Faith Based Scientists Paranoid About Possible Mars Life

I wouldn't blame 'em. Poor little *******s are about to have something
they have spent so long trying to believe just collapse. It's not their
fault they didn't know better, I blame our ignorant unevolved
ancestors! Some kinds of tradition just aren't healthy.

"kT" wrote in message


I see that our extensively faith-based Usenet index has managed to lock
out as much user friendly search features that pertains to Brad Guth, at
least as much as possible has been accomplished without terminating
their ongoing Old Testament thumping ruse/sting of the century.

I agree with the likes of "jack.harrison", and of others like "Z 1 Y 0 N
3 X" that can give and take without going absolutely postal.

If you believe Christ and perhaps a few of those intelligent and
otherwise affordably nice Cathars were ETs, or at least having been
close friends with ETs, as I do, then so what's the difference?

I'm certain enough that ETs have evolved along with a faith in something
greater than themselves. Of course, this might suggest that such ETs
were at least part Jewish, and wouldn't that be the ultimate kicker.

Faith-based science (especially if it's born again) is what absolutely
sucks and blows the most, because, it simply can't be replicated any
better off than cold-fusion or the supposed discovery of Muslim WMD.
Instead, all we seem to get is their usual all-or nothing gauntlet of
mostly "send in the clowns":

In case you folks haven't quite noticed, the old "Moon Landing a
Hoax??!! Real Evidence here" topic is just another prime
damage-control example of their intended ruse/sting of our mutually
perpetrated cold-war century, that has recently turned itself into a
global energy domination fiasco which isn't about to end until our
energy sucking fat lady sings, or otherwise as long as we're in the
process of taking as much Muslim oil as we can before they ever manage
to realize just how dumb and dumber Muslims and Islamics have been
snookered all along.

Fortunately for Venus, there's simply no apparent shortage of locally
available energy, that's not only geothermally renewable but far more
accessible than here on Earth.

Actual facts as based upon actual history is what supersedes science.

However, nothing supersedes the laws of physics.

Ever since I started in as of 7+ years ago, with the
discovery/uncovering of intelligent other life having existed/coexisted
on Venus, it seems Venus has been getting more and more
taboo/nondisclosure worthy than our moon. This is rather odd, being
that there's nothing all that technically insurmountable about Venus,
and at times it's so nearby with the very same moon like face of Venus
aligned with Earth.

However, on behalf of our sticking much closer to our home world that's
within the unfortunate process of going GW postal, and otherwise going
GW Bush postal; If you are surrounded by the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2
of somewhat significant mass (especially if it's of greater density than
water), and if there's next to nothing between yourself and all of that
surrounding terrain of naked mass (such as being situated upon our
physically dark moon that should by rights be deep in meteorite debris
and secondary impact shards of everything solar and cosmic you can think
of, including the kitchen sink), whereas the incoming solar and cosmic
energy (as often nasty as that may be) is going to unavoidably cause the
natural secondary/recoil birth of soft-X-rays, hard-X-rays and gamma
radiation like nowhere other.

Human DNA as physically protected by a given spacesuit isn't going to
buy all that much attenuation of said TBI(total body irradiation)
dosage, whereas DNA/RNA damage beyond the point of no return will in
short order transpire regardless of whatever infomercial mainstream
science as based upon those conditional laws of physics has to say. The
status quo of what we've been told will NOT save your sorry moonsuit
butt for long, especially if you're standing upon a modus hill and
thereby exposed to 314e6 m2 if not just as easily trekking upon much
higher terrain that'll buy you 31.4e9 m2 of what's surrounding as
physically hot and nasty in more ways than being merely passive solar
influx and secondary IR/FIR toasty. Therefore, you simply do not
require all that much lethal radiation potential as derived per m2 in
order to amount to getting nailed by a truly great deal of what's there
to behold.

Other than those temporary Chapel Bell deployments on behalf of our
NASA/Apollo fiasco, too bad we still have not so much as once
established a robotic science platform cruising efficiently within the
interactive MEL1/(moon L1) zone that's roughly upon average 58,000 km
from the moon's CG, whereas all sorts of moon and Earth science could
have been affordably and very nicely accomplished as of four decades
ago.

Much like a poofy version of Clarke Station, Bigelow’s proposed Nautilus
station (aka POOF) simply isn't sufficiently shielded nor configured
with an adequate amount of forced heat-exchanging in order to deal with
accommodating us humans along with the 95+% solar + 50% lunar
secondary/recoil of IR/FIR. However, Venus L2 offers quite another
matter that's worth more than a few good arguments on behalf of those
POOF configured space depots, whereas frail human DNA can actually
survive the 19 month onboard stint better off than the to/from commute.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"God" wrote in message


Most probably brine. Maybe H2O2

I like where you're going with this slush h2o2 thing.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

God wrote:
God wrote:
It is now pretty self evident that there is considerable liquid water
below the surface of Mars,

"Pat Flannery" wrote
Not by a long shot... although there might be considerable liquid CO2
below the surface of Mars.
To get the liquid water concept to work, the water must either have
something like antifreeze in it, or there must be a subsurface source of
heat, such as vulcanism.

Ya, that's what used to be taught. But now that evidence of liquids
running down the interior sunlit sides of martian craters has become
commonplace, and now that such flows have been seen to have evolved over
just a few years of observation, it is pretty clear that lquid water is
present in the subsurface soil.

Most probably brine. Maybe H2O2

It's easy enough to check. And probably would have been checked already if
billions weren't wasted on the Shuttle/ISS White Elephants.

I'm just guessing offhand that the guns and bullets and bombs and tanks
and aircraft and wars and stuff were somewhat more expensive than the
space shuttle and the international space station. Just a wild guess.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Pat Flannery wrote:

God wrote:

It is now pretty self evident that there is considerable liquid water
below the surface of Mars,

Not by a long shot... although there might be considerable liquid CO2
below the surface of Mars.

Nick Hoffman is a crackpot. End of discussion.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

God wrote:

"kT" wrote
I'm fairly confident we can write off the bible as gospel crowd already.

Extrermination is required.

That would be inadvisable. The science economy will still need a service
sector.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

God wrote:
Ya, that's what used to be taught. But now that evidence of liquids
running down the interior sunlit sides of martian craters has become
commonplace, and now that such flows have been seen to have evolved over
just a few years of observation, it is pretty clear that lquid water is
present in the subsurface soil.


No, that is not clear at all, your deityship. Even NASA stated that
their "water" flow could be liquid CO2, although that was in very fine
print, as liquid water gets them more funding for exploring the planet
than liquid CO2, just like the wonderful bacteria-filled meteorite did.
Since liquid CO2 only needs the weight of soil over it to work at these
temperatures, and water needs odd antifreeze compounds in it (and brine
won't work, the temperature is too low) or subsurface heating, and the
flows of whatever-it-is are seen emerging into the craters from well
down their sides, then Occam's Razor suggests CO2, not water, is the
substance in question.
We already know that CO2 engages in eruptive behavior up their from the
pits blown out at the south polar region.
What I want to see is a lander do a core sample down at the Martian
south pole, and see if water ice or dry ice comes up.
Because I'm not completely convinced there's even much water ice on that
planet, let alone liquid water.


Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Because I'm not completely convinced there's even much water ice on that
planet, let alone liquid water.

Nick Hoffman is a crackpot.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"kT" wrote
I'm just guessing offhand that the guns and bullets and bombs and tanks
and aircraft and wars and stuff were somewhat more expensive than the
space shuttle and the international space station. Just a wild guess.

Without question. The ISS and Shuttle White Elephants are not the cause
of the intellectual, moral, fiscal bankruptcy of AmeriKKKa. They are
symptoms of that collapse, and very good vectors pointing to the cause.

"Pat Flannery" wrote
No, that is not clear at all, your deityship. Even NASA stated that
their "water" flow could be liquid CO2, although that was in very fine
print, as liquid water gets them more funding for exploring the planet
than liquid CO2, just like the wonderful bacteria-filled meteorite did.

Even less likely than brine I'm afraid. CO2 doesn't have a wide range of
temp/pressure in which it is liquid and motile.


"Pat Flannery" wrote
Since liquid CO2 only needs the weight of soil over it to work at these
temperatures, and water needs odd antifreeze compounds in it (and brine
won't work, the temperature is too low) or subsurface heating, and the
flows of whatever-it-is are seen emerging into the craters from well
down their sides, then Occam's Razor suggests CO2, not water, is the
substance in question.

We don't know what the temperature/depth profile of the Martian surface
is. You are speculating without any evidence or observation. Further, you
don't have a clue as to what the subsurface chemical composition is.

What we do know is that over the course of several years, flow patterns
have developed on the sunlit side of craters that are found in the Martian
mid latitudes. Flow patterns that are good evidence for the existance of
liquid - most probably water.



"Pat Flannery" wrote
We already know that CO2 engages in eruptive behavior up their from the
pits blown out at the south polar region.

There is some tentative evidence of that. But those geizers are
interpreted as being the result of escaping gas boiling over during spring
and erupting through fresh cracks in the ice above. They are not eruptions
from the subice soil which would require a considerable local source of
heat..



"Pat Flannery" wrote
What I want to see is a lander do a core sample down at the Martian
south pole, and see if water ice or dry ice comes up.

The south pole would be an interesting but poor place to solve the mystery
of mid latitude water flows.



"Pat Flannery" wrote
Because I'm not completely convinced there's even much water ice on that
planet, let alone liquid water.

Spectrascopic analysis of the polar ice isn't good enough for you ay?