Posted by: graemebird | June 26, 2008

The Explodian Litmus Test/ The Application Of Human Reason.

Right. This here thread is going to be more restrictive than other threads since we want to see if the irrationality expressed on this subject is the result of people being mindless sheeple who allow their thinking to be controlled by fear of being judged a loony. Or if it is actually the case that its not this social pressure, but its the result of dudes being what we call “dim bulbs” but being able to wing-it and sound smart some of the time but in truth being really pretty boneheaded. Boneheaded but resourceful when it comes to covering up their lack of analytical capacity and having an ability to “fake-it” as it were.

Here are some rules for this thread:

1. You cannot come in under your own name or usual label.

2. No flippant comments. This is an exercise in methodology. 

3.  We work from what we know and see what possible conclusions arise. We don’t act like dumb-left-wingers and work backwards from the pre-emptive conclusion.

4. No lying of course.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WHATS THIS ALL ABOUT.

A very short time ago, for the first time I stumbled across a lot of satellite pictures of features on Mars. Most of the pictures looked like the remnants of items that had to be artificial. Certainly they look like they would have to be artificial when taken in isolation. But when taken in context its impossible to put them down to chance geological features. IMPOSSIBLE I SEZ…. unless the photos are somehow dodgy.

Now this is obvious from the pictures themselves so long as there isn’t something deceptive ABOUT these pictures, or the explanation as to the way all these artificial-looking items are arranged in total.

Asking others to explain these pictures, produced no sensible alternatives to the paradigm that these were artificial structures. I myself explained that I could not rule out some sort of conspiracy to supply people with dodgy photos. Or some conspiracy of UFO-types to supply these photos to the brilliant scientist Tom Van Flandern in order to stooge him into putting his stamp of approval on their twilight-zone findings.

These possible alternative paradigms to the Van Flandern speculations were given by me and me alone. Other explanations were non-contextual, idiotic, micronized, and so dishonest as to be tantamount to relentless lying. Even now I accept the possibility of the alternatives that I myself put up. No other explanations of any plausibility have emerged.

It was shocking to see the individual and group stupidity with regards to this issue when I fielded the matter on Catallaxy. When I saw these pictures and heard Van Flanderns explanation naturally I thought it was an amazing scoop. And so, it being a scoop, the only thing to do was foist it on the Catallaxians for their hypothetical analysis. But it soon became obvious that they were totally unequal for the task.

The whole point about human knowledge is that it doesn’t come automatically. So that one must never prejudice the analysis by working backwards from ones first and/or preferred conclusion.

And yet it was impossible for me to get folks to take the analysis of this matter on as a sort of hypothetical intellectual exercise.

But the Christians tell us that we ought to seek the redemption in others. Well I sez I believe in redemption but its got to be genuine. So show up here under an assumed tag and attempt to display your ability to analyse an hypothetical to the best of your ability.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THIS VERY MINUTE: CHANNEL TEN NEWS SAYS NASA SCIENTISTS SAY THAT “ASPARAGUS COULD BE GROWN ON MARS.”

  Everything we have been told in the last 30 years has been pitched in a way as to let us assume that Mars is such a lifeless and uninteresting place.

This is just one example of how, when your analysis is good and everyone else’s is crap, every bit of new information tends to confirm your point of view and not theirs.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THE PICTURES.

Van Flandern is a much better scientist than Einstein. But note the key word “better”. The key feature of Einstein wasn’t his scientific work so much as his BRILLIANCE. And it was a sort of CREATIVE brilliance more appropriate to other fields. Scientists have fallen in love with Einstein and perhaps its an ego thing. Perhaps they want to believe that they are the Shakespeares and Goethes in their interpretation of the mysteries of life and not just paid explorers as to the nuts and bolts of things.

But the fact is that they just have to do the fucking work and not be so up themselves. Because they are not Goethe. And they will never be Shakespeare. And for that matter, though everybody loves Albert, he’s probably lead kids astray. Both in methodology and in the actual conclusions he reached.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One thing that was shocking about the prospect of artificiality on Mars is that it totally reverses a whole series of received assumptions overlapping the religious and scientific worlds. So that it was by no means an easy assessment for me to make that these photos did indeed show the remnants of artificial structures. But going through these received wisdoms that would preclude the idea of these structures on Mars being artificial, it was pretty easy to see that while these tired assumptions weren’t mindblowingly stupid, it was the case that they didn’t have a great deal going for them that would place them ahead of alternatives paradigms that had been knocking around for decades.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THE PHOTOS.

Wired 12.08: Mars Gone Wild

“Tom Van Flandern runs Meta Research, a nonprofit institution and Web site based in Washington, DC. He’s not sure what the tubes are, but he’s convinced they aren’t geological. “The idea that they’re sand dunes or lava tubes has been ruled out,” he says with confidence. “They crisscross and display 90-degree junctions, almost like stations. They don’t run randomly around, either. One heads toward the face.”

A couple of years ago, when the Mars Global Surveyor was circling the Red Planet and beaming snapshots back to Earth, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke lectured remotely to an audience gathered at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Speaking from his home in Sri Lanka, Clarke informed the crowd that the images he’d downloaded from NASA’s Web site showed somethinggrowing on the planet’s surface. “I’m quite serious when I say I have a really good look at these new Mars images,” Clarke said. “Something is actually moving and changing with the seasons that suggests, at least, vegetation.”

Well here is the link with all the old slides:

Artificial Structures on Mars

Check these out and then promise yourself that this time around you will treat it as an intellectual exercise, treat it as an hypothetical, for the purpose of letting your own petty egos off the hook. Lets just see if under the cover of anonymity you can actually THINK like an Athenian and not be a total sheeple for one time in your life.

But don’t come in under your own name on this thread. Because I will wipe your post that being the case.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS 28/6/08.

So far not a single sensible post has been made that goes against the Van Flandern analysis. In fact posters have found themselves unable to engage in any analysis whatsoever lest they be forced into acknowledging the fundamental rightness of the Van Flandern thesis. What JC, Reynolds, Soon and others have to realize is that they can be as idiotic as they want to be for as long as they can find the time, But it does not change the reality outside their own head. The idea that the reality conforms to our petty arguments is a totally superstitious contention.

So we essentially have a fundamental epistemological conflict here. Whereas I implicitly go on the theory that we DISCOVER reality, the Catallaxy swarming idiots brigade goes on the idea that puny human arguments CREATE reality.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WHY THE VAN FLANDERN CASE IS SO WATERTIGHT.

If we are confident that Mars once had lots of liquid water on it than the exploding planets hypothesis is unassailable. Its as simple as that. Once upon of time the exploding planet hypothesis was probably the leading thesis as to why there was an asteroid belt. But our science is suffering from hardening of the arteries, so for some reason its fallen out of favour.

There is no possible way that Mars could ever have had sufficient warmth for liquid water if the exploding planet hypothesis isn’t true and correct. Now the NASA scientists who are convinced that they have evidence of liquid water may be wrong. But if you are emotionally bigoted against the exploding planet hypothesis you would have to make that case.

SOURCES OF WARMTH FOR PLANETS.

Planets can get their warmth essentially from 4 sources. 

1. The radiant energy from their star.

2. Internally generated energy.

3. If they are a moon they can receive radiant energy from the planet the orbit.

4. They can receive tidal warming from their home planet and other moons.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

STARS LIKE OURS.

Stars like our sun are in what we call the MAIN SEQUENCE. During the main sequence the stars increase their energy output from hydrogen fusion. Our sun increases its output 4% every billion years. And it will continue to do so for some several billion years before it runs short of fusion energy and collapses upon itself.

Therefore the further we go back in time the less luminous was our Sun. Hence for Mars to have liquid water on its surface proves the exploding planet thesis. Since the energy necessary could only have come from the planet that existed prior to it explosion. Mars is and must be (if there once was liquid water) the moon of an exploded planet. We call that planet EXPLODIA.  This name was given to it by Steve Edney. However this planet, that no longer exists, probably has some technical name for itself.

THE PANSPERMIA THESIS BROUGHT TO THE HEAD OF THE QUEUE, AND EXPANDED TO TWO LEVELS.

Fred Hoyle was a champion of the theory of panspermia. I don’t know if he originated it and he probably took it a bit far. Most of Fred Hoyles ideas looked pretty nutty when he had them. And even now most of his ideas have an aspect of Hoyle nuttiness to them. But I’ve become a big fan of his. Because it looks like most of his ideas will be vindicated in the broad thrust if our science is ever privatized and loses its atherosclerosis.

Panspermia has now been vindicated since we find that some meteors have preserved organic material on them. Now that we know that the correctness of the exploding planet thesis has also been vindicated the panspermia  thesis becomes immensely relevant. What this means is that any planet that has the right conditions for life will find itself quickly impregnated with life. Since if planets with already existent life are exploding all the time in the galaxy its only a matter of time that a planet that is right for life will get the catalyst of already existing organic matter coming in from meteors.

THE LIST OF PLANETS SUITABLE FOR LIFE ARE ALWAYS CHANGING AND ANY GIVEN PLANET ONLY HAS A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR LIFE.

As noted stars go through their main sequence. Wherein their output increases steadily until they hit another phase. Hence during this main sequence the planets that orbit stars will go through a window of opportunity where they are suitable for life but at some time they will cease to be suitable for life.

We ought to conclude then that life is ON THE MOVE as it were. It is not to be thought that life evolves on one planet in a given solar system, and stays on that one planet alone. In our own solar system Venus ought to have been the planet which was suitable for life early on. But clearly now it is far too hot. Earth will also one day be far too hot for macroscopic life without capitalistic intervention. The exploitation of geothermal, solar and tidal energy would likely delay the planet from overheating.

LIFE ON THE MOVE.

Now it might be thought initially, given the above, that life in this solar system, would move outward from the sun. We might think that life would start in Venus, then start on Earth, even as it was becoming more and more untenable on Venus, then move outwards to Mars, the moons of Jupiter, than the moons of Saturn.

But it won’t work like that because of tidal warming. Since Mars is almost definitely a moon of a now exploded planet (Explodia) it appears that life would have been possible on Explodia or alternatively one its moons, at the same time as or prior too life being possible on earth. The extra size of Explodia could have made it a warmer planet even though it was one and a half times as far from the Sun as is earth. And if Explodia itself wasn’t warmer than Earth at least one of its moons could have been. 

THE FALSE PARADIGM OF HIGH-SCIENCE DIVORCED FROM ECONOMICS.

Our science fiction is almost as bizzare and fantasy-driven as our science. There are so many millions of stars in our galaxy that its not credible that there isn’t very millions of star-systems who evolved intelligent life well before we evolved human life on earth.

But it does not then follow that intelligent life would necessarily have been able to boost its technology that much further than what we here on earth have been able to achieve. The level of technology we can reach and maintain is dependent on the lengthening of the structure of production and the extent of the division of labour. It is dependent on profit-making considerations as well. Hence technology cannot break free of the reality of mass-marketing for the purpose of making a profit.  The extent of the division of labour is dependent on the population and on the ability to produce cheap energy. We are used to the idea of technology apparently divorced from economics. And this is largely as a result of our defense budgets. But this is all a delusion, and in the wider scheme of things technology is not to be divorced from capital update. And the extent of capital update is not to be divorced from the extent of the market.

Therefore the sort of magical powers of the starship Enterprise could not be a serious prospect. Because some of its abilities are flat impossible. But most of them require more-or-less monthly contact with a full-planet-sized economy. What our science-fiction has left out of the story is such prosaic things as double-entry accounting. 

Futuristic scientific undertakings involving space travel would have to go forward on a profitable basis. Or otherwise they would have to go forward for very good reasons. We won’t be setting up great big moon bases on our own Moon unless there is some sort of economic necessity for it. Using the Moon as a Reserve Defense materiel cache is a possibility one supposes and some tourism could feed off that. But in the end the only thing that could have us setting up substantial infrastructure on our Moon is a serious industry with light-weight exports. Those light-weight exports would almost definitely be high-value trace elements and ENERGY PRODUCTS. And in fact were there no plentiful source of energy on the Moon setting up the infrastructure in the first place would be untenable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THE EVOLUTION OF A LUNAR BASE FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION.

To see how such a society would evolve over time we have to consider the economic realities that would have faced them. The way they did things would go forth on the basis that they were ALWAYS SHORT OF BOTH CAPITAL AND LABOUR BUT HAD PLENTIFUL ENERGY.  Every month you would have to launch your refined energy export product back to the home planet and each month you would be receiving some sort of supplies. These would be of components for capital goods or the finished capital goods themselves. But never would you not be short of both capital goods and people. Yet you would have plentiful energy that being your home industry. This implies that although you could not hope to sustain your economy independent of the home planet economy, nonetheless you would build up domestic lunar production over time. Your food-growing for example would be done on the moon. You would have aeroponics on the moon for sure. And as time went on even animal husbandry perhaps. Because there is simply no way you are going to be importing food supplies from the home planet forever and a day because of the cost of it all.

So you need that domestic production. But the trade is fundamentally intricate capital goods and capital goods components, that require a planetary economy to produce economically. Your efforts are your refined energy products.

Now it is in this light that we turn to the evolution of the moonbase from the beginning. And what structures we might expect this evolution to produce early on. And what structures we might expect it to produce down the track.

Fortunately for us we have one man, sadly recently deceased, to guide us on this matter. The Californian Architect Nader Khalili.

http://www.calearth.org/EcoDome.htm

Nader had this idea for building cheap and powerfully strong houses from local materials. You could have parachuted him and a couple of others into the desert or a clearing in the forest and parachute maybe a ton of other gear down with him and these guys would have been able to build a whole lot of houses using long tubes of canvas and whatever dirt and materials were available. The idea never took off as a serious commercial undertaking. But it would be a cheap way to provide housing for isolated aboriginal settlements one would think. Its never going to be a goer here on earth. Since you miss out on the ability to have two and three floors of building. We see that this sort of thing is desirable where the land is dirt cheap but the ability to get high-tech materials anywhere is not feasible.

So a moonbase would start off as domes and wind up as pyramids. Since if your standard building material is rock you would wind up building pyramids. No question about that at all. When you have iron girders or carbon fibre materials to flesh out most of your structures there is no end to the variety of the building shape you are going to make. But when your basic building materials are local rocks its pyramids and thats about it.

That they would build the outer structures from rock is pretty clear. Over time no doubt you would have all sorts of other materials being used for lighting, elevators, surfaces, internal transport and all that. If you needed a pyramid as big as the D&M object implies you would likely need carbon-fibre reinforcement as part of it.  But from the start they would have been building rock pyramids in order to have room to co-ordinate local production. Its almost impossible to imagine how it could have been otherwise. If we too wind up building and industry on the moon we will do exactly the same thing. It must be remembered that the walls would have to be sufficiently thick to be able to protect the inhabitants from cosmic ray bombardment.

So you see there is this fundamental disconnect between what really would happen with advanced societies and with what we have in our minds that has been given to us via science fiction. There is no technology without capital accumulation. There is no capital accumulation without the market economy. Hence if you lose all your capital, you lose your technology. You lose everything with the possible exception of a crude language. You become animals again.

The lunar outpost, if it could so much as survive the explosion of the home planet could not survive the loss of the home planets economy. Their technology could not be maintained without a home economy of hundreds of millions of individuals. So it would go throughout the galaxy. We come to a point of limits to our technology based on the scope of our market.

Supposing not all of these people were wiped out when the home planet blew up? Suppose some of them made it to earth? Its not even a little bit clear that they would survive to this day. If they did their descendants would be reduced to savages. 

THE PROBLEM WITH THEM BEING HOMINIDS.

We don’t expect evolution to ever work exactly the same way twice. Hence when we see evidence of hominids we must infer cousinship. This to me is the hardest thing to imagine about this story. But it suggests a second type of panspermia. It suggests infrequent visits from other solar systems who would size up the planetary make-up of the solar system. And who would purposely decide to cross-fertilize the planets every few million years. Not that it would be a co-ordinated thing. But supposing our civilization kept progressing. Well its possible to think we might try and seed Europa with some sort of terraforming life. And then if many billions of dollars could be raised we might send out a couple of linear convoys to to Sirius and Alpha Centauri to see if there was any cross-fertilization of life to be done over there. 

We wouldn’t expect this to be a very extensive thing. More like an out and back trip with a few minimalist lift and drop-off operations.

Its not such a hard ask to think that this would happen. Nor so very surprising that it might only happen once every hundred thousand years or every few million years. This second type of panspermia is the only thing that doesn’t really sit easy with me. But the evidence appears to be there and we have to go with the evidence.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Some recent mainstream support for the idea that something really big hit mars really hard:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7473128.stm

  2. That was all pretty funny. And you guys put a lot of work in. But I had to wipe the posts. Because we had a filibuster of relentless idiocy from the Catallaxians on the A is A blog. So what we wanted here was some sort of attention to methodology. Where you don’t start with the conclusion you prefer and work backwards. But take into account the evidence and work forwards using reason.

    So far we found out that no-one was even marginally capable of this. They were totally at sea. Waiting for a Milton Friedman to show up so they would have the confidence to think. Totally incapable of independent analysis, so it was no surprise that they acted dishonestly.

  3. The trolls are relentless. Took all of 19 minutes.

    Hey Graeme – what’s the go with posting a url?
    I attempted earlier but it never showed up.

    And yeah – mark this for deletion.

  4. If you post two links it won’t show up.

  5. It was only one.

  6. It may have coincided with me wiping a bunch of links for flippancy.

  7. Exhibit A.
    Some mainstream support for a very big bang on Mars:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7473128.stm

  8. Just tried again.
    Looks like a no go.

  9. Can’t post the link but google “bbc mars two faced riddle”.
    Mainstream support for the idea that something really big hit Mars really hard.
    The money quote: “The new research suggests Mars bears the largest impact scar known anywhere in the Solar System”

  10. ““The new research suggests Mars bears the largest impact scar known anywhere in the Solar System””

    Danger Will Robinson Danger. You are now likely to be condemned by JC and Soon as a nutball.

    Good work. And we will see that if at first we proceed with the hard yards of ranking paradigms according to reason, very quickly the new data will continue to reinforce our first-ranked paradigm.

    Yes indeed Mars has suffered heavy impact. Its suffered heavy impact when Explodia blew up. Earth was not spared of course. As no major body in the solar system would have been spared the fallout from the explosion of Explodia. But Mars would have copped it full-brunt on one hemisphere.

  11. Pretend for a second that you are an archaeologist and look at this pic:
    http://keithlaney.net/WeirdestMars/WeirdestImages1.htm

    Very mundane but would you not want to dig?

  12. Yeah I looked at Keiths images. And it just reinforces what we are saying here. These are sites, which if Van Flandern is right, have 3 million years of wear and tear to them. But this in a less active and corrosive atmosphere then here on earth. So perhaps its the equivalent of 100,000 years of wear and tear. Or 20,000 years.

    In any case we see all our Catallaxians making the same intellectual mistake. This is like the leftists micronising the case against Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11. They were all involved by the way. People speak openly of Ambassador Turki knowing 9/11 was going to go ahead and not tipping us off because he didn’t have to. I would have had him scream it out under torture.

    But the left micronised this case by acting like the individual elements of evidence for wider invovlement could be micronised and they refused to see this all in the wider context of the evidence in its totality.

    It is just the same with the mentality here.

    That first picutre of Keiths would be extraordinary. Interesting of course. But not anything to write home about. But in the wider context of what we see on Mars its just more evidence for the inescapable conclusion of a former civilisation. Since we don’t see these sort of things except on Mars and on Earth. And they cannot be produced geologically. Even if one of them could be by some freak occurrence. That would not enable this sort of thing to be produced in this sort of wider infrastructural context that we see on Mars.

  13. The explosion of their home planet or the complementary moon would be the end of them most likely.

    Once Mars is a lone moon thats the end of them. Global Cooling and the isolation from a home planet would kill them all off pretty quickly.

    Like imagine if we had substantial infrastructure on the moon in ten thousand years time?

    If the Earth itself dissapeared it would be hard for the moon civilisation to survive. Particularly if the Earth dissapeared in an explosion that killed of almost everyone on the earth for the getgo.

    No mystery there at all.

  14. Actually your post is so thougtless and mindless it has to be wiped. I mean your question was fine. But why were you such a mindless idiot as to not understand the answer to that?

    Supposing you are on the MOON right?

    And the Earth explodes right?

    And you ask me “Why did the civilisation die out?”

    What sort of a stupid fucking question is that?

    Try again and this time use your brain.

  15. graeme i think someone has already named your planet Phaeton

  16. I am reminded of the stories of the indigenous people who could not see the tall ships on Botany Bay.
    I always thought they were speaking figuratively, but apparently not.

  17. No they cannot be seen to be a single exhibit. Since we see like photos all over the place from completely independent sources.

    OR NOT QUITE.

    Ulitmately the images come from NASA satelites. Hence the denialist thesis in this case would have to invoke some sort of conspiracy theory involving NASA.

    Remember that all non-anonymous post will be wiped.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Check here from Scrooge:

    “what is GMBs thesis. does he believe life used to exist on Mars or does he believe that NASA is secretly terraforming Mars to be inhabitable for humans. i can’t be bothered reading his whole spiel and he keeps deleting my comments.”

    This is rather primitive epistemology. Where you want the conclusion first. Rather than to find out what we know pretty confidently and then work foreward from there.

    Rather there is this dysfunctional idea that you go for the conclusion first. And then peal off into tribal divisions for or against this conclusion.

  18. graeme: doesn’t NASA make a strong case that the photos aren’t evidence of advanced life.

  19. Explodia=Phaeton?

    Well maybe. That would be useful in that we could then give the name “Explodia” to the other Moon.

  20. “graeme: doesn’t NASA make a strong case that the photos aren’t evidence of advanced life.”

    They make no such case and in any case, as a socialist institution NASA isn’t really qualified to make any CASE about anyTHING. What we can rely on NASA for is certain specialist information. Thereafter we must exercise our own judgement.

  21. what do you think caused the planet to explode graeme?

  22. face on mars

    For those not familiar with the topic, several Viking images show features on the surface of Mars that, in the eyes of some people, resemble “faces,” “pyramids,” and other such “artifacts.” The most famous of these is the “Face on Mars” and associated features “The City,” “The Fortress,” “The Cliff,” “The Tholus,” and “The D&M Pyramid.” A fairly substantial “cottage” industry has sprung up around these features, with several books having been written about them, newsletters published, public presentations, press conferences, and, of course, “supermarket tabloid” published reports. The basic premise of these people is that the features are artificial, and are messages to us from alien beings. Their tack is to say, “These should be rephotographed by Mars Global Surveyor, since with high resolution we should be able to prove that they are artificial. If they are in fact artificial, this would rank as one of the greatest discoveries in history and thus every effort should be made to acquire images.” Evidence cited as presently “proving” these are unnatural landforms include measurements of angles and distances that define “precise” mathematical relationships. One of the most popular is that “The D&M Pyramid” is located at 40.868 degrees North Latitude, relative to the control network established by Merton Davies (the RAND scientist who has been more or less singularly responsible for establishing the longitude/latitude grids on the planets) to an accuracy (actually, a precision) of order 0.017 degrees. They point out that 40.868 equals arctan (e / pi); alternatively, one of the advocates notes that the ratio of the surface area of a tetrahedron to its circumscribing sphere is 2.72069 (e = 2.71828), which, if substituted for e in the above arctan equation gives 40.893 degrees, which is both within the physical perimeter of the “Pyramid” and within the above stated precision. Other mathematical relationships abound. The advocates of this view argue that “no scientific study of these features has been conducted under NASA auspices” and that NASA and the conservative science community are conspiring to keep the “real” story from the American public.

    The conventional view is that this is all nonsense. The Cydonia region lies on the boundary between ancient upland topography and low-lying plains, with the isolated hills representing remnants of the uplands that once covered the low-lying area. The features seen in these mesas and buttes (to bring terrestrial terminology from the desert southwest to bear on the problem) result from differential weathering and erosion of layers within the rock materials. The area is of considerable importance to geologists because it does provide insight into the sub-surface of Mars, and to its surface processes. The measurement of angles and distances seems so much numerology, especially when one understands the actual limitations in the control network (of order 5-10 km, or 0.1-0.2 degrees) and the imprecision of our corrections of the images (neglecting, for example, topography when reprojecting data for maps) on which people are trying to measure precise angles and distances. For example, using the latest Mars Digital Image Mosaic and the U. S. Geological Survey control network, the aforementioned “Pyramid” is located at 40.67 N, 9.62W. Using the Viking spacecraft tracking and engineering telemetry, the position is 40.71 N, 9.99 W. The difference, 0.04 deg latitude and 0.37 deg longitude, represents nearly 17 km on the ground, or 7X the size of the Pyramid. These positions differ from the e / pi position by a similar number. Even given accurate data, however, most science does not depend solely on planimetric measurements, even when using photographs. There are many other attributes used to examine features, especially those suspected of being artificial, and the martian features do not display such attributes. No one in the planetary science community (at least to my knowledge) would waste their time doing “a scientific study” of the nature advocated by those who believe that the “Face on Mars” artificial.

  23. NASA isn’t up to terraforming a fat womens left buttock.

    No flippant comments superdonk. This is a scientific thread.

  24. Explodia=Phaeton?

    Can’t rule out Explodia=Tiamat as per Sumerian cosmology.

  25. Look Robinson. Aren’t you being purposefully flippant here?

    Here we have an unassailable case for the exploding planet theory. For the idea that there was a home planet for Mars, and for a long-lost civilisation. Where the flying fuck do Summerians come into this?

    After all the Mars features are likely 3 million years old. Whereas the Summerians were there maximum 8000 yaers ago.

    So you don’t want to muddy the waters here with mumbo-jumbo.

  26. “what do you think caused the planet to explode graeme?”

    Internal phase changes sparked off from warming-cooling- or tidal forces is the short answer.

    But one would want to know how a planet stays stable and avoids exploding prior to going after the answer to your question.

  27. Not flippant at all.
    But I am alluding to a possible alternative to the exploding planet idea for this particular case.

  28. graeme: global changes in the climate could cause the earth to explode

  29. Right. They could indeed. But one doesn’t really expect this for hundreds of millions of years. I had to get rid of your other post on grounds of flippancy. But it must be noted that fractional reserve is indeed a problem for any civilisation. And that problem would become worse and worse as time went on and if fractional reserve were not indeed wiped out in its entirety and in all its permutations than this would constitute an everlasting BARRIER AND HAZARD to the civilisation, and it would indeed hinder them in dealing adequately with an impending disaster.

  30. Graeme – are we cool?
    I wanted this thread to happen primarily to show you this:
    http://sentinelkennels.com/Research_Article_V41.html

    Set aside all of the implications of type II panspermia, and the fact that it totally supports your original analysis that Cydonia was an industrial complex (which is how I came to find it).
    Hydrosonics has awesome potential. We have only used it once – and that was for the interrupter gear for aircraft mounted machine guns during the first world war (google George Constantinescu).
    Some promising work is being done with thermoacoustic engines but that is not going to save us any time soon.

    The thing about the hydrosonic gravity pump is that this shit will scale. And it looks cheap to build.
    Surely a process can be developed to liquify coal – which by my reckoning is the most urgent next step required to keep this civilisation intact.

    Delete or not as you see fit.

  31. No thats a good post. Keep posting. Good stuff. I’m not wiping things on some sort of personal basis. Only trying to keep the integrity of the thread because we had this monstrous “A IS A” thread where no-one took the matter seriously and people all filibustered mindlessly.

    On earth we’ve seen these taller buildings go up but only mostly for office-work and apartments. The next thing would be to have high-rise for the purpose of efficient industrial applications. Here you would need a squatter more pyramidal type of shape. Since you need structural soundness to burn. What with all the heavy manufacturing that you’ve got to load into the building. So you are going to get a squashed-cone design. Or a cone design. But on the moon there is no doubt that you would be building pyramids everywhere. Which is hard for people to accept. They think that this is a statement of mysticism. JC keeps bringing up the Egyptians for some reason whereas the pyramidal design is absolutely inherent to a lunar outpost.

    So forgetting the D&M pyramid, which looks to be too damaged to figure out if its the real deal or just a rock formation…. Putting that aside all the other pyramidal shapes just stand to reason.

    You would want a really big pyramid simply because you have so few people trying to have an lengthened structure of production. Which means you are trying to get all sorts of manufacturing going on in the one building.

    Whereas on earth you might go for a more squashed cone design to allow better ventilation, on the moon the last thing you would want is ventilation. Hence there is just no getting around the idea of pyramids. I don’t know why on earth the Gypos built them. Seems like a nutty idea. But there would be no mystery at all why you would build pyramids on a lunar outpost.

  32. Nothing nuts about it.
    They had a choice of sand or rock.
    And because they had this massive thump thump thump coming up through 100 feet of bedrock, a pyramid is the only design that makes any engineering sense.

    That doesn’t mean that a modern large scale application of a hydrosonic pump would require a pyramid. Just look for a site with favourable topology close to water.

  33. Although I must say I would want to push the conversation away from any alleged links between what we are seeing on Mars and any ancient Earth civilizations unless there were pretty persuasive reasons to be making that link. Old myths and legends are insufficient to make that call I would say. And we don’t want to muddy the waters here.

  34. Well I have to wipe all flippant posts Brothels-On-Mars. These people were sophisticated people. They don’t need to go that far to get laid. If you cannot pull chicks on your own planet you won’t be able to do it in a google of potential worlds.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    One reason that I cannot imagine any connection between the ancient Mars outposts and any ancient earth civilizations is that I cannot see the possibility of these outposts without the home planet or other moon which indeed we know was there. You cannot have one without the other in my view. And if these things were so recent the structures would be better defined and in better shape.

  35. Yes I understand that you want to keep the narrative on track.
    And as much as I enjoy drawing long bows from mythology – it is not aiding your cause.
    But please check the link before you delete.
    This is video of an actual working model based on the Giza design. Thump thump fucking awesome.
    I would like to hear your opinion from an energy economics perspective.
    Maybe a thread for another day?

  36. You’re assuming that Explodia was the home planet.
    Don’t forget that Mars took a massive hit – planetary scale destruction.
    And there is a school of thought that says the Giza pyramids are much older than the Egyptian civilisation.

  37. Yeah but not that much older. Not 2 or 3 million years older. I’m going on what Van Flandern is saying. He thinks that the original planet blew up about 65 million years ago. And that the watery moon blew up more than 3 million years ago.

    Yes I wouldn’t think that Mars ever could be the home planet. I wouldn’t have thought that any macroscopic life could actually evolve there. So I just think that if these photos all panned out the best it could be is a lunar outpost.

  38. Thanks for the words about the pulse-pump (HPG or “hydrosonic pump” – I like that term)

    The Giza thing is pretty old, definetely at least 12,000 years old. I have a really good pump clip done by Chris Dunn. He visited back in 2005.

    Best,

    John Cadman
    http://www.great-pyramid-giza-pulse-pump.com/index.php
    (New site done with Edward Malkowski – judge for yourself)

  39. Why do you get so much vitriol? I think your blog is pretty reasonable.

  40. Well there are stupid people like fatfingers around. And then there are some a bit less stupid that nonetheless buckle under the weight of the stupidity of others.

    Take Hackensam for example. He has some understanding of science. But he’s totally buckled under the weight of the global warming lying pandemic. He doesn’t even buy any of their arguments. But he’s still a CO2-bedwetter. Same with JC. Doesn’t buy into it but still a CO2-bedwetter as well.

    So you have the stupidity. Then you have the mental and moral failure.

  41. So then Randy. I take it you have an alternative view to these various artificial-looking structures that appear on Mars and nowhere else?

  42. No you don’t do you. So you are just being an idiot.

  43. No thats bullshit. You’ve read the thread. We aren’t going to have a repeat of the ” A IS A” filibuster here. So thats why I was going to knock out all spamming comments. Anything that is flippant where you don’t have an argument gets knocked out. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your inability to analyze matters. Now what do you make of the pictures. They are either geological or they aren’t. And since they aren’t there are certain implications to that.

  44. Hey John
    Really nice work putting that pump together.

    Is there a forum where you regularly hang out?
    Because I’ve got a whole stack of questions.

  45. Face it Mark. You are just an idiot. You’ve never understood economics. I still don’t have any evidence from you that you know the difference between cash and money supply.

  46. A stock of a commodity isn’t supply Graeme. Even if we only had cash as money, they would not be the same.

    All along I said defining money supply is a methodological minefield. I do know that the sum of cash is far less than the total of all money (neither paticularly being “supply”). I’ve taught this to students a few times.

    You simply misunderstood me. On the other hand, you fail to recognise the importance of Rothbard’s sloppy work which notes contingent insurance policies as money. What is the rational basis for such a claim? You cannot exchnage them for money, they cannot be used as money and you cannot sell them as a securiity or near money classes of asset.

  47. Thats not necessarily sloppy work as it might seem so today. People may have been cashing in their insurance policies without much in the way of penalties. They might have been doing so all the time. It depends on the institutional realities at the time. Its not something you can say yea or nay to unless you have some understanding of the place of insurance back then. All of us had life insurance policies in the past.

    Still I never would have included this as money. Its something that money buys. And no I don’t think defineing money is any sort of minefield. Its easy. The rest is not money. But simply what money buys.

  48. I retrieved Will Ronbinsons links and it does indeed back up the exploding planets thesis.

  49. As you youself are on a different planet anyway, I think most rational/normal souls should tread carefully before fully accepting your prognosis. Typically you confidentally guarantee a certain outcome & then the opposite duly happens. Given your attrocious tendancy to repeat these glorious hiccups with a pathological regularity, why should I believe you now?

    As it is, you still choose to doggedly cling to pic. of a muscular rent boy when infact, your resemblance is actually the antithesis. While I’m not querying your sexual orientation/proclivity, the fact your grasp on reality is tenuous only hastens my sense of alarm!

  50. What the hell are you talking about? When have I ever been wrong about anything at all on the internet. But that I’ve corrected myself as early as possible.

    Everyone here has failed the explodian litmus test except for Will Robinson. I’d give CL a weak passing grade. But I had to wipe his posts anyway.

    The science show today. The soil is very good and nutritious for growing on Mars. Shallow water ice. Plenty of nutrients. Enough sunlight and plenty of CO2.

    OCCASIONALLY there will be enough warmth during these periodic dust storms. Hence there is not much reason to doubt the evidence of life if we see it on the satelite.

  51. I thought I was being quite clear. I felt that an outright allegation of saying you’re full of it & a closet Homo was slightly inflamatory. Look unless someone worships & isn’t adverse to ‘putting their tongue down back of your trousers’, you persecute them. Now is that clear you gay fascist?

  52. Is this true graeme?

    Has all that homophobia simply been a front for self hatred?

  53. Homophobia? Which homo am I frightened of? Hopper is single. I’m married. You work that one out for yourself. Until then I might remind you that there is to be no lying on my site.

  54. Oh the irony…(OBSERVE )’ there is to be no lying on my site.’ You sir, live a lie! YES, BUT I’M MARRIED you’ll answer. So you are married, yet you pepper your site with clearly gay pictures. WHY?

    Perhaps that was taken years ago, when you were in shape & before you opted the fat, bald, lazy loudmouth option instead. Nope, not only is the hair colour wrong but I seem to recall a more blobby physique.

    You’re incapable of a logical , rational or even sensible thought. But while that’s redeemable, I do take exception to your choice of a rent boy. And yes, you’ve emphatically proclaimed your rampant Hetrosexuality, but why have chosen such a faggoty picture? (NOW, YOU’RE SURE YOU CAN’T BE TEMPTED BY THE COCK?)

  55. Get yourself a wife Hopper. Then these lingering suspicions about your macho person will subside over time in the minds of all those who don’t know you very well.

  56. OK, but you still haven’t bothered to address my point. I just don’t understand why a guy i.e YOU who constantly broadcasts his sexual predelection adopts a picture of a rent boy.

    Anyway, a shortage of dosh more or less prevents me from affording any mail order brides. Unlike you land owning entrepeneur types.

  57. ‘Mr’ Hopper, your perverted insinuations have no place in as intellectually august a receptacle of wisdom as this. Begone and find your maker in a public toilet, you invert. If Mr Bird really were a sodomite his life I would track him down myself and hasten his end for having deceived me in his pretense as a sober man’s man but I believe that such a possibility is simply unimaginable, is it not Mr Bird?

  58. Need you ask Winchester. This is Hopper. An ambivalent fellow if ever there was one. So long without the company of non-professional ladies he is beginning to doubt himself. He, like any leftists projects these things onto others. I don’t make it that he’s a homo. Or attracted to blokes. Just a man of many doubts and anxieties.

  59. My goodness, what a polite, if unintentionally humerous explanation Birdy. You were right about the emphasis on ‘professionnal ladies’ though, (Hey why should I sacrifice teenage ideals?) but the D.I.Y. Fruedian explanations are a laugh. I suggest you concentrate on your many inconsistencies, rather than use me as a smoke screen.

    Hey for starters, I’m still awaiting for an explanation as to why do you choose to immerse yourself in a faggot?

    P.S. Up yours Quatermain you poofy fairy.

  60. You see Quartermain. Now the poor sick individual is doing the same thing to you.

  61. […] to be more restrictive than other threads since we want to see if the irrationality expressed ohttps://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/the-explodian-litmus-test-the-application-of-human-reason…Catholic Answers: New Mysteries For RosaryWednesday: The Glorious mysteries Thursday: The luminous […]

  62. Dear Mr Bird,

    For some time I have admired your writing but have felt that the Catallaxians – (should be CATTLEaxians from the way they herd) would swarm me with ridicule if I posted in support of you.

    I am concerned that there is a link between the NASA led science fraud that is AGW, and the cover up of Explodia.

    My thinking is that NASA know that there is signifigant technology to find on the Martian surface from the Explodian civilization, but need to delay other nations finding it. Until the end of the cold war this was not an issue as the USSR and others were being held back by socialism, but once they broke free and the chineese also moved to more capitalism then the race would be on to get there and fully take control of the explodian technology.

    So they invented the AGW fraud. Convince everyone they must cut back on carbon – meaning energy meaning human development and the chance to develop sufficiently to explore space.

    This theory explains much as to why NASA promotes AGW fraud but the US government only says its an issue but does not act.

    What do you think of this Mr Bird?

  63. Dear Mr bird,

    Are you ignoring my comments? You haven’t gone over to the socialists have you?

  64. Thankyou for your support Cornelius.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now I don’t usually like irony in posts these days. Everyone has the right to be ironic. But the kids have being abusing the priveledge. The problem with the kids is that they no longer seem to have a grounded position from which to be ironical about.

    But don’t you just have to hand it to Richard Glovers first post?

    Not a normal ironical post like most of Adriens efforts (for example). But real thought put into it.

    Well we just have to give him a hand don’t we?

    Thanks for that Richard.

  65. One of the best posts I’ve had all year.

  66. Thank you Mr Bird,

    I take it you have seen the recent efforts of NASA to cover up the discovery of traces of organic waste products on Mars? The case for Explodian civilization on Mars was strong before but seems to have become that much stronger now.

    Also have you noticed how late the Solar minimum was? Late cycles are associated with small maximum and cooling. I am somewhat concerned about the risk of cooling famine and have begun a small stockpile of canned food. Do you think this is a one off or part of a trend. I know you have talked of catastrophic cooling but will this be it or just a blip in temperature.

  67. Listen Cornelius,

    Mr Bird is a busy man. He’s fighting a war against the upward mobility of stupidity on many fronts and may not have time to answer every question that some 17 year old pops onto his Blog.

    I suggest trying to read and comprehend all the posts on this site. Then try to ask some real questions regarding points you might find difficult.

  68. Genius like Mr Bird has is a gift and a curse, but one thing for sure is you can’t learn it by sitting around and asking his wisdom to be transferred. Get out there son and see the highs and lows of this world like Mr Bird. Engage with his vast learning through the many penetrating insight in his posts but you’ve got to do it yourself son.

  69. Look Cornelius I’ve got a soft spot for any young lad with a thirst for learning and you are right life isn’t fair.

    If life was fair Mr Bird would be priministerm treasurer or at the very least the director of some highly respected policy insitute. – Something like the CIS but not rotten with Crypto-commies like Humphries and Soon.

    So chin up and ask Mr Bird something more intelligent and less open ended that how do I get as smart as you, and I’m sure he’s gladly answer.

  70. It seems that merely by associating with the opinions of Mr Bird the trogoldytes leftist swarm in and make Homosexual innuendos about you.

  71. Communists and augmented masterbaters have closed down my dell computer. So I have been gone a long while.

    But the quality of the posts that I now see makes me think that its been all worthwhile.

  72. Thats a very harsh interpretation Henry. A very harsh interpretation indeed.

  73. “Also have you noticed how late the Solar minimum was? Late cycles are associated with small maximum and cooling. I am somewhat concerned about the risk of cooling famine and have begun a small stockpile of canned food. Do you think this is a one off or part of a trend. ”

    Its part of a trend. We will be cold in the teens. We will likely be freezing in the 20’s, we will definitely be freezing in the 2030’s. Because the oceans will be freezing and the glaciers will be on the move by the 2030’s, we cannot really hope for recovery clear past mid-century. Because even a powerful solar cycle at that point could warm the oceans of course. But not enough to escape the nasty conditions.

    I think we can avoid a full-blown glacial period by doing whatever is possible to reduce friction in the ocean currents. To reduce any resistence to circulation.

    The other thing is to head off any of the disastrous obstructions to the gulf steam that crop up. Like Heinrich events in Hudson Bay. Or like ocean-ice getting as far as the sea of Labrador.

    We can also reduce aerosols, both from humans and volcanoes. And we can max out on the use of that substance that the Beijing swimming centre is made from. When the ice sheets are on the move we can strategically nuke them and drain the water away to stop the ice driving forward. So while we cannot avoid this next little ice age or very severe cooling of this type I think we can avoid full-blown glacial periods.

  74. Bird:

    Stop deleting people’s comments. It’s dishonest.

  75. Mr Bird,

    I like the idea of nuking the ice shelves to break up the everencroaching ice shelves. I had an idea of using reworked nuclear subs to get under the ice and maxing out the reactors and venting the heat to melt the arctic ice cap if it gets to bad. Using the advantage of rising heat.

  76. Richard sea ice is a great insulator. So the only reason you would want to get rid of it is no the case of it interfering with the ocean currents.

    Only land ice would you want to nuke. Or sea ice that was ecroaching on the Gulf stream. Or perhaps some other critical area of the ocean currents. No need to blow up sea ice for the most part.

  77. Graeme you lazy twit
    where the heck have you been?

    Your blog has been covered with pornographic filth for the last few days while you’ve been away.

  78. And poor Currency Lad has been complaining at Catallaxy about the identity theft he’s had to suffer at your joint.

  79. “Only land ice would you want to nuke. Or sea ice that was ecroaching on the Gulf stream.”

    That would have to be reconsidered given Haskenkam’s assurance that the radiation would be problematic. The situation might be different from what Hasenkam imagines. All the blast going into the ice and the water drained away. A bit different to Stalin creating some sort of lake. But I would defer to Hasenkam on this point for the moment.

  80. “Mr Bird
    How do you question authority without making a fool of yourself…”

    When you make a fool of yourself you quickly update your position. Thats a learning experience. As to getting in trouble that could create publicity and help trash this science fraud more quickly than otherwise. Every month counts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: