The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Round Eyes on July 25, 2018, 07:35:15 PM
-
The NASA fools are at it again. time for our every 3 month "great discovery" to be released. this time its the claim that Mars has a lake a mile under its surface. what a joke, they could at least try and mix it up. the constant PR drip, drip, drip timing by them is getting to be a bit obvious. after every release they get publicity and keep enough interest going to maintain bringing in the $$$$....then the attention goes away for a while and oh look! another discovery! cant wait for the next great "discovery"
-
They need to drum up support for another "mars" mission.
-
They need to drum up support for another "mars" mission.
yep, and they are making it a bit too obvious at this point. gotta keep feeding that machine ($$$)
-
Elon Musk will be all over it.
He's still trying to wash the stench off his last publicity stunt gone wrong. Turning up to a genuine emergency with some useless submarine that doesn't work, and then calling a hero that rescued the kids a paedophile when he called Musk out on his obvious attention seeking.
So he'll be telling everyone that Space X will be flying men to Mars, knowing NASA won't call him out on this equally obvious rouse. My guessing is that the astronauts picked will be the first 'openly gay' man in space, an African American and a disabled woman for maximum media coverage and general worship from the mainstream media. Musk will be described as brave and courageous for standing up to bigotry and given lots more 'investment' from the Federal Reserve as it counterfeits money and shovels it into Tesla stock. Meanwhile the 3 actors hired will do a bit of green screen work and then go on endless morning chat shows to talk about the prejudices they have overcome and how people need to follow their dreams to be just like them. You heard it here first, folks.
-
Elon Musk will be all over it.
He's still trying to wash the stench off his last publicity stunt gone wrong. Turning up to a genuine emergency with some useless submarine that doesn't work, and then calling a hero that rescued the kids a paedophile when he called Musk out on his obvious attention seeking.
So he'll be telling everyone that Space X will be flying men to Mars, knowing NASA won't call him out on this equally obvious rouse. My guessing is that the astronauts picked will be the first 'openly gay' man in space, an African American and a disabled woman for maximum media coverage and general worship from the mainstream media. Musk will be described as brave and courageous for standing up to bigotry and given lots more 'investment' from the Federal Reserve as it counterfeits money and shovels it into Tesla stock. Meanwhile the 3 actors hired will do a bit of green screen work and then go on endless morning chat shows to talk about the prejudices they have overcome and how people need to follow their dreams to be just like them. You heard it here first, folks.
all correct, but i wont give you too much credit...what you described basically follows the script thus far. almost like it written by a hollywood movie...hmmm :)
-
The real question is, why?
Why are elites constantly sending rovers, probes, and now looking into sending people to Mars? What are they looking for, have they found it yet? When they do find it, what are they going to do with it?
Perhaps they're searching for whatever superweapon destroyed Mars and they wish to bring it here as an insurance policy. Just in case their peasant underlings ever accidentally think for themselves and try to overturn the status quo.
-
Why climb Everest?
Why go to Antarctica?
Humans have an innate desire to explore and learn. Space exploration, which we're just taking baby steps in, is an extension of that.
-
The NASA fools are at it again. time for our every 3 month "great discovery" to be released. this time its the claim that Mars has a lake a mile under its surface.
First of all, it wasn't NASA that made the announcement. It was a group of Italian scientists from Roma Tre University. Secondly, they said they found evidence of a possible lake. They did not make a definitive claim that the lake existed. Thirdly, the lake (if it really does exist) was found a mile under the polar ice cap. Similar lakes have been found deep under the antarctic ice, so there is precedent for such discoveries on earth.
They need to drum up support for another "mars" mission.
Since it takes so long to prepare such missions, they'll most likely use satellites already in orbit to further investigate.
-
Why climb Everest?
Why go to Antarctica?
Humans have an innate desire to explore and learn. Space exploration, which we're just taking baby steps in, is an extension of that.
I see no reason to indulge people on their vices simply because they're an innate desire. If a baby has an innate desire to drink bleach, I'm going to refuse it the opportunity to do so, because it is ignorant of the consequences. Likewise, if people want to go to Mars "just because" then they should rightfully be refused the opportunity to do so, because it represents no utilitarian purpose beyond wasting our ever dwindling supply of natural resources on fruitless quests of pride and material fulfillment.
Perhaps these organizations should be more interested in correcting the current course of our own world instead of fixating on other lifeless rocks just to satiate their curiosity.
-
Why climb Everest?
Why go to Antarctica?
Humans have an innate desire to explore and learn. Space exploration, which we're just taking baby steps in, is an extension of that.
I see no reason to indulge people on their vices simply because they're an innate desire.
Since when is the desire to explore and learn considered a vice?
-
Perhaps these organizations should be more interested in correcting the current course of our own world instead of fixating on other lifeless rocks just to satiate their curiosity.
There is something to be said for that for sure.
However, if humans did not try to satiate their curiosity we'd still be in the stone age. So there is something to be said for that too.
-
Since when is the desire to explore and learn considered a vice?
When you're wasting resources to "explore" a place that you already know is a barren wasteland, then it is in fact a vice, especially when your exploration efforts cost billions of dollars in an era where we are already hopelessly in debt.
There is something to be said for that for sure.
However, if humans did not try to satiate their curiosity we'd still be in the stone age. So there is something to be said for that too.
Our technological development has been a case of necessity, not curiosity. Sure, you can claim that "by making it necessary to go to Mars, we can spur technological development" but then we need to remember that all of those things would be built right here on Earth, making going to Mars moot.
-
Our technological development has been a case of necessity, not curiosity. Sure, you can claim that "by making it necessary to go to Mars, we can spur technological development" but then we need to remember that all of those things would be built right here on Earth, making going to Mars moot.
Necessity is the mother of invention. It will be the inventors living on Mars (or the Moon) who learn to develop closed system habitats that fully recycle human waste for reuse. We can't develop that on Earth. There is no need. It is way too easy to just throw our waste away so we always will. But once the Mars community develops it there, it will be very helpful in abolishing poverty here on Earth.
-
Since when is the desire to explore and learn considered a vice?
When you're wasting resources to "explore" a place that you already know is a barren wasteland, then it is in fact a vice, especially when your exploration efforts cost billions of dollars in an era where we are already hopelessly in debt.
It seems to me that they're discovering that Mars might not be as barren a wasteland as they once thought. Besides, doesn't it seem prudent to thoroughly explore a planet that you hope to colonize some day? Or do you think that humans should stay a one planet species?
-
It's just hard for some people to see anything even slightly abstract. Some people just don't understand the value of pure research. They don't see how science leads to unexpected discoveries or how those in turn lead to unexpected technologies and how those lead to improvements in the human condition. Some people are bitter and cynical. Combine bitterness with ignorance, and you'll end up with people who lash out at imaginary enemies.
Our only hope is to try to reach the next generation and inspire them to strive for better. I remain hopeful that we can improve our education system and have fewer young people slip through into bitterness and ignorance.
-
It seems to me that they're discovering that Mars might not be as barren a wasteland as they once thought. Besides, doesn't it seem prudent to thoroughly explore a planet that you hope to colonize some day? Or do you think that humans should stay a one planet species?
I think humans better learn how to not screw up one world instead of reaching out to screw up two as if we're going for some kind of galactic record.
-
It seems to me that they're discovering that Mars might not be as barren a wasteland as they once thought. Besides, doesn't it seem prudent to thoroughly explore a planet that you hope to colonize some day? Or do you think that humans should stay a one planet species?
I think humans better learn how to not screw up one world instead of reaching out to screw up two as if we're going for some kind of galactic record.
Maybe you should ask the dinosaurs if they think that humans are the only threat to life on earth.
-
Maybe you should ask the dinosaurs if they think that humans are the only threat to life on earth.
Maybe the lizard people should have calculated the risk on their asteroid capture mission more accurately.
-
Since when is the desire to explore and learn considered a vice?
When you're wasting resources to "explore" a place that you already know is a barren wasteland, then it is in fact a vice, especially when your exploration efforts cost billions of dollars in an era where we are already hopelessly in debt.
It seems to me that they're discovering that Mars might not be as barren a wasteland as they once thought. Besides, doesn't it seem prudent to thoroughly explore a planet that you hope to colonize some day? Or do you think that humans should stay a one planet species?
Don't use weasel words like 'human'.
Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.
-
Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.
.. but Earthlings can become Marslings, simply by 'moving house'.
-
Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.
.. but Earthlings can become Marslings, simply by 'moving house'.
In the words of the Duke of Wellington ...
just because you are born in a stable does not make you a horse
-
Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.
A name that basically no-one uses.
Should New-Yorkers live in New York all their lives?
-
Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.
A name that basically no-one uses.
Should New-Yorkers live in New York all their lives?
That would be better for everyone.
... ah this is upper fora ...
Ok, I think creatures evolved on earth should live in the environment they are best suited. I wouldn't advocate draining the sea to make it habitable for scorpions and snakes.
-
Ok, I think creatures evolved on earth should live in the environment they are best suited. I wouldn't advocate draining the sea to make it habitable for scorpions and snakes.
We are not really evolved to live in Dubai, but we have the technology to make life there bearable.
Moving to a new planet would merely be an extension of that. Quite a big extension, admittedly.
-
We also have environmental laws.
You can't just build a city in Antarctica just because we have the technology. You can't build on greenbelt land. You can't build on designated areas of natural beauty. Why wouldn't Mars be designated an area of outstanding natural beauty? Why is it ok to terraform it and turn it into a shit hole?
-
We are not really evolved to live in Dubai, but we have the technology to make life there bearable.
>humans are not really evolved to live in the (more or less) place of origin of humans
That's... quite a claim you've got there. I guess Paleolithic technology must have been amazing.
-
That's... quite a claim you've got there. I guess Paleolithic technology must have been amazing.
*sigh*.
The general point you are pretending not to understand for some reason is that humans currently live in regions where without the technology to build shelter and clothes and other ways to moderate the temperature they wouldn't be able to. Maybe Yakutsk is a better example.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/10604877/In-pictures-Yakutsk-in-Russia-the-coldest-city-on-Earth.html
-
Why is it ok to terraform it and turn it into a shit hole?
Well, given that it cannot currently sustain complex life, as far as we know, it's debatable how much damage we can actually do.
-
Since when is the desire to explore and learn considered a vice?
When you're wasting resources to "explore" a place that you already know is a barren wasteland, then it is in fact a vice, especially when your exploration efforts cost billions of dollars in an era where we are already hopelessly in debt.
It seems to me that they're discovering that Mars might not be as barren a wasteland as they once thought. Besides, doesn't it seem prudent to thoroughly explore a planet that you hope to colonize some day? Or do you think that humans should stay a one planet species?
Don't use weasel words like 'human'.
Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.
Huh? Since when is 'human' a weasel word? ???
-
We are not really evolved to live in Dubai, but we have the technology to make life there bearable.
>humans are not really evolved to live in the (more or less) place of origin of humans
That's... quite a claim you've got there. I guess Paleolithic technology must have been amazing.
Interesting. I thought that humans evolved in the plains of Eastern or Central Africa, not the Middle-eastern desert.
-
We are not really evolved to live in Dubai, but we have the technology to make life there bearable.
>humans are not really evolved to live in the (more or less) place of origin of humans
That's... quite a claim you've got there. I guess Paleolithic technology must have been amazing.
Interesting. I thought that humans evolved in the plains of Eastern or Central Africa, not the Middle-eastern desert.
Then we invented the parasol and moved to Dubai.
Point was, and remains, we have colonised parts of the planet that would could have had we not had the technology to do so.
-
The general point you are pretending not to understand
I'm not pretending not to understand anything. I just don't like people believing in things for the wrong reasons, even if I don't dispute their actual conviction.
Have humans spread to places they wouldn't otherwise have been able to live thanks to technological advances? Eh, arguably - it's not the craziest or most controversial of claims. Bit malformed, but I can guess roughly what you're getting at.
Is the fact that humans live in Dubai a good reason to believe it? Absolutely not - hominids inhabited the Persian Gulf before Steve Jobs even invented humans.
Yakutsk is slightly less wrong, but still ridiculously wrong, unless you think that Neolitic technological advances were particularly relevant here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ymyyakhtakh_culture).
Interesting. I thought that humans evolved in the plains of Eastern or Central Africa, not the Middle-eastern desert.
That's okay. We're used to you thinking things that are simply incorrect.
-
Interesting. I thought that humans evolved in the plains of Eastern or Central Africa, not the Middle-eastern desert.
That's okay. We're used to you thinking things that are simply incorrect.
Reference please.
-
Yakutsk is slightly less wrong, but still ridiculously wrong, unless you think that Neolitic technological advances were particularly relevant here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ymyyakhtakh_culture).
Well, given that according to the definition of Neolithic
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/neolithic
Anthropology. of, relating to, or characteristic of the last phase of the Stone Age, marked by the domestication of animals, the development of agriculture, and the manufacture of pottery and textiles: commonly thought to have begun c9000–8000 b.c. in the Middle East.Compare Mesolithic, Paleolithic.
Yes I do. If by technology you think I mean rad air-conditioning or cosy central heating then obviously we were able to survive in inhospitable climates before that - although it's notable that Dubai didn't become a major city until the invention of air-conditioning.
Even the ability to start and control fire - something which goes back hundreds of thousands of years:
https://www.history.com/news/human-ancestors-tamed-fire-earlier-than-thought
Is something I'd regard as a 'technology' necessary to survive in those climates. I'm using the word in the loosest possible terms.
-
although it's notable that Dubai didn't become a major city until the invention of air-conditioning
It's not notable, and it's not true. Dubai was still a relatively small city at the time of electrical air conditioning becoming commonplace. It was, however, also a relatively large city for its times long before the invention of electrical aircon - it was an important port, after all.
Its population really started to skyrocket in 1968 (many decades after the invention of electrical aircon), when the main source of income changed from pearls to oil.
-
I guess all of those major middle eastern cities simply appeared overnight after the air conditioner was invented and certainly haven't existed for several thousand years.
-
Ah, the old FE tactic of deliberately missing the point and derailing the thread.
The point was, and remains, we have developed technologies which allow us to survive in climates where we wouldn't otherwise be able to.
So why not Mars.
Well, to answer my own question there I'm not sure if our technology is quite that advanced yet, but people live in space for fairly long periods of time which is not the most hospitable climate, so in principle...
-
The point was, and remains, we have developed technologies which allow us to survive in climates where we wouldn't otherwise be able to.
You haven't substantiated that point. The best you've got so far is that sometimes we've come up with technology that allowed us to increase the population density of areas we already survived in - and that's ignoring the fact that your premises and conclusions are entirely disconnected.
Well, to answer my own question there I'm not sure if our technology is quite that advanced yet, but people live in space for fairly long periods of time which is not the most hospitable climate, so in principle...
Your principle is that we can supposedly send big metal boxes full of air into space. Let's entertain the idea for a moment. Why would we bother landing them on Mars? What benefit is there from chunking these eternal prisons onto a planet? They might as well just float around the Earth - easier to resupply.
-
This started when Thork suggested that as humans are from earth we should stay on earth.
I merely suggested that that is silly, it's like suggesting that New Yorkers born in New York should stay there.
We have the technology to survive in environments which we wouldn't naturally survive in so why shouldn't we go to Mars, if we have the technology?
Your question seems to be "why should we". Well, in the spirit of adventure I guess. Why go to the Poles or climb Everest? There's no actual "need" to do these things.
There is a school of thought that long term it's the only way we survive as a species because we'll probably bugger up this planet so much we won't be able to stay here, or a massive meteorite will come and do to us what it apparently did to the dinosaurs. For now though, I think it would be worth doing for the same reason we went to the moon "not because they are easy but because they are hard" (and yes, a big poke in the eye to those pesky Ruskies).
I don't think that there is any principle that because we are from earth we should stay here.
-
This started when Thork suggested that as humans are from earth we should stay on earth.
I merely suggested that that is silly, it's like suggesting that New Yorkers born in New York should stay there.
But these are completely incomparable. I can stop being in New York simply by walking to Jersey, and I'll be completely fine. Well, mostly fine. I'll be in Jersey.
We have the technology to survive in environments which we wouldn't naturally survive in so why shouldn't we go to Mars, if we have the technology?
You still need to substantiate that assertion. We have the technology to make life better in harsh environments, and we supposedly have the technology that lets us put a liveable environment in a big box. Neither of these translate into a technology that lets us meaningfully colonise Mars. Again, if you're just imagining a crapton of biodomes like in sci-fi movies - cut the middle-man, plonk them in orbit around the Earth. The outside will be deadly either way, so who needs a planet?
I don't think that there is any principle that because we are from earth we should stay here.
Again, I don't necessarily completely disagree with what you're trying to argue. But blimey, the reasons you're presenting are way off.
-
I think you have to decide what is natural, what is a place of beauty, what constitutes looking after things.
Example.
Uranium 235 is a natural thing we find on earth. Using it to start a nuclear war, most would regard as a bad thing. But all you are doing is moving one natural substance from one place to another. From deep in the ground to out in the atmosphere. Should we just nuke earth?
What about drilling oil and let it spill out into the sea? Its another natural substance ... why not add it to streams and coastlines?
So the answer to both those things is ... it makes those places hard to inhabit.
So is that the answer? Making a place good to live is always good?
Then why don't we just put a million houses on Yellowstone park? Make it so more people can live there?
Example 2
Some places are preserved because of their historical importance. You can't build a motorway through the pyramids. It might be useful, but we tend to protect those things. We don't dump old cars by the pyramids or dig an enormous refuse tip there. But we don't live there either. So we preserve some things just the way they are. Could mars be something we might like to preserve just the way it is, rather than option one where we make it habitable?
Example 3
If NASA are to be believed, they made a right mess of the moon. They left old landers there, a buggy, footprints, a flag and a bunch of other technical junk. Its no longer pristine. Now I would argue that in 2000 years, the moon landing site will be a tourist hotspot. People will love going there and seeing that ancient technology perfectly preserved on the moon. To think of people 2000 years earlier getting all the way to the moon for the first time and you can see that stuff exactly as they left it. So does creating landmarks (like the pyramids) similar to option 2, outweigh leaving the moon the way it was as set out by option one?
Do you
1) make everywhere somewhere you can live
2) preserve everything as you find it
3) change some things but only if the reason for changing them, is that change in itself adds value to the place concerned? This allows a landing site which will become historical, it does not allow mining Mars for resources.
-
I merely suggested that that is silly, it's like suggesting that New Yorkers born in New York should stay there.
the difference is that we evolved on this planet and are uniquely suited to live here (food source, gravity, breathable air, water, temperatures, etc). yes, i am sure they could possibly build something on Mars that could allow people to live there for a short time, but our bodies are not built for that environment. how would humans be able to live long term in that much reduced gravity? one step outside and they are dead. its no different than the ability to build an underwater city, which would be more feasable and cheaper by the way. that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.
-
I don't think that there is any principle that because we are from earth we should stay here.
Again, I don't necessarily completely disagree with what you're trying to argue. But blimey, the reasons you're presenting are way off.
I'm not really presenting reasons, more examples where we as humans live in environments which are hostile to us.
Yes, we don't need high tech to survive in places like Dubai or...that Russian town which I already forgot the name of. We just need shade in the former case and a means of keeping warm in the latter. To survive in space you need a bit more of a leap in technology but we've already done that. Mars would be another leap. One which right now I think may be beyond us but "we are from 'x' so we should stay in 'x'" is a poor argument, whether 'x' is a town, country or even planet.
-
the difference is that we evolved on this planet and are uniquely suited to live here (food source, gravity, breathable air, water, temperatures, etc). yes, i am sure they could possibly build something on Mars that could allow people to live there for a short time, but our bodies are not built for that environment. how would humans be able to live long term in that much reduced gravity? one step outside and they are dead. its no different than the ability to build an underwater city, which would be more feasable and cheaper by the way.
That's a fair point. I don't think gravity would be an issue, Mars' gravity is about a third of earth's, if anything that would be quite nice and allow people to move more freely. But the rest, yes, there is a difference that while places on Earth can prove challenging for humans because of the climate the air is breathable, the fact it isn't on Mars presents a whole new level of challenges. But as a species our technology is evolving, we've solved the problem of surviving in space, I think in time we could solve the problems involved on living on Mars. Whether we should is another debate.
that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.
Still pretending to be a Flat Earther, eh?
-
that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.
Still pretending to be a Flat Earther, eh?
You can take that to AR.
I don't think gravity would be an issue, Mars' gravity is about a third of earth's, if anything that would be quite nice and allow people to move more freely.
If Osteoporosis and birth defects are 'quite nice' then I guess you are right. The human body relies on gravity for all kinds of things. We are adapted to this environment.
-
This started when Thork suggested that as humans are from earth we should stay on earth.
I merely suggested that that is silly, it's like suggesting that New Yorkers born in New York should stay there.
But these are completely incomparable. I can stop being in New York simply by walking to Jersey, and I'll be completely fine. Well, mostly fine. I'll be in Jersey.
But you'll still be a New Yorker, and Thork says that you should stay in New York because he doesn't want you to ruin New Jersey.
-
If Osteoporosis and birth defects are 'quite nice' then I guess you are right. The human body relies on gravity for all kinds of things. We are adapted to this environment.
I don't know what data we can possibly have about the effect on humans of being conceived, born and living their lives on a planet with a different gravity because it's never happened. My gut feeling is we'd adapt OK but I can't imagine there's much data. We know about the effects of people who have lived in space for a year and then come back to earth but those are because of the sudden change from 0g to 1g, what the effects are of living an entire life in a 3rd of earth gravity would be can't possibly be known for sure.
-
the difference is that we evolved on this planet and are uniquely suited to live here (food source, gravity, breathable air, water, temperatures, etc). yes, i am sure they could possibly build something on Mars that could allow people to live there for a short time, but our bodies are not built for that environment. how would humans be able to live long term in that much reduced gravity? one step outside and they are dead. its no different than the ability to build an underwater city, which would be more feasable and cheaper by the way.
That's a fair point. I don't think gravity would be an issue, Mars' gravity is about a third of earth's, if anything that would be quite nice and allow people to move more freely. But the rest, yes, there is a difference that while places on Earth can prove challenging for humans because of the climate the air is breathable, the fact it isn't on Mars presents a whole new level of challenges. But as a species our technology is evolving, we've solved the problem of surviving in space, I think in time we could solve the problems involved on living on Mars. Whether we should is another debate.
that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.
Still pretending to be a Flat Earther, eh?
Would hardly discount 1/3 gravity as not an issue. Been proven to lead to massive muscle loss, bone density loss, etc... And it happens very quickly. I would bet on horrible results if a woman was to carry full term on Mars.
Pretending? The earth is flat if you believe it or not
-
Would hardly discount 1/3 gravity as not an issue. Been proven to lead to massive muscle loss, bone density loss, etc... And it happens very quickly. I would bet on horrible results if a woman was to carry full term on Mars.
Yes. it would lead to those things but if you're living in a lower gravity you don't need those things, those things ARE you adapting to the lower gravity.
The problem for people who spend a long time on the ISS is when they return to earth. It's the CHANGE in gravity which is the issue. But if people are living their whole lives on Mars then that wouldn't be a problem. No-one really knows what would happen if a woman went through a pregnancy in 0g or a reduced gravity and for pretty obvious reasons it would be unethical to test, although they could do so with other species I guess.
Gut feel is we'd adapt and it would be OK, but I'm pretty much guessing, as is anyone who says the reverse.
Pretending? The earth is flat if you believe it or not
I'll just leave this here...
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9906.msg155633#msg155633
-
Pretending? The earth is flat if you believe it or not
I'll just leave this here...
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9906.msg155633#msg155633
I'm going to give you one last warning about 'unmasking' FErs in a thread that has nothing to do with that, before I request that a mod strikes you down like a deity discovering a homosexual. Take it to AR! >o<
Yes. it would lead to those things but if you're living in a lower gravity you don't need those things, those things ARE you adapting to the lower gravity.
The problem for people who spend a long time on the ISS is when they return to earth. It's the CHANGE in gravity which is the issue. But if people are living their whole lives on Mars then that wouldn't be a problem. No-one really knows what would happen if a woman went through a pregnancy in 0g or a reduced gravity and for pretty obvious reasons it would be unethical to test, although they could do so with other species I guess.
Gut feel is we'd adapt and it would be OK, but I'm pretty much guessing, as is anyone who says the reverse.
https://www.wired.com/2009/08/spacebabies/
Plenty of experiments have been done on all kinds of other animals. It does not end well for those specimens.
-
Plenty of experiments have been done on all kinds of other animals. It does not end well for those specimens.
Interesting. Although I would point out that these were experiments which seemed to be simulating zero gravity rather than reduced gravity.
And some of the mice embryos did survive.
-
You'd end up with weak bones. And this is going to give you spinal defects and curly bones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADvLK0tBsZo
-
You'd end up with weak bones. And this is going to give you spinal defects and curly bones.
Tsk! No! Because you're living in lower gravity, your bones don't need to be as strong*. It's only if you returned to earth you'd be in trouble.
(* - not a doctor, but I doubt you are either)
-
I don't need to be a Dr. I'm very smart.
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time. An entire life like that and you'd never build strong bones. And those bones wouldn't form normally. When I look at other diseases that cause this same lack of healthy bones and deficiencies in chemical structure, you get deformity.
(https://www.sciencesource.com/Doc/SCS/Media/TR1_WATERMARKED/9/b/6/7/SS2867002.jpg?d63648813789)
This guy's dreams of being a goalkeeper at the world cup were cut short at an early age.
-
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.
How's that? The lower gravity I mean.
-
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.
How's that? The lower gravity I mean.
I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html
-
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.
How's that? The lower gravity I mean.
I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html
So what you meant was 'we have been told that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time'. Fair enough.
I was confused by 'we already see'.
-
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.
How's that? The lower gravity I mean.
I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html
And all that data is based on people living in MICRO-GRAVITY. So virtually 0g. That is NOT the same as someone living in a third of earth's gravity about which there is virtually no data. And, again, for the hard of thinking, if you live in a lower gravity environment you don't need your bones to be as strong. It's only if you returned to earth that you'd be in trouble.
-
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.
How's that? The lower gravity I mean.
I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html
So what you meant was 'we have been told that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time'. Fair enough.
I was confused by 'we already see'.
We ... as in mankind
already ... as in it has happened
see ... as in observe or have scientifically documented.
I don't know how you could have interpreted that any differently?
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.
How's that? The lower gravity I mean.
I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html
And all that data is based on people living in MICRO-GRAVITY. So virtually 0g. That is NOT the same as someone living in a third of earth's gravity about which there is virtually no data. And, again, for the hard of thinking, if you live in a lower gravity environment you don't need your bones to be as strong. It's only if you returned to earth that you'd be in trouble.
Sorry, I'll go back to explaining as though you are 10 years old.
Zero gravity means none.
We'll take earths gravity to be 100%
Therefore we can say Mars gravity is 38% of earth's gravity. Source (https://www.universetoday.com/14859/gravity-on-mars/)
So, if in 3 months your bones start losing all their calcium in zero gravity, at 38% they are going to lose a huge amount of it. Especially over a life time.
Now that means it won't be as extreme as zero gravity ... but there will be a notable difference. And that will effect you whther you are on earth or Mars because your bones will not grow to regular length and grow straight because you removed a lot of the material that is necessary for normal bone growth.
Imagine if you will, a deep sea fish. When we bring them to the surface, they die. It isn't that there is no pressure up at the surface ... it isn't zero pressure ... but it isn't the same as 4 miles deep either.
People have not evolved to live on Mars. Now, you could genetically engineer them to do so ... but by the time you changed their bones, respiratory system, CNS, etc ... they would be so different to a human that they would be another species ... one I will go ahead and call Martians. And they won't be able to breed with us. They won't be able to live with us. They will see us as an alien species and likely declare independence for Mars just as America did to the British ... and like the Americans will say it doesn't matter you are more powerful right now ... you are too far away so bring the war to us and see how you get on. And we'd lose. And now we have a hostile race of intelligent aliens living on the very next planet and all because you want more science. >:(
-
Would hardly discount 1/3 gravity as not an issue. Been proven to lead to massive muscle loss, bone density loss, etc... And it happens very quickly. I would bet on horrible results if a woman was to carry full term on Mars.
Yes. it would lead to those things but if you're living in a lower gravity you don't need those things, those things ARE you adapting to the lower gravity.
The problem for people who spend a long time on the ISS is when they return to earth. It's the CHANGE in gravity which is the issue. But if people are living their whole lives on Mars then that wouldn't be a problem. No-one really knows what would happen if a woman went through a pregnancy in 0g or a reduced gravity and for pretty obvious reasons it would be unethical to test, although they could do so with other species I guess.
Gut feel is we'd adapt and it would be OK, but I'm pretty much guessing, as is anyone who says the reverse.
Pretending? The earth is flat if you believe it or not
I'll just leave this here...
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9906.msg155633#msg155633
Ever consider I was always flat earth and that is just feeling out the site? Called investigation
-
see ... as in observe or have scientifically documented.
I don't know how you could have interpreted that any differently?
I was trying to find a way to make sense of your statement in a way consistent with your belief that no one has in fact gone into space and experienced weightlessness.
Hope that makes sense.
-
Ah,
This is FE investigations. I can take any side I like. Being as this thread is about the supposed water on Mars, I can either choose to moan and wail about NASA et al being a bunch of liars (which they are), or I can for the sake of the debate accept the assumption and then debate directly about the actual pros and cons of going to Mars, should is be possible.
Being as a I can moan and wail in the other FE boards, I can have a different kind of conversation if I just swallow the lie and progress the conversation from there ... which I chose to do for the sake of interesting debate. This thread isn't about Earth's shape, its about going to Mars to exploit its resources ... and I have a thing or two to say about that as well.
This new flexibility is why we added this board. You can understand that after several years of discussing earth's shape, its nice to be able to discuss other things not directly related.
-
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.
How's that? The lower gravity I mean.
I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html
Since when is NASA a credible source for anything? ???
-
We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.
How's that? The lower gravity I mean.
I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html
Since when is NASA a credible source for anything? ???
I just answered that in the post above. ::)
Anyhoo, I have a new policy of adding permanoobs to my blocked list and you are the biggest permanoob of all. Having abused your privileged to reply to me about anything other than earth's shape ... you shall become dead to me ... as Rama Set and some others have recently. Farewell. May your posts continue to be pointless and unnoteworthy so as I miss very little.
-
Ever consider I was always flat earth and that is just feeling out the site? Called investigation
Given your early posts and the fact I remember you announcing that you were switching sides not because you’d changed your position but because you thought it would be more fun to debate from that side, not really.
-
AATW, you have no business discussing that here. Given the debate club format, Round Eyes is welcome to debate either side as he pleases, so long as he remains sincere in his arguments. Your "outing" of him is nothing but off-topic posting, and I'd like to politely ask you to stop.
-
Ever consider I was always flat earth and that is just feeling out the site? Called investigation
Given your early posts and the fact I remember you announcing that you were switching sides not because you’d changed your position but because you thought it would be more fun to debate from that side, not really.
I bet you're fun at parties. Might want to learn some context on those earlier posts.
I think it makes you upset that I can argue my side and thoroughly defend my side, while you have all the science literature behind your side and struggle to even get your point across. I think that makes you really upset. Back to topic hopefully now?
-
Stop encouraging him.
Back to water on Mars ... and the ultimate question ... should we exploit that resource to inhabit the planet or should we preserve Mars as it is and only use it for scientific purposes ... like Antarctica.
-
Stop encouraging him.
Back to water on Mars ... and the ultimate question ... should we exploit that resource to inhabit the planet or should we preserve Mars as it is and only use it for scientific purposes ... like Antarctica.
From what I understand they already have the technology to create water from the CO2 in the atmosphere, so not sure why this discovery changes anything really. The water they found is at the pole, way to far from where they have discussed settlements. Extracting from a mile deep then transporting over that terrain over long distance isn't feasible. They have already thrown out the idea of Terra firming mars to establish atmosphere and change the planet. Yeah, what could go wrong there
The whole thing is a joke on many levels.
-
I think one of the major points is that this water would take a lot less energy to extract.
Also I'm not sure how you create H2O from CO2 being as you have a decided lack of hydrogen in CO2.
It could also be an indicator of the first extraterrestrial life ever found. Who knows? They live in a high radiation environment (thin atmosphere to protect them) so maybe they have anti-cancer adaptations ... which we could use back on earth.
-
I think one of the major points is that this water would take a lot less energy to extract.
Also I'm not sure how you create H2O from CO2 being as you have a decided lack of hydrogen in CO2.
It could also be an indicator of the first extraterrestrial life ever found. Who knows? They live in a high radiation environment (thin atmosphere to protect them) so maybe they have anti-cancer adaptations ... which we could use back on earth.
I think the idea was bringing along hydrogen gas, and wouldn't need much since the hydrogen componet of water is like 10% of its weight, so a little goes a long way, and then you keep /recycle the water that is produced.
Cleaning mars water with all the components is going to take a lot of energy as well.
Regarding life, I've always took issue with the notion that water equals life. Why on earth (pun intended) does life need to be carbon based elsewhere. Just because it is here, doesn't matter.
-
I suspect a better way to take water to mars is to burn oxygen and hydrogen as fuel ... as they already do ... but collect and keep the byproduct which is water. How you would do that when you need to throw the water out the back to get a mass flow rate, I don't know, but solving that problem would likely be the start of a decent terraformer.
Carbon has a very unique properly ... it can be bound with other things to form long chains necessary for amino acids, proteins, oils, sugars ... you can't do that with silicon or iron. Putting iron in a chain does sod all. There is a reason all composites are made of carbon. There is no sulphur-fibre body armour or lightweight tungsten nano tubes. Its got to be carbon ... nothing else can be so diverse and complex in structure. You cant have a sodium based diamond or a tree made out of Boron.
-
They have already thrown out the idea of Terra firming mars to establish atmosphere and change the planet. Yeah, what could go wrong there
It seems that any plans to terraform Mars are probably moot anyway seeing as there just isn't enough CO2 available to make much difference.
Sorry, Elon. There’s Not Enough CO2 To Terraform Mars
-
They have already thrown out the idea of Terra firming mars to establish atmosphere and change the planet. Yeah, what could go wrong there
It seems that any plans to terraform Mars are probably moot anyway seeing as there just isn't enough CO2 available to make much difference.
Sorry, Elon. There’s Not Enough CO2 To Terraform Mars
i think the fact it has even been discussed is a non-starter for me.