/sci/ - Science & Math

The real mystery is the disappearance of the giant Mars face that Viking discovered in 1976 and the loss of the Mars Observer probe that would have confirmed it back in 1993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y5EbWTC_Q0

>>15672758
i learned not to trust "science" with timeframes

That face and those pyramids could have been evidence of the civilization destroyed by these detonations. Its thought that these explosions were the cause of mars losing its atmosphere.

>>15672758
it's just cosmic rays

>>15672788
Cosmic rays wouldn't explain the high concentrations of potassium and thorium at the antipodes of the presumed detonation sites. These could only be formed by a large explosion spreading debris across the planet.

>>15672779
>I learned not to trust science wit htimeframes because of a fake hammer in a rock

>>15672798
>wouldn't explain the
It does

>>15672802
Dating ancient events is not science because you cant use the scientific method of experimental verification. It can be used when the timeframes are short enough that you can test the method in the lab or the "story" of the event is very simple, without many variables. In complex systems theres too many relevant variables to come up with a credible story based on a single variable.
For instance its easy to believe that cosmic rays transform atmospheric nitrogen into carbon 14, thats a robust mechanism that doesnt really change due to changes in weather or what else. Radioactive decay is also a robust marker. Counting rings on petrified wood from "unknown plant species" is not a robust indicator of anything, and cant be tested in the lab in any way.

>>15672758
Is this implying there were two groups of ayys that lived on opposite sides of Mars who hated each other enough to build thousands of nuclear weapons and fire them at each other, thereby destroying all civilization on the planet? That's crazy talk anon. Something like that could never happen in real life.

>>15672758
>https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/eposter/2660.pdf
Holy shit, why is the grammar so bad?

>>15672758
>These two studies from 2015 and 2023 show proof
At least the second one is a bunch of baseless claims on slides, not a study. Also, you forgot to mention that the author is the same person. So one study tops and probably that one study is schizo bullshit. At least the slides weren't convincing at all.

so where are the fucking satellites you geniuses? both LEO and geostationary? no way they didn't have any BUT they had fucking rockets. that' insanely retarded.
but you are not going to think about this too much, are you?

>>15672924
How do you know they aren't there. Low orbit satellites would have decayed by now, but high orbit might easily be there undetected.

>>15672945
true LEO are way gone, my bad. higher orbits and especially geostationary should have sattelites. L points as well, have they been checked?
also we are tracking screws and nuts in earth's orbit, I suppose there should be ways to detect satellites.

>>15672924
They're the ones you use to shitpost on the internet buddy. We are sons of martians

man Tom really did a number on the scientific community by bringing this shit to everyone's attention

>>15672949
>we are tracking screws and nuts in earth's orbit,
That relies on arrays of ground-based radar telescopes. We have nothing like that anywhere near Mars, only a few probes pointing at the surface. It'll take a while before there's enough infrastructure on Mars to do a proper survey.
> L points as well, have they been checked?
I doubt it. I don't think a survey for artificial objects has been done seriously for anywhere in the solar system.

>>15672758
The thing that puts me off is that his calculated location is right in the middle of where the northern ocean would have been. Strange place for a nuclear war. In his poster he suggests that the explosion happened after the oceans dried - maybe some strange alien war. But in his paper he suggests that the thermonuclear explosion had to be 10 times bigger than Chicxulub, at blew off the atmosphere causing the planet to dry. So was the ocean dry or wasn't it?

>>15672981
>The thing that puts me off is that his calculated location is right in the middle of where the northern ocean would have been.
THAT is what puts you off with this whole thing?

>>15672995
Yep, no point nuking an ocean. If it was somewhere important I'd be convinced.

>>15673005
there's no plate techtonics to sink whatever was on the surface. how did they have nuclear rockets but no impressive structures? there should have been SOMETHING for fucks sake, anything. literally anything. how does that just disappear? I mean EVERYTHING.

>>15673019
Not to mention Mars lost its atmosphere over 3 billion years ago so there wouldn't have been any possibility of a civilization still surviving on the surface only 500 million years ago.

>>15672981
Imagine a planet drying and people moving to drying ocean beds with still some water left. Or cities under water.

>>15672949
L points aren't stable over 500 million years.
A mars-synchronous orbit would be the best place to check, but the moons might also have flung out anything placed there.

>>15673044
>Mars lost its atmosphere over 3 billion years ago
That's just what the mainstream media want you to think

>>15672924
Phobos and deimos

>>15673065
>moons might also have flung out anything placed there.
Into just solar orbit not beyond

>>15673046
>cities under water.

>>15672758
>0 references
Nice meme kid

>>15673130
The actual paper has loads of references but it's still schizo shit. I can't pinpoint the flaw but there must be one.

>>15673111
I don't see a reason for intelligent life not to live under water. It's a very habitable place.

>>15672981
>The thing that puts me off is that his calculated location is right in the middle of where the northern ocean would have been. Strange place for a nuclear war.
Atlantis was on Mars: Confirmed

>>15672924
They probably developed ICBMs and got into a nuclear war before establishing any significant space infrastructure. Here on Earth the ICBM was developed well before the geosynchronous communications satellite. Satellites in lower orbits would have decayed and re-entered the Martian atmosphere millions of years ago.

>>15673005
>no point nuking an ocean
>what is a ballistic missile submarine
>what are nuclear depth charges and nuclear tipped torpedoes and nuclear tipped antisubmarine rockets
There are many reasons to employ nuclear weapons at sea as borne out by the US and Soviet navies during the Cold War

>>15672758
>Thermonuclear
But they told me they were fake and can proof it.

>>15672779
That's been proven fake but alright.

>>15672949
After hundreds of millions of years even geostationary satellites will decay out of orbit

>>15672840
nuclear war cant destroy a planets atmosphere.

>>15672810
>scientific method of experimental verification
that's not the scientific method. the scientific method is the application of doubt - you CAN do this through experiment, but you can also do this by repeated observations. dating ancient things is reliant on the latter, but its internal consistency survives the doubts that have been thrown at it.

tree rings are one of these scientific tools that have survived the doubts thrown at them - "tested in the lab" is not the litmus test, consistent observation is, and trees are observed to consistently develop rings in the patterns described by dendrochronology. the high number of trees and the ease of observation (you take thin cores that are as long as the tree's diameter; you don't need to cut limbs/trunks) makes for an enormous sample size that is consistent with seasonal growth rates, and is consistent ACROSS SPECIES. we have extant species that also exist in the fossil record (see: ginkos) that demonstrate exactly the same dendrochronological patterns as modern species.

put simply: "trees grew differently back then" is a scientific hypothesis that has not dispelled the doubts thrown its way. that there is no universal guarantee that they will disprove it is not grounds to dismiss dendrochronology.

similarly, there are legitimate reasons to doubt the absolute ages from radioisotope dating (it makes assumptions about CR flux based on a brief sample size, for one) - but it is so reliable and consistent for relative age that those doubts do not warrant dismissing radioisotopes as chronological tools.

that hammer? it didn't survive the doubts thrown at it, it's a known fake. if it had, we'd be having a different discussion about it. further, even as a fake, the process establishing that IS scientific. the hammer has scientific value - just because it doesn't yield the conclusions you want it to doesn't mean it (or the conclusions you emotionally dislike or have been told to disregard) isn't scientific.

>>15673379
Nukes and space are both fake, so it cancels out meaning nukes are real only on Mars.

>>15673353
Boomer subs do not justify a single gigantic thermonuclear blast 10 times bigger than Chicxulub

>>15674739
>what is Poseidon (official name Status-6)
The Russians are building undersea nuclear drones designed to generate tsunamis and wipe out coastal cities. No reason the ancient martians couldn't have built a bigger and much more powerful version of these things.

We should not discount the possibility that these massive nuclear explosions were doomsday weapons detonated by both sides at the end of the Martian nuclear war. During the Cold War, the US and Russia likely had doomsday weapons that were based on upscaled versions of the Tsar Bomba and Castle Bravo nukes. These would most likely be detonated automatically if either side appeared to launch a successful first strike. Luckily for us that never happened here.

>>15672758
I've seen that explosions and fire video too, where he rajts about it for some reason lol

>>15675814
I made a mistake

>>15675816
There are no mistakes, only happy accidents.

>>15673734
>that's not the scientific method. the scientific method is the application of doubt - you CAN do this through experiment, but you can also do this by repeated observations.
Except you have never repeatedly observed the past so your argument is invalid. I wont read the rest of your post, pseud