[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Stop this nonsense. There are no any proven meteorits from Mars.


Forwarded from Philip Chien, KC4YER@amsat.org
 

 
>Leaving apart /by my opinion not substantiated/ conclusion of “Life
>Traces” I am absolutely disagree with alleged Mars origin of these
>meteorites. 
>        Some common sense arguments:
>1.      For MILLIONS years BILLIONS of meteorites traveling near Earth
>orbit
>2.      Planet Mars is a very, very, very, very small part of possible
>originations of these Meteorites
>3.      Scientists made probe of atmospheric composition on Mars one
>time.  There are lot of probes which WERE NOT  made (on THOUSANDS of possible
>origination places during MILLIONS of years)
>
>BECAUSE OF CORRELATION OF ANALYSES OF THE CONTEMPORARY SAMPLE IN ONE
>PLACE ON MARS TO THE 12 MILLIONS YEARS OLD SAMPLE ATMOSPHERIC
>COMPOSITION - THESE METEORITES CALLED “MARTIAN” (!)    (As I
>understand this is even not a DNA test or fingerprint which were BTW not
>conclusive enough to convict O.J. :)
 
Science doesn't have to come up with evidence which will hold up in a
courtroom trial.  It's based on the best possible theory based on the
best possible evidence.
 
Evidence - the meteorids in question are so different from the other
types of meteorids (isotopic composition) which have made it to the
Earth's surface that there's no doubt that they're from 'somewhere else'
 
Evidence - some meteorids have been shown to be identical (for all
practical purposes) to rocks returned from the moon.  So it's logical to
assume that those rocks in question actually came from the moon.
 
Evidence - Physicists specializing in orbital mechanics have made very
plausible arguments showing how an asteroid strike at the right angle and
amount of force would cause pieces of the moon or Mars to be ejected, and
with enough velocity to leave those planets.  (This was one of the
biggest questions about the Martian-meteorite origin theory until a
reasonable explanation was discovered).
 
Evidence - small amounts of gas within the meteorids in question match
the composition of the Martian atmosphere as measured by Viking.  Not
sure if it was the measurements at one site or both, but I'd suspect both.
 
Logic - while it's *theoretically* possible for those meteorids to come
from Io, Pluto, Mercury, or even Alpha Centauri - Mars and the moon make
much more sense because the amount of energy required is a lot less. 
(analogy - you usually go to a nearby supermarket instead of one across
town).
 
Logic - In the early days of the solar system there was a lot more
'rubble' all over the place.  But gradually much of that rubble ran in to
other rubble, or in to bigger objects (e.g. planets or moons).  So
gradually the amount of debris in the solar system decreased.  On planets
with climates (Earth, and to a lesser degree Venus and Mars for the
terrestrial planets) the evidence of impacts was gradually washed away by
the weather.
 
Logic - given a very 'white' continent with natural forces which
concentrate pieces by glacial action the number of meteorids you'll find
in one particular area will be much greater than more 'typical' areas.
 
Conclusions - rocks from the moon and Mars, and possibly even other
bodies in our solar system, have entered the Earth's atmosphere.  But
only in the Antarctic where snow and other natural forces tend to
'concentrate' the rocks together have pristine samples been found.
 
Verification - obtaining an actual sample of Mars (either by automated
return, UFO, or a crewed mission) will make it possible to absolutely
verify that the SNC meteroids are in fact from Mars.
 
>It is just shameful speculations filled with scientific terminology. 
>Unfortunately it is a natural human tendency - when people does not have
>real objective reliable and complete statistic data they attend to
>speculate on the basis of what they have, to declare a “discovery”
 
On the contrary!  You use the best data you have to come to the best
possible conclusions.  The only unfortunate part is when somebody
considers it necessary to obtain "absolute proof" (whatever that is)
before accepting something as reasonable.
 
Consider that in the 19th century geologists and astronomers were at odds
as to the age of the Earth.  Astronomers felt that the sun couldn't be
more than a couple of thousand years old because there was no known
chemical process which could generate power for that long, given the
Sun's mass.  On the other hand, geologists felt that the Earth had to be
older because they were able to find rocks which were older.
 
The astronomers were 'wrong' - but only because they didn't know what
atomic power was.  Once nuclear power was established and the amount of
energy possible was comprehended, it was logical to come to the
conclusion the the sun wasn't chemically powered - it was nuclear powered.
 
That in no way invalidated the astronomer's previous research.  With the
best knowledge available at the time there was no way to comprehend how
the sun could generate power for more than a couple of thousand years.
 
Science learns over time, and theories are refined to make more accurate
theories.
 
In any case the best available data indicates that the SNC meteorids are
actually from Mars.  And it's pretty compelling.
 
>P.S. I think that many scientists just afraid to to tell the true loudly...
 
err yeah.  Apparently you don't hang around with the same scientists I
hang around with.
 
Philip Chien, KC4YER@amsat.org
Earth News - space writer and consultant