It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Venus and Mars

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: conundrummer

originally posted by: tanka418
you have the Temerity to call what a professional says in his field; "speculation". Sorry; there is a vast difference.

So scientists aren't professionals?


Do you enjoy twisting other's words into shapes that they were never intended for?

That's all you are doing here...please try to "think" for a minute and not place your meaning on my words!

They already have a specific meaning ascribed to them, your changing of that meaning only leads you and others to confusion.

Now as to your specific issue: I never said that now did I...You obviously have a far too general idea of "speculation", and have not observed it in the wild much.

The word "speculation" has taken on it's own meaning that is more akin to fantasy, rather than considered extrapolation.

When anyone makes a statement that can not be covered by accepted fact (i.e. speculation), yet is related to that person's expertise; it is no longer "speculation" and becomes something more like "extrapolation".

Yet; even a scientist is capable of using his imagination and arriving at pure fantasy...its a thing we are all capable of...some think of it as "fun"...

What you are not seeing is that when someone "speculates" within their "field" that "speculation" is; a) probably not true "speculation", and b) of higher value as far as "data" is concerned; what they say in such a context has a vastly higher confidence level.

edit on 25-6-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: conundrummer

originally posted by: tanka418
you have the Temerity to call what a professional says in his field; "speculation". Sorry; there is a vast difference.

So scientists aren't professionals?


Do you enjoy twisting other's words into shapes that they were never intended for?

That's all you are doing here...please try to "think" for a minute and not place your meaning on my words!


I'm just asking questions, while you're calling me out.


They already have a specific meaning ascribed to them, your changing of that meaning only leads you and others to confusion.

Now as to your specific issue: I never said that now did I...You obviously have a far too general idea of "speculation", and have not observed it in the wild much.

The word "speculation" has taken on it's own meaning that is more akin to fantasy, rather than considered extrapolation.

You're the only one confusing others by defining speculation in your own way. Where did I define speculation?


When anyone makes a statement that can not be covered by accepted fact (i.e. speculation), yet is related to that person's expertise; it is no longer "speculation" and becomes something more like "extrapolation".

Seems to me that scientists who push the limits of knowledge are in a grey area per your definition.


What you are not seeing is that when someone "speculates" within their "field" that "speculation" is; a) probably not true "speculation", and b) of higher value as far as "data" is concerned; what they say in such a context has a vastly higher confidence level.

Sounds like semantic games when you say this: "By the way; when science speculates; it is no different than the average person's speculation."



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: conundrummer



You're the only one confusing others by defining speculation in your own way. Where did I define speculation?


I define "speculation", and many other things by their observed behavior in the "wild". I presume you define "speculation" and nearly everything else the same as most; by an antiquated set of words that may or may not agree with the definition as the word is used...

And, yes; when a scientist, engineer, or what ever "goes off the reservation" then they have entered a graying area. However, most science/engineering types are better prepared to analyze the available data, and typically have a larger knowledge/experience base to draw upon...providing a significant advantage.

By the way..Speculation, as it is used here is: "ideas or guesses about something that is not known".

When a scientist "extrapolates" new data in his field; it is neither simply "ideas", and it is typically vastly different from a "guess".



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I didn't read every post in this thread, but re: Mars being "too cold" for life:

It's probably far less cold than a lot of people think!

A summer day on Mars may get up to 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) near the equator.

(www.space.com...)

On Earth, 70 degrees F is weather for wearing a T-shirt.

edit on 26-6-2014 by peacefulpete because: Added a sentence.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: simsumre
Is it possible that Mars was once like Earth and that Venus is, and always has been, occupied by those of our own species? I know NASA says Venus cannot sustain life, and I will not even try to go into such depth as Leer has, but how possible is this scenario? That Venus had a world ending war with Mars and that we're the descendents? ...basically a slave planet. That these "people" (on Venus) have been controlling "human" politics/civilization on Earth since that war ended?

I know I'm going off the deep end here, but there's a giant hole regarding the history of this planet and our species. Hell, you could even make this biblical, fallen angels and all that. But finding nuclear residue on Mars along with the continued secrecy regarding anything extraterrestrial just brings up so many questions. Is this truly a prison planet?


Falling angels was a particularly strong point.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
I didn't read every post in this thread, but re: Mars being "too cold" for life:

It's probably far less cold than a lot of people think!

A summer day on Mars may get up to 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) near the equator.

(www.space.com...)

On Earth, 70 degrees F is weather for wearing a T-shirt.


Some say up to 95 F, and the average surface temp. is around -80F...and gets as cold as -225F...

Mars is too cold...However; the atmosphere is 95% CO2, a known greenhouse gas. 3 Billion years age Mars probably had nice atmosphere...that much CO2 would probably keep it nice and warm all the time.

However, Mars never has a "Great Oxygenation event" like Earth did about 2.5 billion years ago. I'm thinking that is around when Mars stopped being a viable planet; Venus too.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: CJCrawley

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: WhiteWine

Also I believe Mars in the coming future could become habitable? Since the Sun will grow bigger and get hotter, I suppose it will raise temperatures in the Red Planet, in turn helping it?


It cant SUPPORT a thick enough atmosphere it has no magnetic field like the Earth that's it put in the simplest of terms.



They're not insurmountable problems.

Many scientists are of the opinion that the colonisation of Mars by humans is a distinct possibility, if not a likelihood.

We better hope they're right because our future is bleak on the blue planet.

In about 5 billion years, the Sun will start to become a red giant and will likely swallow up Earth when it expands in size.

But long before then, the Sun will have become hotter, making life on Earth impossible.

This could be in as little as one billion years hence.

Mars is our only sanctuary.


Why is Mars our sanctuary in that scenario? Will it somehow avoid the heat not to mention the gravitational chaos that would be happening as the Earth is swallowed?


I'm not a scientist (much less an astrophysicist) so I don't know enough to answer your question, but I will have a go.

The red giant phase wont be for at least another 5 billion years; as I understand it, life on Earth will already have been long extinguished, 4 billion years earlier, or about 1 billion years hence.

In that initial phase (1 billion years hence), when the Sun becomes slightly smaller, brighter, and about 40% hotter, life on Earth will be unsustainable, but Mars - some 50 million miles further away - will experience helpful global warming (it's too cold at present).

So there is a window (probably a narrow one) when Mars will be habitable.

But yes, Mars too will be rendered uninhabitable as time progresses; it was ever only a temporary sanctuary.



Mars will still NOT have a magnetic field so could not protect an atmosphere which means going underground or in buildings now look how long it took to build the ISS on our doorstep for how many people!!!



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: simsumre

Please do a search for this topic. It has been discussed and ridiculed ad nauseum. No one ever lived on Venus or on Mars.
One died because of too much atmosphere, the other because not enough atmosphere.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Kratos40

That's just the present day view of the situation, one shouldn't exclude the history of planetary and stellar evolution from the equation.

Besides, Earth is very likely to go the "Venus Way" in future, are you then going to say Earth was always dead, just because it will look very much like Venus does today?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join