A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

another what if?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 7th 03, 01:04 PM
Ron Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default another what if?


"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message
...

As far as the so called alien artifacts near the "face" of Mars,
my interpretation is that they are erosional features produced by joints
or faults.


If you can believe that the "artifacts on Mars" people are mistaking natural
features for artificial ones, why can you not believe you are doing the same
thing?

Yes I agree, it is a ridiculous statement written solely to provoke
serious discussion.


Hardly---as I pointed out in my initial response.

P.S.: If the objects on Eros and Phobos are
indeed alien artifacts, in my opinion they may
have been abandoned millions of years ago.


That's a big "if".

RM


Ads
  #12  
Old July 7th 03, 05:25 PM
Zdenek Jizba
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default another what if?



Ron Miller wrote:

"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message
...

As far as the so called alien artifacts near the "face" of Mars,
my interpretation is that they are erosional features produced by joints
or faults.


If you can believe that the "artifacts on Mars" people are mistaking natural
features for artificial ones, why can you not believe you are doing the same
thing?


The word "believe" is misused here. When you take a flight from Los
Angeles to the East Coast or to London, as you look down while West
of the Rockies, you may see erosional features similar to the ones on the
images of Mars near "the face". As a geologist I recognize the similarity
and it is natural for me to conclude that similar wind (perhaps water)
action produced these forms. On Eros there is no atmosphere, no wind
no erosion short of occasional impacts by objects creating craters.
Explaining some of the objects seen on images of Eros becomes more
difficult.



Yes I agree, it is a ridiculous statement written solely to provoke
serious discussion.


Hardly---as I pointed out in my initial response.

P.S.: If the objects on Eros and Phobos are
indeed alien artifacts, in my opinion they may
have been abandoned millions of years ago.


That's a big "if".

RM


  #13  
Old July 7th 03, 05:30 PM
Zdenek Jizba
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default another what if?



Ron Miller wrote:

"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message
...
Ron Miller wrote:

They look like rocks to me. They come in all sorts of shapes and sizes,

you
know.


I agree with you that I cannot absolutely prove that they are not rocks.
However, there are several aspects of these objects that make them
VERY unusual. Fist the mounds.
1. they appear to be circular (the image that disappeared showed this
best)
2. They have no sharp edges (unlike most of the other boulders on

Eros)
3. There appears to be an overhang around the circular boundary
(again, this showed better on the disappeared image)
4. The slopes appear to be those of a knoll.


You use the word "appear" in three of your four points and "most of" in the
fourth. This all awfully subjective. What you are saying is: "Because these
objects 'appear' to be different from 'most of' the other rocks and
boulders, they must be artificial." This is quite a leap from such little
evidence.


Please do not imply conclusions that I do NOT make. You say
"Because these objects....they must be artificial." Please point out
where I say "they must be artificial". All I say is that the images
call for further investigation or something to that effect.


  #14  
Old July 7th 03, 07:18 PM
Impmon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default another what if?

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:18:16 GMT, Zdenek Jizba
typed:

[snip]
Was my behavior improper? You judge.


From what you described, it sounds like there were slight problem with
the news server and not with you. Every now and then, I have problem
getting to the newsgroup even though everything else worked. I know
it's not just me because the tdsnet.* hierarchy (only available to
tds.net users & not connected to public news server) remains active and
other tds.net users have reported problem getting to the rest of the
newsgroup.

Next time you have problem connecting with the news server, bug the
reps.
--
All viruses and spams are automatically removed by my ISP before
reaching my inbox.
  #15  
Old July 7th 03, 08:43 PM
Ron Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default another what if?


"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message
...


On Eros there is no atmosphere, no wind
no erosion short of occasional impacts by objects creating craters.
Explaining some of the objects seen on images of Eros becomes more
difficult.


There doesn't appear yet to be anything to explain. You seem to be a little
ambivalent about the "strangeness" of the rocks. I'll copy part of our
earlier correspondence below. You will recall that I criticized your use of
so many qualifiers. Not only is the "mysteriousness" of the boulders utterly
subjective, but you don't seem to be very sure yourself of just how strange.
You've done nothing at all to suggest that they are anything other than
ordinary boulders.

I agree with you that I cannot absolutely prove that they are not rocks.
However, there are several aspects of these objects that make them
VERY unusual. Fist the mounds.
1. they appear to be circular (the image that disappeared showed this
best)
2. They have no sharp edges (unlike most of the other boulders on

Eros)
3. There appears to be an overhang around the circular boundary
(again, this showed better on the disappeared image)
4. The slopes appear to be those of a knoll.


You use the word "appear" in three of your four points and "most of" in the
fourth. This all awfully subjective. What you are saying is: "Because these
objects 'appear' to be different from 'most of' the other rocks and
boulders, they must be artificial." This is quite a leap from such little
evidence.

As to the object with a sharp peak,

1. The aspect ratio (height divided by base radius) appears to be
too high. Its emplacement would have to have been from a
vertical impact. Otherwise I would expect it to fall on its

side.
2. The shape is quite unusual sort of like an off center pyramid


Again, a lot of subjectivity: "appears to be", "I would expect", "would have
been" . . . (and why would an "off center pyramid" be "quite unusual"?
Nature is full of examples of approximations. "Quite unusual" would, I
think, be a mathematically perfect pyramid, if anything).

I hope this may explain to you my inability to accept them a
natural objects.


No, it doesn't.





  #16  
Old July 7th 03, 08:56 PM
Zdenek Jizba
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default another what if?

Ron Miller wrote:

"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message
...


You use the word "appear" in three of your four points and "most of" in

the
fourth. This all awfully subjective. What you are saying is: "Because

these
objects 'appear' to be different from 'most of' the other rocks and
boulders, they must be artificial." This is quite a leap from such

little
evidence.


Please do not imply conclusions that I do NOT make. You say
"Because these objects....they must be artificial." Please point out
where I say "they must be artificial". All I say is that the images
call for further investigation or something to that effect.


Fair enough...but you do say they are "VERY unusual" (your emphasis), which
is a contention you have not supported. As I mentioned, all of the
mysterious aspects of these rocks are wholly subjective.

I should point out, though, that you do ask this question in your posting of
7/6: "If the objects on Eros and Phobos are indeed alien artifacts...", so
it is pretty obvious that you have been considering the possibility.

RM


True enough. I would also like to advise the readers of this thread
that you and I have NOT conspired together in the sense that you ask
me tough questions so that I can respond in a way that facilitates the
reader's understanding of the problems discussed here.

  #17  
Old July 8th 03, 03:47 PM
Dave Barlow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default another what if?

During a perfect moment of peace at Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:18:16 GMT,
Zdenek Jizba interrupted with:

The server was not down because I continued to receive e-mail


I'd just like to point out that E-Mail and News are quite a bit
different. A news server can be down the tubes but this would not
affect E-Mail or web pages. Look up the differences between smtp, nntp
and http. If you are using different telco's are you using different
ISP's as well.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.