Slashdot Mirror
Flowing Water On Mars' Surface May Just Be Rolling Sand Instead (theverge.com)
Two years ago, NASA made a big splash when it announced the discovery of flowing water on the surface of Mars. Unfortunately, according to new research from the U.S. Geological Survey, the surface features that NASA thought were made up of liquid water may actually be flowing grains of sand instead. The Verge reports: The features in question are dark streaks that show up periodically on Martian hills, known as recurring slope lineae, or RSLs. When one of NASA's spacecraft, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, studied these lines more closely, it found that the RSLs were made up of hydrated salts -- meaning they were mixed with water molecules. At the time, NASA thought that was significant evidence that flowing liquid water caused these bizarre streaks. But researchers at the USGS say these features look identical to certain types of slopes found on sand dunes here on Earth. Those slopes are caused by dry grains of sand flowing downhill, without the help of any water. It's possible the same thing is happening on Mars, too. Since liquid water is key for life here on Earth, many thought these strange lines of flowing water may help support life on the Martian surface. But now these RSLs may not be the best place to look for life anymore.
Yes, and the roar of the masses could be farts.
Since he's fucking up on Earth so badly, start fresh right?
I guess those mirages are still a bitch on Mars too, eh?
Well that does it, I'm out.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I guess that changes the Space Nutter narrative a bit, huh? So, how's the 3D printed space future looking now, dummies?
... that explains why Mick Jagger looks like he does. He and his mates must have grown up on Mars!
Given the atmospheric pressure, and the temperature, it was highly unlikely that they had any flowing liquid water anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My tax dollars are being wasted if they can't tell the difference between water and sand. It's time to start publicly firing them and hiring smarter people.
They’ve been sending probe after lander after probe for decades now trying to prove there is or once was life on Mars. The battle between Science and Religion played out across the planets. Like the believers would ever be dissuaded by any scientific facts.
Scientists don't know shit about anything. They don't even fucking know what they know. Fuck scientists.
People already knew that sand/dust can cause similar features. They believed (and still believe) that this is indicative of flowing water because of seasonality, temperatures, and association with hydrated minerals. We won't know for certain until we observe flowing water more directly, of course.
science is so dumb sand is easy to tell apart from water
So candidate theories would be:
1) The rocks are lined up because someone / something lined them up.
2) There are actually infinite number of those rocks in an infinite number of arrangements, in an infinite number of forests ...
You mentioned Occam's Razor above. Sometimes people confuse Occam's and the KISS principle. If you're really thinking about which is simpler, it seems to me that #1 is the much simpler explanation. Infinitely so, in fact. If one misunderstands Occam's Razor to mean the simpler explanation is more likely, theory #1 would be infinitely more likely.
What William of Ockam said was:
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate (Plurality must never be posited without necessity)
So that's an outright rejection of the "infinite universes" idea unless and until there is no possible explanation remaining that doesn't require a plurality of universes.
Unfortunately, neither theory can be tested publicly in a rigorous scientific way. Both are also very much subject to ad hoc additions or changes. The Biblical definition of God is "that which has always been, and always will be". Will that God certainly exists, by definition. It would be pretty silly to argue that "that which has always been" isn't, so we can only end up discussing the details of how we might describe God. Everyone has their own ideas, some more specific than others, some more Biblical than others, but thousands of different descriptions, so we can never publicly prove or disprove much about all of them.
I said "publicly prove", a curious phrase. Aside from the scientific method involving experiments, it's also possible to know your leg hurts based on private experience. You may know without a doubt that your leg hurts, and have no possible way to ever prove it publicly. One might, whenever one feels angry or frustrated, receive silent words of love, guidance, or encouragement and they'd know that happens to them, but never be able to prove it scientifically. Things can be known which cannot be proved. An observer could only look at how the person handles tough situations and see that there is something special going on.
If curious what exactly makes this person so calm, loving, and wise, you could only do two things - ask them, then if they say they do certain things, you could try it out for yourself. In my case, I saw a group of people who obviously had *something* special going on in their lives. I asked them about it and they said some kind of power, or set of principles, which they couldn't explain, was at work when they did certain things, such as praying for guidance to do tell right things. "You can try saying this prayer once a day for 30 days", they said, "it works for us". I couldn't prove anything mathematically, but I *could* try it, so I did. I privately know it works for me. In the same way I know that I'm hungry at the moment I also know that something is helping me today. I don't pretend to understand that something, which I call "God" because I know of no better word for it.
Living in Canada, I have often observed the interesting patterns in dry snow lying on the ground caused by stiff winter breezes over a period of several days. And sometimes when I have seen photos of "evidence of water on Mars", the similarities to wind patterns in our snow has seemed obvious. Fine sand and ordinary dry snow probably have pretty similar aerodynamic responses. Add to this the fact that sand is much more abrasive than snow and you have the possibility of Martian sand causing gradual changes in the shapes of overlying rocks. I wonder why these similarities and possibilities have never been considered in the drive to prove that water existed or exists on Mars.
So we want to get into the history of Occam's razor rather than it's actual definition as used in modern English? Because Ockam never actually posited "Occam's Razor", and even the quote you cite appears to have only pertained to the subject of miracles and God's power. Rather, Ockam was frequently known to have used Occam's Razor as a debating technique, rejecting complex ideas in favour of simpler ones.
Furthermore, you need to be clear on what is meant when discussing plurality. Are you honestly suggesting that if I saw an anthill that a "a huge number of ants made it" would be a less logical answer than "a single invisible unicorn coughed it into existence out of fairy dust"?
Lastly, you absolutely can make statistical tests for the power of prayer. They just don't give you the answer that you're wanting.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
Mars isn't a planet, and neither is Earth.
Space is fake. The Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.
Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895
Lunar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/92378881
Space is fake. The Earth is flat.
Antarctica is forbidden to you by the Antarctic Treaty; Attempt no landings there.
The Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.
If curious what exactly makes this person so calm, loving, and wise, you could only do two things - ask them, then if they say they do certain things, you could try it out for yourself. In my case, I saw a group of people who obviously had *something* special going on in their lives. I asked them about it and they said some kind of power, or set of principles, which they couldn't explain, was at work when they did certain things, such as praying for guidance to do tell right things.
It's not a surprise that the placebo effect works, or that stress is the #1 killer in America. There are benefits to religion. They are simply outweighed by the drawbacks. Not just to you, but to everyone else, too. A lot of people draw comfort from being part of the Catholic church, but they're also actively funding and supporting child molestation and the protection of child rapists. And let's not forget, you know, get thee to a nunnery.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> So we want to get into the history of Occam's razor rather than it's actual definition as used in modern English? ... Rather, Ockam was frequently known to have used Occam's Razor as a debating technique, rejecting complex ideas in favour of simpler ones.
I'm sure you can see that is exactly what I addressed FIRST, saying "if you're really thinking about which is simpler ..." I know you can see what I wrote. I'd assume you're not purposely lying to me, and to yourself, about what I wrote, so I suppose you just read WAY to fast and completely missed the first few sentences entirely. On the other hand, if you do want to keep insisting that what we can both see right here in black and white isn't there, well then of course we're done. There's no helping someone who denies what is right in front of him.
AFTER addressing what I suspected you meant (KISS), yes of course I pointed out that what Ockam said is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming his support for. You can't very well say "of course heavy things float up - gravity anyone?" and not expect someone to point out that gravity says heavy things fall down, the opposite of the thesis claiming to be supported by gravity.
Similarly, in looking at the meta-analysis you linked to I'm going to assume again you're actually interested in seeking truth, so you just read your own link that you cited too fast, and missed both the introduction and the author's conclusions. I assume you're not trying to lie to you and me about what your own link said, because we can both read. The analysis looked at studies of intercessory prayer for people in hospitals. The introduction mentions some of the studies they looked at:
--
The California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco conducted a study of the effects of intercessory prayer
on patients with advanced AIDS. Patients in
that study who received prayer survived in
greater numbers, got sick less often and
recovered faster than those not receiving
prayer. (23).
Over time studies have shown intercessory prayer to have positive health effects across a variety of disorders,
including cardiovascular disease, acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), bloodstream infection, leukemia, and in vitro fertilization and egg transfer.(24)
--
After analyzing all of the studies, the analysis you linked to concludes that research indicates intercessory prayer for hospitalized patients is [only] moderately effective overall, with some studies showing a clear correlation and some not. That puts it's effectiveness similar to many medications, which are effective for perhaps 10%-60% of patients. That's what the analysis you linked to says. I know you can read it. Whether you choose to pretend you can't and deny all evidence that doesn't fit your first guess is entirely up to you.
Maybe NASA could send a man to the moon to check it out, they've done it before so it should be easy this time. Maybe they will be able to to capture some video footage of it this time that would plausible, perhaps when the rockets take off they could kick up a dust storm.