Slashdot Mirror
Saturn's Moons Harboring Water?
eldavojohn writes "New bizarre images of Saturn's moons are exciting scientists as there may be some indication of water, possibly at very low depths in the frigid environment they possess. From the article, 'Titan's north pole is currently gripped by winter. And quite a winter it is, with temperatures dropping to -180C and a rain of methane and ethane drizzling down, filling the moon's lakes and seas. These liquids also carve meandering rivers and channels on the moon's surface. Finally, last week NASA and Esa revealed images from Cassini which confirmed that jets of fine, icy particles are spraying from Saturn's moon Enceladus and originate from a hot 'tiger stripe' fracture that straddles the moon's south polar region. The discovery raises the prospect of liquid water existing on Enceladus, and possibly life.' You can find the images here."
"a rain of methane and ethane drizzling down, filling the moon's lakes and seas."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Titan's lakes and seas are already methane or ethane. Maybe they mean "filling the moon's valleys"?
Nonono, the Enceladusans!
I think it would be an attack by the Titans...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Now if they could score a lot of water off of asteroids and other ultra-low-gravity objects, we'd be golden, esp. the theories floating about concerning "dead comets", which IIRC are almost all water ice.
That's where IMHO we need to be throwing exploration money; to get the low-hanging fruit first.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The fact that some of Satrun's moons have water is nothing new, Tethys for example has a density very near 1 g/cm^3 indicating that it is likely mostly made of water ice. The real interesting thing here is that tidal heating could create pools of warmed liquid water neneat the surface.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
With Saturn being like a somewhat failed star that one of its moons would resemble a sister planet to earth with water and everything. Now life is another matter, at least in a form that we know...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
They invited us over for a swim and a BBQ, you need to bring your own swimsuit though
How could life, as we know it, exist in an atmosphere dominated by methane? Even if there was liquid water, how do we know that it is rich enough in oxygen to support life? I'm thinking that there is nothing to see here. Look somewhere else.
The game.
I know this is wildly offtopic, but Saturn is just simply soo cool! If you want to get ANYBODY hooked onto astronomy, just show them a picture of Saturn. I shudder to think of the day we will strip-mine Saturn (or equivalent heinousness), and will defile the planet with our greed. At least, we can hope.
a rain of methane and ethane drizzling down, filling the moon's lakes and seas.
I'm guessing this is a non-smoking moon?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Saturn's Moons Harboring Water?
CmdrTaco's pun routine is up and running this morning I see...
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
ESA is an initialism standing for European Space Agency. If you write NASA with capital letters (in proper English one should do this) you should do the same with ESA.
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
I really like the fact that there might be water out there in the solar system. How can it be so abundant on Earth, and nowhere else? It's just every time that there is something about water on other surfaces in our solar system, it's seems gimmicky. Remember, water on Mars? Moon? And we never hear anything else about it.
Dude, a sea of methane? You can't bbq there, the moon would explode!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Methane rain drizzling down to form lakes and rivers? :-(
Is that the celestial equivalent of wet farts?
That must be proof of an Intelligent Evil Designer if any.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
If they were Jovian overlords, then we could celebrate.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
See, if Venus had done a better job controlling their illegal immigration issues, we wouldn't be having this problem.
C'mon, their air has no oxygen. In fact, bottle of oxygen would be there what bottle of propane is here. It could make a bang, but wouldn't blow everything. With proper nozzle on it, you can light a match and cook just fine. However... you can't put the fire out with a splash from a lake! Their "water" "aids" "oxidation" of "fuel" (oxygen), unlike ours. Whooh, after writing all that with all that quotation marks, finally I see how Earth-biased our chemistry is. If we were from some other surroundings, we would probably had made different grouping of chemical compounds. giving more attention to those which are ubiquitous over those which are "exotic", "rare" and "unlikely". We have so much oxygen on our planet, there are probably some aliens somewhere out there who think our planet is totally poisonous and corrosive hell, like if we were to learn about world mostly covered in hydrochloric acid, with atmosphere abundant in gaseous chlorine.
You can find the whole press release about the correlation between the Tiger Stripes and jets of Enceladus here.
Why do you want to Balkanize the Saturnians when they've so recently united?
Play Command HQ online
Methane instead of water, get it? Harbors are on the seas/land interface.
She discusses the Cassini mission in detail, including what we've learned about Titan and this strange behavior on Enceladus. It beats reading dead text.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/178
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
I was intrigued about why the names of those tiger stripe cracks are middle eastern cities. Googling I found this article which notes that there is a convention of naming features on this moon after places in the Arabian Nights. The page is cool and tells you what a sulcus is. And there's is a link on that page to a giant 6mb map with names of features on it.
Am I the only one who read the slashdot intro and thought, "I soooo want to go there!"?
I know this is wildly offtopic, but Saturn is just simply soo cool! If you want to get ANYBODY hooked onto astronomy, just show them a picture of Saturn. I shudder to think of the day we will strip-mine Saturn (or equivalent heinousness), and will defile the planet with our greed. At least, we can hope.
You do realize Saturn id a gas giant? You can't strip mine gas. But if we ever develope any technology to siphon materials from Saturn I don't understand your aversion to it. The reason we find strip mining on earth so distasteful is due to it's disruption of the local ecology and to a lesser importance it damages the esthetic's of the area. However if there is no ecology then an argument about esthetic's alone seems rather empty.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Old news don't ya think? I found out about a life bearing Saturn Moon just by watching Cowboy Bebop... Get with the program! =)
--
X's and O's for all my foes.
Personally, I find aesthetics to be a perfectly valid reason to preserve the pristine nature of something, be it a natural area here on Earth or somewhere out in the stars. Whole theories of philosophy have been predicated solely on aesthetics. Simply because you're an uneducated boor who can't appreciate beauty for its own sake, doesn't mean that the rest of us should suffer to live in your cold, sterile world.
That said, I don't necessarily think we could ever damage Saturn to the point of destroying its beauty... it's huge! And if we do somehow develop the ability to damage it, I would hope that there would be more people like me who want to preserve it than people like you who are willing to destroy it for some temporary advantage.
Saturn is harboring water? Oh great, when did Bush declare war on water? I guess he figures the terrorists are 60% water, and then Katrina... So now NASA has a new mission to seek out and destroy all extra-terrestrial water?
*Actually, you could ignite Saturn into a star too; it'd just be harder, and wouldn't last as long.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
It's science fiction, I know, but...
Take a gander at Charles Stross' Accelerando or Ken MacLeod's The Cassini Divison for ideas around "strip mining" the gas giants.Looking for water? We got water here. Two thirds of the surface of this planet is covered with water, several miles deep in places. We got all the water that you'll ever need or want right here. For free.
...and grow up.
Looking for life? We got life here. Lots of it. In fact there's so much life here that our main global industry is the creation of machines that are used to kill life here. Guns, munitions, bombs, atomic bombs, death planes, death satellites, endless first-person-shooter video games to prepare our young for killing. You want life? We've got plenty! Help yourself!
The point is that spending millions of dollars to look for life and water on other planets is insane. We already have plenty of it (it being whatever you're looking for) right here, right now.
What the people who are spending millions (hundreds of millions actually) of dollars on space travel are looking for is an easy paycheck that comes with a science-fiction fantasy attached. They should admit this to themselves and stop bullshitting the rest of us.
Then they should go become Hollywood screenwriters and contribute something useful to our society.
Am I pushing your buttons? Am I pissing you off?
Get real.
Thank you for pointing that out. I was going to as well.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
plz to learn fundamental physics kthxbye
Simply because you're an uneducated boor who can't appreciate beauty for its own sake
Thank you for highlighting how empty your argument is.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
So I must admit that I'm a little lost.
Both of your posts seem heavily laden with sarcasm. Which, if either, of them represents your real opinion?
Or were we not supposed to realize that you replied to your own post?
When is this pop-sci trend of anytime something about space comes into the news the tagline has to be 'may contain life'. It's a poor excuse becuase it's sheer speculation. What we DO know is that there is water there. There is also loads of hard radiation and no visible cities, green belts, or anything else remotely indicating that there is life. Get a life folks. Do science for science's sake, if someday in the far future we actually encounter life, celebrate then, but until then find a different reason for exploration.
God, I must deserve a big helping of DEE-DEE-DEE, because I can't see much detail in that movie consisting of a whopping four (count them, 4) fuzzy, grainy frames*. Especially since I'll never get a better opportunity to see for myself that EU is undeniably true, and yet I'm not convinced. If EU has any elements of truth to it, then (as you so defensively gushed) it will win out eventually and you EU proponents will all be heroes. But all I'm seeing right now is a Richard-Hoaglandish theme: whining about being Kept Quiet By The Establishment(TM) while pointing out "amazing" and "undeniable" details in fuzzy images instead of writing serious scientific papers that include testable predictions.
*Note: I'm not saying those 4 frames convince me the NASA interpretation of conditions on Enceladus is "undeniably true," either. I'll be interested to see what turns up as we look at Enceladus over the years. But I know the professional scientific community is able to update its hypotheses and theories to match observed reality. Here's hoping the EU camp can do that too.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
If I read grandparent's link correctly, it seems to be saying that Jupiter is the product of acretion in the planetary disc, a process which never produces a star; in order to be a star, or even a failed star, the body has to arise direclty from the cloud, not from the disc, as Jupiter is thought to have. So if the sun and jupiter had "both coalesce[d] from the same cloud, then Jupiter" would be "seen as an 'almost' star." That's my reading at least.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
How the hell do you strip-mine a gaseous planet?
Mega Maid?
I didn't view the movie, but from the description provided by our resident EU theorist, it seems to be something easily explained by Cartesian geometry and oft-encountered in orbital mechanics.
As the radius of the plume increases, yet its speed remains the same, its angular velocity decreases, so it fall behinds objects below it moving the same speed along a concentric path. Thank goodness for this or we wouldn't have geosynchronous satellites as we know them and Copernicus might never have figured out heliocentrism. Also, I'm unsure how much of the movement is due to the rotation of Enceladeus and how much is due to the motion of Cassini, which would change the perspective of the plume. The EU proponents can easily determine that last part (something more interesting than Cassini moving relative to Enceladeus is happening) by getting the timestamps and orbital data from NASA and crunching some numbers, but that might be considered a testable prediction.
Additionally, the GP's argument is not any more supportive of the electric universe theory than it is of the Enceladians with Super Soakers Theory. He doesn't even give a useful theoretical description of why EU better explains the motion of the jets than conventional theories, much less refer to any work done to determine if it is likely or even possible. NASA has at least done calculations to determine what it would take to create the jets under their proposed mechanism.
Thank you professor obvious. Plasmas are by definition electrical. For the record, modelling plasmas electrically is only valid if they have a net charge relative to surrounding objects on large scales. There is no trivial mechanism for that to occur, and without it the net force is zero. In that regards it actually turns out to be convenient for the universe that gravity is only attractive.
It's Life, Jim. But not as we know it.
I recommend that you simply view the video. It might clear up some of confusion you've created here. The planetary rotation, which can be identified by following the features of the shadow, occurs counter-clockwise relative to the stationary jets.
For the sake of clarification, NASA doesn't have a solid theory for why these jets occur. From http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Cassini_Pinpoints_Hot_Sources_Of_Jets_On_Enceladus_999.html:
If you see a hot point source on a body in space that is too small to be geologically active, then the simple fact is that it may be a plasma focus. The fact is that this possibility is not being considered by NASA, and this is the heart of the problem. It should at least be a possibility, but it is not for the sole reason that such an observation is precluded by popular beliefs regarding the mathematical modeling of space plasmas.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
There are in fact numerous papers that relate to EU Theory. You can view many of them here:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_Universe_resources
And EU Theory is eminently testable relative to the more popular theories. Testing the theory, however, requires that it receive funding on par with the popular theories -- which requires that people like myself raise awareness of the theory.
Your allegation that there are no published papers that support EU Theory is based upon a Slashdot stereotype. If we are to get to meaningful discussion, we really need to avoid casting the theory in a light that is completely untrue.
It is not conspiratorial at all to allege that there is a campaign to keep EU Theory out of mainstream awareness. The wikipedia censors -- especially Joshua Schroeder (previously known as ScienceApologist) -- are over-zealous vigilantes who will stop at nothing to prevent a debate. They frequently portray EU Theory as not being supported by peer review journals. When a recent IEEE plasma issue was dedicated to electrical space plasmas and was authored by several EU Theorists, Joshua wrote a letter to the actual editor of the IEEE journal to complain that EU Theory was pseudo-science (without presenting any evidence to back his claim). Apparently, not only does he believe that EU Theory is wrong, but he's determined to make others believe as much in spite of the theorists satisfying his own requirement for publication.
But there is no shortage of history of science stories detailing unfair treatment of the idea of electrical space plasmas. This is not whining. It is historical fact that people by the name of Tim Thompson, Sydney Chapman and Carl Sagan have done everything within their powers to prevent science from accepting the electrical nature of space plasmas. You may be surprised to learn that even Hannes Alfven, the originator of magnetohydrodynamics, largely recused himself from the concepts that are today used to model space plasmas as fluids within his Nobel Physics acceptance speech. He was of course completely ignored.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
FTFY
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
The USA would be more concerned if it was harboring terrorists, not water.
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
I've never done any work on wikipedia, but I do know Ian Tresman, who has arguably wasted a good portion of his life just trying to create a wikipedia entry for Electric Universe Theory.
I'm not at all repressed. I'm merely trying to provide information to people who are willing to listen because I've been reading about EU Theory for more than a year now, and I realize that there is legitimacy to what they're saying (this is actually somewhat of an understatement). To be honest, I find the whole situation quite absurd. The way I see it, many people on this board prefer categorization and ad hominem attacks over critical, objective thinking. I mean, what is really the issue here? Why are people so hostile to EU Theory? From what I can tell, it's partly because people have allowed themselves to develop preferences for the popular theories. People *like* the ideas of black holes, warped space-time, wormholes and the concept of numerous multiple dimensions. There is no realization that this is a very bad thing, even though many famous scientists of the past have warned against it.
It's also partly because EU Theory advocates are not traditionally educated and may lack the mathematical abilities of the mainstream advocates and theorists (after all, they are alleging a systemic problem with how we educate astrophysicists). What people fail to remember though is that the same exact situation occurred for Michael Faraday, who lacked in theoretical skills but excelled in experimentation, and the large majority of his work was eventually vindicated when James Maxwell came in and quantified his lines of force. The mainstream theorists' and advocates' mathematical capabilities are not enough to make up for their lack of historical context. While many of these people can solve problems using the latest mathematical shortcuts, they oftentimes completely fail in regards to understanding both sides of the various controversies that have occurred within the field. This is a *big* problem.
Another reason is that people here tend to work on technology, and there tends to be a blurring of the lines between technology and space interpretations. Technology advocates tend to believe that our space interpretations must be as reliable as our technology -- which ignores the fact that broken chips do not sell and nobody is purchasing space interpretations.
A lot of people just believe that astrophysics is too complicated for them to understand, and they instead defer to whatever the majority of scientists believe, as if those people are infallible. But the EU Theorists present evidence that even non-scientists can understand quite well.
What's somewhat ironic is that EU Theory proposes a direction for research into anti-gravitation; it offers a surprisingly detailed starting point for an explanation for the origin of life in the universe; it presents very strong evidence for human history that spans around 10,000 years long, resolving all of the issues that have plagued interpreters of ancient documents for many decades now; and it even possibly explains why we are not seeing any results with SETI (as well as how to fix it). When people criticize it without even reading about it, they virtually ensure that no progress will be made on any of these problems. People who have not read what the theory says have no idea of the vast wealth of the evidence that supports it. We by now have the firsthand accounts of nearly all of the ancient cultures of the world in agreement on what was witnessed in the sky, and what they saw can *only* be explained by a plasma cosmology. The Big Bang never happened and the Sun is powered to a large extent externally. Period. The eyewitness accounts from ancient documents correlates with the unusual fossil records we see on Earth, and both of these correlate with our most modern observations of space as well as work on plasmas from the laboratory. Evidence from multiple, unrelated disciplines all agrees with one another on the major points.
What the pseudo-skep
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
My real opinion is that space travel is cool; in Hollywood movies. In the real world, there are far too many more important things that need our brain cycles.
Space travel is as close as most Slashdotters come to having a real religion. A lot of them seriously believe in it. They believe in it as a way to a truly utopian world. They love the smallest details of the most minute technologies involved. The love the grandure of the quest.
It's all so childish. It's the nerd equalivent of a 3-year-old's belief in Santa Claus. (or whatever imaginary figure that children believe in your country). It's not real. There's nothing in space, it's empty. There's no reason to go to other planets: there's nothing there on them.
Maybe in a thousand years or so, but not now. The 20th century is over. It was an aberation, a freak. It happened because of enormous amounts of cheap oil was burned to make it happen.
The cheap and easy oil is disappearing. The magic and promise of the 20th century will disappear with it. A new dark ages approaches. There is a 'die-off' coming: a perfect storm of climate change, energy shortages, and 'Mad-Max' anarchy. There is no silver bullet technology on the horizon to save us. The super-technology of the 1960-2030 era will save only the 500,000 super-rich. Maybe you will be one of them. I hope so.
There will be no space station islands floating above the earth like Irish monastaries in the next Dark Age. There is no technology that can sustain human life in space and there is unlikely to ever be one. Not even in a thousand years or more.
And the Slashdotters, who should know better, refuse to give up their doomed religion of salvation through space travel.
And it pisses me off.
It's the only topic in all the areas that Slashdot covers where I have serious disagreements with the majority of good people here.
And it pisses me off that every time the topic comes up here, I always write that space travel is a dangerous delusional fantasy, a techno-nerd religion. And no matter how well or poorly I write, I always get modded down to -100 hell.
This obsession with modding down people you disagree with is a weakness in the techno-nerd mind. It's a crypto-fascist cancer that affects a lot of good people here. It makes me believe that deep deep in my gut, I can't trust the Slashdot community because under all this beautiful technology, there lies a Nazi ubermenschen uglyness of the soul that should have been discarded after the Shoah holocast showed what this mentality will lead to if not treated.
I think some of your points are perfectly valid, though you seem a tad cynical. I'm confident that technology has a few things to offer us yet. Things will need to change, the oil won't last forever, but "dark ages" is a little extreme.
Do I think I'll ever be traveling in space? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Do I think humanity will ever go to the stars? Doubtful, certainly not any time in the foreseeable future. Could there be primitive life elsewhere in the solar system? Possibly, why not look for it? We have the technology now. TFA isn't about us vacationing there, it's about robotic probes returning pictures.
Do you really believe that we shouldn't learn about other planets simply because we can't live there? You implied the miles deep oceans were worth learning about, and I assure you we can't live at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
It was a pun, using two meanings of the word "harbor". One is a noun and the other is a verb, so it shouldn't be too hard to notice...
The shareholder is always right.
The remix album of Oxygene 7-13 - 'Odyssey through O2' has a few vocal snippets (i presume voiced by JMJ) before each grouping of 3-4 tunes, and one of those mentions '..smoking some golden beams...'
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
Ask Lando Calrissian. I think he's got the technique sorted.
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
I agree that what's happening is rather unexpected and strange. People have been thinking that the theory of everything is elusive because it is horribly complex, as if doing just a little bit more of the same will eventually get us there. And so, physics has become a senseless, multi-billion dollar race to create the biggest collider, while scientists who have made significant progress in the field of aether models cannot scrounge together enough money to construct a small laboratory. So, the astrophysicists have broken their field up into a million specialties, never taking care to make sure that all of the disciplines are maintaining strong communications with one another. They then, intentionally or not, created a hierarchical system whereby astrophysics became essentially the queen of the sciences. Astrophysicists would essentially dictate to the other sciences what is real and not, ignorant of the fact that many astrophysicists have never stepped inside of a laboratory. They populated their hierarchy with mathematicians of all virtually identical pedigree and very little variance of education or even viewpoint. They failed to ever train the astrophysicists in school how to contrast and compare cosmological models, instead focusing explicitly upon one single model, completely ignoring all of the ramifications of invariance in education. Learning one model induces memorization; thinking doesn't start until you teach somebody two competing theories.
What will be one of the most startling discoveries of the 21st century will be the realization that pseudo-skepticism itself -- this idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof -- has acted as the true obstacle to discovering the theory of everything. It's the confidence that scientists are just a hair's length away from some ultimate truth that blinds them to the fact that they are in fact quite far off, because they do not even include within the set of possibilities the most important line of research -- that plasmas are electrical. If you go back in history, you will see that this prejudice against electricity in space has existed since the time that Kristian Birkeland tried to show his terrella experiment to Sydney Chapman. Birkeland believed that it was the Sun that was creating the aurora, and he made an experiment to demonstrate as much. By firing charged particles at an iron ball, he recreated the aurora. Chapman was convinced that the Earth was creating its own aurora, and he refused to even look at Birkeland's experiment or give due credit to Birkeland even years after Birkland's theories became accepted. The same sort of thing is happening right now. There are clues all over the freakin place if you can suspend your pseudo-skepticism just long enough to believe that perhaps we are not on the right track. There are a couple of people who have actually already demonstrated to the public anti-gravitation experiments, and these demonstrations make sense within some aether models. Yet, there is no interest in looking into them because since they do not validate the current models, people do not believe that they are possible.
This extreme pseudo-skepticism amongst the public and within our fields of sciences completely ignore the fact that science is not always a forged path. When people discovered the inverse temperature relationship for the Sun's corona, the constant acceleration of the solar wind and then subsequently the apparent anticorrelation between sunspots and solar neutrino generation, this should have been sufficient alone to suspect that the Sun is an electrical device. But it is the weight of belief that rules the day. Not only do the scientists want to find a theory of everything, but they want to also demonstrate that the universe is as they thought it was! Nature will have none of it.
The primary impediment to the theory of everything is our own unwillingness to toss aside our preferences for a theory of everything. In order to gain the most desirable knowledge known to man, we have to toss a
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
From my own research notes on Venus' albedo
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Big-Bang-Was-There/dp/0964318806/ref=sr_1_1/002-7321630-8444868?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192581975&sr=8-1
I am not a rogue element, as you seem to suggest. I am merely an advocate that is associated with a group of scientists. Are you alleging that the 100 or so scientists that I work with are all psychopathic and that we are a cult for believing data that you refuse to consider? Why would we go to so much effort to be scorned by society?
What is this based upon? You appear to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are numerous enigmatic data points related to Venus. Check it out
http://www.kronia.com/library/journals/venair.txt
No, I understand the basic arguments associated with both the mainstream theories and this one, and I can clearly see that EU Theory is closer to the truth. When I'm presented with images of high redshift quasars in front of and connected to low redshift spiral galaxies, I do not immediately assume that my eyes are being tricked in some way. I do not automatically consider any mathematics (like gravitational lensing) to take precedence over my own vision. I am equally skeptical of all theories. If I saw something that proved EU Theory to be wrong, I'd drop it tomorrow and move on to something else because I have no desire to believe anything that I do not think is true. EU Theory may not be as quantified as the mainstream theories, but this has nothing to do with how true it is. We can quantify many things in the universe that are complete bullshit. Mathematics has no monopoly on truth. It is just a technique for identifying truth, but it can be just as easily used to convince people of things that are not true.
Why in the world do you care what I believe? Why is it important to you that I think like you? Why are you so concerned that I might be sparking conversations regarding a theory that you do not agree with? How can you be so confident yourself that you are right? What evidence proves for you so conclusively that the more popular theories are true? Please tell.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
I previously stated in my notes that
You mislead when you state that there have been landers since the four I mention. There have in fact been none. They were the last landers.
I'm curious to hear on what readings or logic this is based upon. Please go on
That's unfortunately a symptom of a much larger problem -- that mainstream science has developed consensuses on many scientific questions prematurely. After all, and for the sake of the record (for the "foolish kids" out there) astrophysicists did not even possess the instrumentation necessary to identify synchrotron radiation (which can indicate double layers within space plasmas) within the sky until recently -- numerous decades after it was decided that the Big Bang Theory would become the only theory taught to students. The question of the dominant cosmology was decided *decades* before it was even possible to rule out the idea that space plasmas might be electrical. Now that we can see synchrotron radiation all over the place, suggesting the possibility that double layers may in fact be common and presenting the uncomfortable possibility that quasi-neutrality may in fact be violated quite commonly, it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the current cosmology was arrived at "by rigorously gathering data and performing experiments."
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
I left the case as "Jovian" because the grandparent would also need a correction then (Saturnian != Saturnine or Saturnalian).
It's a joke. No need to fix what isn't broken.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai