Titas Aduksus

Thanks Modest, I lost my calculations of years ago when I first had this idea, I was going to repeat them. Yes there would be problems. On earth tunnels are affected by geological instability caused through techtonics, such activities may not be such a consideration on mars. Will reply more fully later when work allows. Also tunnel would be inhabited during construction thus fully used (unlike tunnels on earth which provide no return until fully completed, thus time and length less of a problem, construction may also be simpler. Another benefit if Mars was always relatively geologically inactive then sub surface strata may be more stable and uniform than that which we tunnel through here on earth. Thanks again. I know I seem arrogant but I have thought through my ideas, and am a determined person.

Terraforming Mars is just not going to happen, we can't even keep the earth terraformed at the moment! colonizing Mars is possible but ONLY if it is done the way I laid out above, it can be done using mostly robotics, there's no argument, you know it makes sense!

I can see you have not really read what I put, you are reading what you think I put, my idea is to live sub-surface, the airlock would (at the correct depth) be at a pressure where the depth is equivalent to an equivalent pressure on earth, thus airlocks would no be subject to hundreds of tons of pressure. Radiation would be zero at that depth. Sufficient power would be generated outside the complex and cabled to the underground agriculture tunnels, I do not anticipate growing food at the surface. All the technology is available.

Moderation note: the first 2 posts of this thread were moved from the thread 14413 because they are about colonizing, not terraforming, Mars. OK, If I were to be given the task of colonizing Mars with the facilities and technologies of today I think it would go something like this, (with acknowledgement to Bob Newhart)... I would plan the building of a shaft sunk into the ground at such a shallow angle below the horizon, and continue this shaft until it re-emerged that at it's deepest point the collected atmosphere within the tunnel would be close to 1 earth atmosphere. At this depth a large cavern could be excavated to house the neccessary life support systems for both plant and human habitation, it is probably that the temperature at such a depth may be 'agreeable' though is somewhat speculative, perhaps a compromise between depth and temperature may be required. At such a depth, isolation from the natural martian atmosphere would not require any difference in pressure thus items such as airlocks would be fairly resistant to leaks, lighter and more econimic. Humans in this environment would be shielded from the effects of solar radiation, small to medium surface impacts, and cosmic rays. Power could easily be gathered from huge solar arrays adjacent the exits and transmitted to the core area via highvoltage dc transmission system. along the tunnel would be several 'shelters' to accomodate stop offs during the long journey from surface to core. I propose a maglev type transportation system to ferry goods and materials to from the surface. Hopefully mny of the materials needed would be 'mined' along the way, thus an extensive geological survey of the planet would be needed first, this would then determine many of the finer details required. If any of you work for Nasa, and wish to use this idea please acknowledge my being the source. The only 'fly in the ointment' as it were is this... I believe (and this is my own theory) that when the core of Mars shrank as it cooled, giant sub-surface fissures were formed, these would have been more than enougth to swallow all of the water on the planet's surface if, that quantity of water to the total mass of the planet was equivalent to earth. I believe that this is an ongoing process and accounts for the occasional 'oozing' to the surface of liquid mud (as seismic activity continues).

I'll go for the iridium, they appear as you say and are brief. IF you want to see lots of fading stars take a bus to hollywood...

You believe in cause and effect ? What has that got to do with cosmology? - one thing you ought to understand very clearly is that the universe does not behave the way humans expect it to, where is the cause and effect of any of the four forces, or of particles popping in and out of existence ? I'd scrap cause and effect, attempting to apply classical physics to the world of quanta or the super massive is like expecting a rock to behave like a living being. I think you'd do well to spend more of your time understanding the cosmos rather than try and overturn that which science currently considers the most probable [and best supported] theory of the early universe.

HAhahahaha! Are you serious? What you have written is garbage! - utter crap. What evidence do you have that solar flares and CME's are produced as a result of comets and asteroids plunging into the sun? I think this thread should should be confined to the "nutty ideas" section without a doubt.

With all due respect to the moderator team, I suggest that if you look at the actual post's you will find it is not censorship that is being discussed but whether Halton Arp's theories are a viable alternative to current theory, I see nothing wrong with proposing an alternative, indeed there are many past precedents. In my humble opinion this is very definitely cosmology and Halton Arp is a respected scientist even though he has unusual views on some subjects.

New science, I am quite sure that if your wide range of eccentric theories were even remotely plausible you would have published and had them peer reviewed, this is the way science works, if you have not had them published and commented upon by peer scientists then I venture to suggest foistering them upon the amteur population is a little dubious to say the least. You are clearly sympathetic to the works of Halton Arp, others are not. It is generally accepted by the majority that the big bang theory (and it is only a theory NOT a certainty) is currently the most supported hypothesis for the early universe. If you can get Stephen Hawking to support your Ideas then, and only then might people listen to you. As a note I do not believe for one moment that things were as currently envisaged, I believe if we ever find the root explanation for our universe [coming into being] it will something far more exotic than that currently proposed.

Nuke-u-lar - Thanks Mr Bush (oh and his name, does he know it's slang for a certain patch of hair...)

I guess if you take literally the meaning of the word 'bang' ie a loud noise, and the fact that "In space no one can hear you scream" then you are probably right, other than that if you wish to impress anybody, please do not state it as a fact that the BB never occured, it is at best only your opinion.

Ah! That's all very interesting, maybe (tongue in cheek) at absolute zero matter simply ceases to exist and the expansion of the universe is the creation of space as temperature expands (if you see what I mean) - from that there may a point where temperature has a planck value so the universe might dissappear when entropy takes it's temp below 1 'planck' degree. Or maybe those two glasses of whiskey are begining to take effect.... Now I'll just duck while you all respond...

I am quite happy with the view that galactic redshift is an indicator that the visible universe is expanding - yes there are anomalies but remember mathematics describes phenomina it does not, it cannot, explain them - rather like Newton and kepplar describing the orbits of planets, with mercury not quite conforming, it was the work of Einstein that accounted for most [but not all] of the error. The final tiny error in the orbit of mercury, when accounted for will probably also wipe out Mr Arp's work. This is along the same lines as the recent discovery of dark matter helping to account for galactic rotation. Suppliment, I have just had a look at some of your other posts in this forum and it seems clear you are somewhat unhappy with science in general, [e.g refuting e=mc^2] If science was in general as far off reality as you suppose neither your mobile phone, microwave or PC would work, not least because the nuclear powerplant you rely on would also be a non-stater...

Do you mean as in a guitar pickup?

Nah, not wrong to save the little blighter, othrewise I'd advocate the slaughter of domestic pets - it's a publicity stunt, "all publicity is good publicity" comes to mind here.

Well I just love this subject, drakes equation has a whole pile of unknowns but if you type in what is known the answer comes up as 1! - us. There is no evidence of extrasolar life anywhere - not a shred. (extrasolar just in case there is something lurking in a methane swamp on Titan..). Somebody has to be first, why not us? If life existed on earth for billions of years as single celled organisms only then clearly the chance of it evolving beyond that could be seen as remote. If they are out there, I hope they give this place a miss, if they were organic we would have zero immunity to any disease they might be immune to with the reverse being true... It's nice to see that the majority of voters are in agreement - that there probably are lifeforms with 'intelligence' (whatever that is) somewhere out there....

As I understand it, his theory had little/no support yet he wanted to continue searching for cosmic anomalies when time at the observatory was at a premium, I am not sure he has been truly censored if he now has a position at the Max Planck Institute which is highly regarded. He obviously had enough time to form his ideas, time to let someone else have a look through the eyepiece. I am sure his theory is known by others and some through curiosity may even use their own time to test it, if he is right it'll appear again perhaps before he expires [that would make a change!]. I'll make a point of looking out for the books you mention though.

Simply put recycling can prolong [some] of the resources of the planet, that should make it a consideration, plastic - uh! I hate the stuff, wood is far better, locks a bit of CO2 for a while as well :eek_big: I think one of the main reasons people do not recycle as much as they could is down to time, it has to be easier/quicker to chuck something whole into the trash rather than seperate it into parts that can be reused. Then there's fashion, trend etc, your kitchen is three years old [and probably still in functional order], but you want a change. If I buy anything new I always leave the polystyrene packing in the shop, let them pay for it to be disposed of. Junk mail - easy, there's usually a prepaid in there somewhere so in it all goes and back to source. Buying fruit, hasn't nature already packaged it yet they add onther layer ... It's attitude that needs changing. But I think this can only come from us. Incinreation vs land fill to me suggests we are not prepared to tackle the cause of the problem.

For all unsolicited callers we have a a little fluffy toy, we'll just put him down on the porch and say, "A bit busy at the moment, tell raggles all about it, and if it's something interesting, he'll us later" - after we did this 2 or three times, word seems to have gotten round, we see them in the street from time to time but they just don't call here anymore... Thankyou Pavlov..

Thanks Eric.

Could somebody just enlighten me as to the exent of this "American Empire"? Do americans have a more colourful definition of the word?, the position of the US in the world today is, in my very humble opinion a long way off that of the Roman, Bizantine, Turkish, or even British empires [and a few others] of the past. I certainly tend to think of the US (and it's currency) as influential throughout the world, but empire I question.

Maybe some are getting fatter because they remember being told 20 years ago there was an Ice-age coming, so a few extra layers of fat should help out a bit - (tongue in cheek that..). Seriously though as some pointed out earlier in the thread there is a relationship to intake/output. One point I have pondered (but not yet seen expressed elsewhere), is the possibility that modern clothing is more efficient at retaining heat, this must result in less escaping, couple that to the increase in centrally heated homes, better insulation and maybe this has an influence to some degree (but I would NOT suggest it as the complete cause). I arrived at this remarkable hypothesis by comparing the food intake of cold and warm blooded animals - it seems most of our calorific intake is used merely to keep the body temperature normal, - Not my field though and I've not seriously studied it, so it could be a crap contribution.

Einshculdigen sie bitte, kontern sie langzammer sprechen? ich bin ein Englische dumkopf... Usually broke the Ice, - I've do doubt it's full of mistakes, and I've not touched German for many years, can somebody clean it up?

The facts - easy, 1) There are three ways the climate can go UP - Down or Stable (that'd be a first!). 2) IF the climate goes down it'll be due to pollution and we'll all be taxed for it. 3) If the climate goes up it'll be due to CO2 and we'll all be taxed for it. 4) If the climate goes stable we'll all be taxed to keep it that way. Now the Soviet Union is gone how else can you scare people into parting with their cash - no I'm not a cynic... well maybe just a little..:)

Wavenumbers? We call them things Hz, (which is cycles or waves per second) - as previously stated f=cp/l where F = frequency (Hz), c=speed of light in free space (metres per second), p propogation constant (1 for free space around 0.70 for glass) and l (lambda) the wavelength in metres. So fill in the numbers and wind the handle, as an exapmle a wavelength of 1 metre corresponds to a frequency of 300Mhz (in free space). If you have not been given a propogation constant just use 1. Now you have had it explained two ways it should be a doddle. One final thing 1nm is 1 billionth of a metre.