its north
pole dips forward there could be a 60 degree temperature change.and
since CO2 goes from solid to gas the atmosphere in the northern area
gets denser and could get the dust storm going. That means dust storms
on Mars is more of a seasonal event and the earth has similar season
events,and much more of a variety. Would be interesting to know if the
solid CO2 at the poles is a solid sheet,or flaky? It there is water
under solid CO2 it could have been there undisturbed for millions,and
millions of years( like our polar ice) Bert

David Knisely
July 17th 03, 06:30 PM
Bert posted:

> Read they can have speeds up to 125mph

If "they" are winds, then you might be a little high. The highest
recorded wind speeds on Mars were during a dust storm, when the speeds
were in the 20 to 30 meter/second range (44 to 67 mph). Tracking of
dust storm movement from orbit showed that they can move across the
surface at from 14 to 32 meters per second, with a few observations
indicating speeds as high as 50 meters per second (112 mph).

> How high does the dust go up?

It can reach very high in the Martian atmosphere, perhaps as high as 20
to 30 kilometers above the Martian datum.

> It must fill up valleys and craters,and could be a real
> hazard when man walks on Mars.

There are dust dunes in the polar regions, as well as a dusty surface,
but it may not be enough to "fill up" valleys and craters. It will
definitely be a hazard for those trying to live and work on the Martian
surface.

> What causes these storms(best theory)?
> Are they periotic?

The storms are not exactly periodic, but they do tend to occur most
often during the southern hemisphere's spring and summer, and tend to be
the most extensive when Mars is closest to the sun. The Martian
atmosphere is thin and thus doesn't conduct heat very well. Downslope
winds from the polar areas can kick up some dust as the seasonal caps
change from solid CO2 to gas. This can raise dust into the atmosphere.
The dust then absorbs sunlight and re-radiates the energy as heat. This
heating causes more wind and stirrs up more dust into the atmosphere,
which then heats up the atmosphere even more. The effect is a "runaway"
wind storm which can cause huge clouds of dust to be created in the
atmosphere, sometimes resulting in regional or global dust storms.

> I don't think there is any water in the Mars atmosphere (to cold)

There is water vapor in the atmosphere of Mars as was detected by
various probes, but it is a rather small amount (tyically 0.03%). Water
vapor clouds and lowland water vapor hazes are also seen in various
areas of the planet.


--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Jonathan Silverlight
July 17th 03, 10:40 PM
In message >, David Knisely
> writes
>Bert posted:
>
>> I don't think there is any water in the Mars atmosphere (to cold)
>
>There is water vapor in the atmosphere of Mars as was detected by
>various probes, but it is a rather small amount (tyically 0.03%). Water
>vapor clouds and lowland water vapor hazes are also seen in various
>areas of the planet.

Isn't "water vapor cloud" a misnomer? The fact that there are water
clouds means that the air is saturated, so the vapour can condense out
as water (probably ice).
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

Odysseus
July 18th 03, 04:36 AM
Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
> Sounds interesting. Can this inference be generalized to all animals
> that live in groups and have individuals assigned this "watcher" role?
> Do chimpanzees have watchers in their natural habitat?
>
I don't know for sure, but many groups of social animals have members
with such roles. Ground-squirrel colonies have pretty obvious
'sentries' posted when they're out foraging. The point, though, is
that the chimp's behaviour was based on some kind of awareness of his
comrade's perceptions; I think most animals and birds give their
alarm cries instinctually, without considering who really needs
warning. You won't see a ground-squirrel doing a head-count before it
starts squeaking and flicking its tail as you approach.

--Odysseus

Odysseus
July 18th 03, 04:43 AM
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>
> Isn't "water vapor cloud" a misnomer? The fact that there are water
> clouds means that the air is saturated, so the vapour can condense out
> as water (probably ice).

How about "clouds produced from water vapour", or even "water fog"?
But I think it's quite acceptable in casual conversation to refer to
a cloud of condensing water as "vapour", even if not strictly
correct; we speak of "vapour trails" from jets, for example, yet if
they were truly vaporized we wouldn't be able to see them.

--Odysseus

BenignVanilla
July 18th 03, 12:58 PM
"Odysseus" > wrote in message
...
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
> >
> > Sounds interesting. Can this inference be generalized to all animals
> > that live in groups and have individuals assigned this "watcher" role?
> > Do chimpanzees have watchers in their natural habitat?
> >
> I don't know for sure, but many groups of social animals have members
> with such roles. Ground-squirrel colonies have pretty obvious
> 'sentries' posted when they're out foraging. The point, though, is
> that the chimp's behaviour was based on some kind of awareness of his
> comrade's perceptions; I think most animals and birds give their
> alarm cries instinctually, without considering who really needs
> warning. You won't see a ground-squirrel doing a head-count before it
> starts squeaking and flicking its tail as you approach.

Quite often my cat lurks in the bushes in front of our home. I know where
she is in the front yard at all times, even when hidden, because the finches
will gather in a nearby tree and chirp madly in her direction. If she moves,
they move, and they always point in her direction. It's really an incredible
sight.

BV.

G=EMC^2 Glazier
July 19th 03, 01:58 PM
Seems that dust storms is Mars most dramatic feature of surface events.
It has no volcanoes going off. Does it have sand dunes? How long does a
Mars dust storm last? In Nevada dust storms seem to come and go without
warning.(mostly in the western part) The Earth's great atmosphere
oceans,and volcanoes makes its surface a very interesting place. I see
Mars more like our moon,and Mercury. I wonder how sound travels on
Mars? Bert

David Knisely
July 19th 03, 07:24 PM
Bert posted:

> It has no volcanoes going off.

If you mean no volcanoes which are currently observed as being active,
you would be correct. However, we haven't been watching them all that
long, so we do not know if they are all dead or not.

> Does it have sand dunes?

Mars has huge sand (more like dust) dunes in large dune fields on the
planet. You will find them in craters, in some of the older channel
systems, near the polar regions, and in other places.

> How long does a Mars dust storm last?

A few days to over a month.

> I see Mars more like our moon, and Mercury

The moon and Mercury have never had much of an atmosphere and show no
signs of water or wind erosion. Mars does have an atmosphere and shows
clear signs of both kinds of erosion. It has characteristics of both a
planet like the Earth and a body like the moon.

> I wonder how sound travels on Mars?

The same way it travels on the Earth; through the air.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Odysseus
July 19th 03, 08:14 PM
David Knisely wrote:
>
> Bert posted:
>
> > I wonder how sound travels on Mars?
>
> The same way it travels on the Earth; through the air.

But considerably slower and, I think, with more attenuation. Of
course some of the sounds we hear on earth are conducted through the
ground as well; explosions heard from a distance in rugged terrain
sometimes produce a 'double report', a deep rumble (transmitted
rapidly through the bedrock before being radiated from nearby
outcrops) followed by a 'bang' (transmitted through the atmosphere)
that includes more of the high frequencies. This effect would be more
pronounced on Mars.

--Odysseus

G=EMC^2 Glazier
July 20th 03, 02:21 PM
Mars dust could have the same density as earth dust. The mars dust
moving parrel to the surface has the same inertia force,as earth dust
storms.(mass is mass the same everywhere) I don't know if any
dust storms on earth reach 112 mph. I do know they are local,and don't
last very long. Still the Great Pyramid had a shinny finish when
built,and look at it now(pretty shabby) I would think Mars dust was
made of 92% silica,and 7% powdered iron. I have a theory the powdered
iron gives Mars surface a small magnetic force,and when this powdered
iron is being blown around it creates a small electromagnetic
force(static electricity) When man walks someday on Mars,he will find
this as a troublesome.feature of Mars surface Bert

Ralph Hertle
July 20th 03, 06:39 PM
Bert:

The iron on Mars is likely in combination with oxygen. Iron oxide ranges
in color from black, purplish brown, dark red, orange and dark yellow.
The iron rust colors are probably the cause of the overall low
saturation red-orange color of the planet.

A question occurs. Can either pure iron or iron oxide be permanently
magnetized? Isn't it true that pure iron cannot by itself be a permanent
magnet and can be used to temporarily concentrate a magnetic field.

Ralph Hertle

.......................................


G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

> [ text omitted ] .......I would think Mars dust was
> made of 92% silica,and 7% powdered iron. I have a theory the powdered
> iron gives Mars surface a small magnetic force,and when this powdered
> iron is being blown around it creates a small electromagnetic
> force(static electricity) When man walks someday on Mars,he will find
> this as a troublesome.feature of Mars surface Bert
>
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

G=EMC^2 Glazier
July 20th 03, 09:55 PM
Hi Ralph Here on earth we can tell if the polarity of the earth's
magnetic field has flipped by the sedimentary rock that has formed over
thousands of years I'm trying to fit this in with iron on the Mars
surface. I'm thinking with not much oxygen in Mars atmosphere creating
iron oxide is not all that common. Seems Mars reddish color shows a lot
of iron on its surface. How much is rust???? It does not take much
thought that powdered iron belched out of Mars volcanoes.(might be still
doing it) gets iron to Mars surface. It is happening here on earth as
I type,and in our ocean floor. Bert

David Knisely
July 21st 03, 05:51 AM
Bert posted:

> David you said the sound waves on Mars would travel the same way "though
> the air" Earth's air atmosphere is a lot different than Mars.

Completely irrelevant. You had asked, "I wonder how sound travels on
Mars?". You *did NOT* ask about how "well" sound travels, nor did you
ask at "what speed" the sound travels, but only "how sound travels on
Mars". In doing this, you seem only to want to know *the mechanism*.
Sound waves are compression waves. They can travel through solids,
liquids and gasses. The speed and intensity vs. distance from the
emitter are different with different gasses, but they travel in exactly
the same manner by going through the atmosphere as the gas conducts the
sound waves. The sounds on Mars would propagate very poorly due to the
low density of the atmosphere, but they would propagate using the same
mechanism that sound propagates on Earth, and would be detectable
provided they were loud enough.

> Just the
> fact that Mars only has 1% as compared to earth's and that 1% is 93% CO2
> would make a big difference to a tuning fork.

The mass of the Martian atmosphere is *not* 1% of the Earth's atmosphere
(it is 0.7 percent). The atmospheric pressure on Mars varies from
around 4 millibars (4% of the Earth's mean pressure at sea level) to as
high as 11 millibars (about 1.09% of the Earth's mean pressure at sea
level) depending on where you are and what the barometric pressure is at
any given time. The composition of the Martian atmosphere is over 95%
Carbon Dioxide (not 93%).

> You are very close to being "grossly wrong"

Not nearly as close as you are, as you are fairly consistent about being
inaccurate or just plain wrong in your postings.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************