|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| dutchy pink wrote: |
Spinoza, Do you believe what he said? Not that life doesn't exist on Mars, but his argument for it?
I generally disagree with his 'proof." he is privy to a lot more information than I am, so I'll cut him some slack. But, he says these are only 0.001 or more of the images yet to come. What self respecting scientist would make a prediction knowing he is only seeing 1 out of a 1000 or more outcomes/proofs? Pure mathematics says the odds of being wrong are 99.9%. |
That's a strawman argument. Nowhere did VF claim the photos were proof.
| Quote: |
late in the 2nd minute he says, " look at these perfect triangles...." Nowhere were there perfect triangles, and if there were that would hardly be proof.
Look at the Golden Ratio. 1.618... It manifests itself in many ways, from rabbits *beep*, to leafs, snails, da vince, etc...
Nature is capable of producing symetry, why not on Mars too? |
The 'T'-object was pretty much at right angles ("pretty rare", "triangles are rarely seen in nature") and "there are arguments why these are not normal products of nature and certainly nothing like them exists on any of the other moons or planets of the Solar System that we've photographed to date". To VF, on this basis, the T-object can be defensibly interpreted as an artificial structure, but it is not proof that it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Astronomers are not geologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
According to his wiki page he's "an astronomer who specializes in celestial mechanics." The doesn't much sound like he has any expertise in planetary geology. |
Well, you're right in that he doesn't specialize in planetary geology, but the origin and evolution of planets is listed amongst his research interests.
| Quote: |
| Spinoza, I'm curious if you still think it's a face based on the ESA photos Mith has posted above. |
It appears a perfectly natural object in those photos. It also, even in images flattering to the face hypothesis, has a rather ugly wart on the right cheek. "Warts and all"? 
Yeah, I read that yesterday. Could well be an optical illusion like the 'man in the moon', but VF's point was that the 'face' hypothesis successfully predicted, a priori, the secondary features such as lips, iris, eyebrows and two nostrils, whereas the chance hypothesis fails here. What ever, the position presupposes that these things are the product of design whereas in other images it's not clear at all that they are facial features....so it's not THAT compelling and IMO less interesting than the apparent presence of trees and glass tubes anyway.
| Quote: |
| If there are trees on Mars, why haven't the rovers spotted any? |
Sparsity?
| Quote: |
| Can you have trees in the abscense of any other kind of vegetation? Wouldn't we see bushes etc? As well, wouldn't the atmosphere betray their existence? You would expect to find gases in certain proportions if there were forests on Mars. |
That's a very good question. Are trees compatible with a tiny atmosphere of C02? I've no idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Astronomers are not geologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
According to his wiki page he's "an astronomer who specializes in celestial mechanics." The doesn't much sound like he has any expertise in planetary geology. |
Well, you're right in that he doesn't specialize in planetary geology, but the origin and evolution of planets is listed amongst his research interests. |
But again, why should he have authority over NASA's stable of top notch geologists?
| Quote: |
| whereas the chance hypothesis fails here. |
Why? Clouds appear at times to have a nice collection of "improbable" features. I see stains from time to time that have such improbable features.
| Quote: |
| features....so it's not THAT compelling and IMO less interesting than the apparent presence of trees and glass tubes anyway. |
Well, glass tubes? Geez. Nature produces a lot of tube like structures.
And you don't see triangles in nature? Leaves don't frequently have triangles? But then I guess I would argue Mars has no leaves. Leaves on Mars would almost be as amazing.
What about this? And this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Van Flandern's 'face' conclusion works differently to the clouds and stains analogy, as can be read in detail here: http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
Again, however, he presupposes that these features are indeed 'secondary features' (thus fulfilling the a priori predictions of the first 'face' hypothesis from 1976 and thus ruling out chance, he concludes)....which is not at all clear from some photos that show the object when shadows, angles, light are unfavorable to any perception of facial features.
In certain conditions, the object does look like a face and does seem to contain secondary features in addition to the nose, eyes and mouth (insufficient to conclude design) discovered upon superior resolution images by Mars Global Surveyor.....sometimes it looks like bugger all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/25/images/smiley.gif
Happy face. On Mars. Look, it's just chance. Okay?
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/25/images/kermit.gif
Frog. On Mars. Look, it's just chance. Okay?
The better ESA image sure doesn't look anything face like. Right? How does that work into your hypothesis?
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately for the objectivity that scientists are supposed to maintain, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) apparently was unhappy that the high-resolution image received by its spacecraft did not immediately settle the artificiality controversy. |
I'm glad he's making such a claim and can't footnote it. Apparently? Well, I'm convinced. This is slipshod stuff.
And that face "correction". Sure, it looks like an eye if you just darken the whole depression. Have you ever noticed, like, the Mouth Rushmore faces don't need vast amounts to be in shadow so you can see a face or other features. No matter what angle you look at them, they look like what they're intended to look like? You don't need complex image processing software to recognize Abe if viewed at an angle? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aww, you got my hopes up there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newton kabiddles
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| thats the amazing thing. the balance of conditions, gasses, atmosphere that makes life on earth possible is so finely tuned- that the likelihood of it occuring anywhere else, let alone on earth- is staggering. Its not a case of 'life should be on every planet'. |
The universe is infinite. There is no limit to the number of planets that could be like earth. There could be billions of people who look just like me typing a message just like this, right now, all over the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| newton kabiddles wrote: |
| nautilus wrote: |
| thats the amazing thing. the balance of conditions, gasses, atmosphere that makes life on earth possible is so finely tuned- that the likelihood of it occuring anywhere else, let alone on earth- is staggering. Its not a case of 'life should be on every planet'. |
The universe is infinite. There is no limit to the number of planets that could be like earth. There could be billions of people who look just like me typing a message just like this, right now, all over the universe. |
Actually there is no evidence the material universe is infinite. Whatever the universe is expanding into may be infinite, but all the evidence points to there is a finite amount of matter (hence planets). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not my hypothesis.
I really don't give a toss about the face. There were other more interesting features of the presentation. The apparent appearance of vegetation on the surface is extremely interesting given Mars is supposed to be a lifeless planet. But VF's point was that a priori predictions of the first 'face' hypothesis were fulfilled. That's what he argued for in the presentation and elsewhere. The only reason I continue to discuss the face is because your point about clouds, stains and now frogs and happy faces suggest you do not appreciate the distinction between a posteriori hypotheses and a priori fulfilments. But, regarding VF's anti-chance stance - and I'm saying this for the third time - whether we accept that any of these features, primary features, secondary features are indeed features at all depends what source we look at. I agree with you - often, deliberately-designed facial features aren't at all discernible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newton kabiddles
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| newton kabiddles wrote: |
| nautilus wrote: |
| thats the amazing thing. the balance of conditions, gasses, atmosphere that makes life on earth possible is so finely tuned- that the likelihood of it occuring anywhere else, let alone on earth- is staggering. Its not a case of 'life should be on every planet'. |
The universe is infinite. There is no limit to the number of planets that could be like earth. There could be billions of people who look just like me typing a message just like this, right now, all over the universe. |
Actually there is no evidence the material universe is infinite. Whatever the universe is expanding into may be infinite, but all the evidence points to there is a finite amount of matter (hence planets). |
The universe is all, it can not expand into anything. Matter and space are one in the same, one can not exist without the other, they are different forms of the same concept. Infinite space equals infinite matter. The human mind can not conceive finite amounts of matter/space. We can either believe it actually physically exists, or believe it is all imagined. There is zero evidence that matter/space are finite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| newton kabiddles wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| newton kabiddles wrote: |
| nautilus wrote: |
| thats the amazing thing. the balance of conditions, gasses, atmosphere that makes life on earth possible is so finely tuned- that the likelihood of it occuring anywhere else, let alone on earth- is staggering. Its not a case of 'life should be on every planet'. |
The universe is infinite. There is no limit to the number of planets that could be like earth. There could be billions of people who look just like me typing a message just like this, right now, all over the universe. |
Actually there is no evidence the material universe is infinite. Whatever the universe is expanding into may be infinite, but all the evidence points to there is a finite amount of matter (hence planets). |
The universe is all, it can not expand into anything. Matter and space are one in the same, one can not exist without the other, they are different forms of the same concept. Infinite space equals infinite matter. The human mind can not conceive finite amounts of matter/space. We can either believe it actually physically exists, or believe it is all imagined. There is zero evidence that matter/space are finite. |
I had trouble with this too. I thought the universe, by definition was *everything*, including space. I can understand the theory of an expanding universe with (really truly) nothing outside its borders but actually grasping it is quite beyond me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are obviously many universes in the Vedic view:
 And even material scientists are slowly getting around to glimpsing that truth in some of their hypotheses about "multiverses": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Hindu_universes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| newton kabiddles wrote: |
The universe is all, it can not expand into anything. Matter and space are one in the same, one can not exist without the other, they are different forms of the same concept. Infinite space equals infinite matter. The human mind can not conceive finite amounts of matter/space. We can either believe it actually physically exists, or believe it is all imagined. There is zero evidence that matter/space are finite. |
Well the universe is expanding according to the best evidence of science. Understand the galaxies are not flying into existing infinite 3D space. The whole fabric of space is what is expanding. It is like dots on a balloon. AS you blow up the balloon everything will seem like it's moving away from you but what is really happening is space between you and the other objects is expanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Anyway, I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that "infinite space equals infinite matter". Why are they necessarily linked? Matter can't exist without space but space sure seems to be able to exist without matter (all dogs have tails but a tail does not imply a dog). Do you have any scientific evidence for this claim?
| Quote: |
| There is zero evidence that matter/space are finite |
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/905633072.As.r.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4250.html
Last edited by mindmetoo on Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:27 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| I really don't give a toss about the face. There were other more interesting features of the presentation. The apparent appearance of vegetation on the surface is extremely interesting given Mars is supposed to be a lifeless planet. |
Macro fauna without accompanying micro fauna? I think the safe bet is it's just a geological feature.
| Quote: |
| But VF's point was that a priori predictions of the first 'face' hypothesis were fulfilled. |
What if you alter an image you get something that looks face like? Stop the presses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
I had trouble with this too. I thought the universe, by definition was *everything*, including space. I can understand the theory of an expanding universe with (really truly) nothing outside its borders but actually grasping it is quite beyond me. |
As I comment above, imagine you're a dot on an expanding balloon. You were born into a 2D world. You can't conceive of a 3D world. The balloon is expanding. The other dots seem to be moving away from you. But the space is actually increasing. Since we're locked into a 2D world, this expansion seems counter intuitive, although you could easily describe it with math.
Same deal. We're creatures evolved in a 3D world. We can't imagine another physical dimension anymore than a 2D creature can imagine a mysterious third dimension. (See The Simpson Halloween ep where Homer falls into a mysterious 3D world.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
