Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Mars and Jupiter collision

  1. #1 Mars and Jupiter collision 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    I have looked at the topography of Mars and have come to the conclusion that it was formed primarily by a cataclysmic event with Jupiter.
    I made a video to show basically what I am suggesting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PD2_ztATm0

    So... What do you think?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I think you have considerable skill as a computer artist, but your grasp of planetary dyanmics, geochemistry, meteorite character, the evolution of Mars, and a host of related topics is so strongly inadequate that it is scarcely worth commenting on the weakenesses of your fairy story. (As a fairy story it is first rate. As a piece of science it is laughable.)

    If you wish I shall be happy to detail why it is such an absurd proposal. Otherwise I wish you well in a career as a graphic artist.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    I beg to differ sir.

    Could you be more specific?

    I would actually love to hear why you think it is wrong past the point of considering.

    :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    1. Mars could only be captured by Jupiter if a third body were involved. What was this third body.
    2. There is no plausible mechanism by which Mars could be captured, then released by Jupiter. If you believe there is please show the maths of the process.
    2. You state that once captured, Jupiter begins to "bend and warp" the planet, creating the Highlands and Lowlands. Please explain how this "bending and warping" creates a lowland area with a thin crust and relatively few craters and a highland area with a thick crust and many craters. Further explain how this "bending and warping" caused residual magnetism to be found only in the Highlands.
    3. You state "as the little planet passes into the shadow of the giant planet, its surface and atmosphere have become a turbulent mess". Your implication is that passage into the shadow is responsible for this turbulent mess. Since the planet will be passing in and out of shadow in a period of days this statement is ambiguous at best.
    4. Demonstrate mathematically that the distance at which L1 enters the body of Mars is greater than the Roche limit.
    5. Why will this situation, supposing for a moment that it can actually occur, "carve a giant crater into its surface"? Where is this giant crater on Mars today?
    6. Explain how "thousands" of asteroids can now "hover in the no-man's land between the two planets".
    7. Then, miraculously it seems, Mars moves away from Jupiter and the asteroids stop hovering! Really, if you had even a passing grasp of orbital mechanics you would not make such assinine statements. If you believe I am mistaken show me the maths - in simplified and approximate form if you wish - that demonstrates I am wrong.
    8. You state that the majority of these asteroids return to Mars, but a proportion of them go on to form the asteroid belt. Please explain how you reconcile an age for the asteroids that is greater than the age of Mars.
    9. The sound quality of your video, coupled with your nasal congestion make it diffcult to make out some sections. You appear to say that some of the asteroids are not the familiar irons and stones, but are made of "air and water". Certainly you say that as they hit they will cause "high velocity air to rush from the Highlands to the Lowlands". Please explain how air was retained in low mass asteroid.
    10. Explain how the impact of asteroids would cause the "formation of massive volcanoes". Well over one hundred impact structures are known on the Earth. None of them caused any vulcanism.

    Any one of these ten points is sufficient to invalidate your speculation. Together they render it simply wrong.

    Edit: deleted the inadvertent are from the last sentence of point 10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    1. Mars could only be captured by Jupiter if a third body were involved. What was this third body.
    Clearly Jupiter has managed to capture a number of rocky bodies already. Or else where would it get its moons from?

    The largest ones are only about a sixth the size of Mars, though.




    2. There is no plausible mechanism by which Mars could be captured, then released by Jupiter. If you believe there is please show the maths of the process.
    The release can happen due to tidal forces. For example: the Moon recedes approximately 38mm away from the Earth every year.



    2. You state that once captured, Jupiter begins to "bend and warp" the planet, creating the Highlands and Lowlands. Please explain how this "bending and warping" creates a lowland area with a thin crust and relatively few craters and a highland area with a thick crust and many craters. Further explain how this "bending and warping" caused residual magnetism to be found only in the Highlands.
    Just to add: Jupiter is known to bend and warp its moons. This is due to varying gravitational forces caused by their elliptical orbits bringing them closer or further away from Jupiter.

    In particular IO is known to get a lot of it's heat from tidal forces as its movement around Jupiter causes it to bulge and contract.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating

    I agree, however, that there's no reason the warping would necessarily lead the predicted outcomes.

    3. You state "as the little planet passes into the shadow of the giant planet, its surface and atmosphere have become a turbulent mess". Your implication is that passage into the shadow is responsible for this turbulent mess. Since the planet will be passing in and out of shadow in a period of days this statement is ambiguous at best.
    Agreed. I doubt the shadow really affects anything all that much.


    5. Why will this situation, supposing for a moment that it can actually occur, "carve a giant crater into its surface"? Where is this giant crater on Mars today?
    It would be good if Marcus could give a better explanation for that. I know he mentioned a Lagrange point. Are we assuming that Mars had gotten to be tidally locked so that it would always face the same side toward Jupiter? (This condition is also true of IO).



    6. Explain how "thousands" of asteroids can now "hover in the no-man's land between the two planets".
    Yeah... the Lagrange point isn't going to be large enough to accommodate a lot of asteroids.

    7. Then, miraculously it seems, Mars moves away from Jupiter and the asteroids stop hovering! Really, if you had even a passing grasp of orbital mechanics you would not make such assinine statements. If you believe I am mistaken show me the maths - in simplified and approximate form if you wish - that demonstrates I am wrong.
    It's not that big of a miracle. (The part about moving away, anyway.)

    8. You state that the majority of these asteroids return to Mars, but a proportion of them go on to form the asteroid belt. Please explain how you reconcile an age for the asteroids that is greater than the age of Mars.
    9. The sound quality of your video, coupled with your nasal congestion make it diffcult to make out some sections. You appear to say that some of the asteroids are not the familiar irons and stones, but are made of "air and water". Certainly you say that as they hit they will cause "high velocity air to rush from the Highlands to the Lowlands". Please explain how air was retained in low mass asteroid.
    Certain asteroids in the Asteroid Belt are known to have a significant water-ice component. The largest one, Ceres, may have more water than the total amount of fresh water on Earth (but not more than the oceans.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#Internal_structure


    10. Explain how the impact of asteroids would cause the "formation of massive volcanoes". Well over one hundred impact structures are known on the Earth. None of them are caused any vulcanism.
    Yeah. I have to agree it probably wouldn't cause any vulcanism.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Clearly Jupiter has managed to capture a number of rocky bodies already. Or else where would it get its moons from?

    The largest ones are only about a sixth the size of Mars, though.
    Well, the larger ones formed from protoplanetary disks just as the planets formed from the protostellar disk in the solar system.

    The irregulars (tiny rocks, some of which orbit retrograde) are most likely captured asteroids. None of that has anything to do with a capture and release of Mars scenario.

    The release can happen due to tidal forces. For example: the Moon recedes approximately 38mm away from the Earth every year.
    Balony. Please show the math. The Moon will be in orbit around the earth for the rest of the lifetime of the earth and the moon.

    Just to add: Jupiter is known to bend and warp its moons. This is due to varying gravitational forces caused by their elliptical orbits bringing them closer or further away from Jupiter.

    In particular IO is known to get a lot of it's heat from tidal forces as its movement around Jupiter causes it to bulge and contract.
    It flexes it's moons, causing tidel heating. Again, totally unrelated to the assertions of the OP. And BTW, it's Io.

    I agree, however, that there's no reason the warping would necessarily lead the predicted outcomes.
    As you said. OMG, we agree on something!!

    Yeah... the Lagrange point isn't going to be large enough to accommodate a lot of asteroids.
    And remember, Lagrange points are not, in the long term, stable. Some more so than others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    1. Mars could only be captured by Jupiter if a third body were involved. What was this third body.
    Clearly Jupiter has managed to capture a number of rocky bodies already. Or else where would it get its moons from?
    The Galilean moons and several of the others (with circular, prograde, coplanar orbits) are thought to have formed from a local accretion disc around Jupiter, in the same way the planets formed around the sun. The smaller satellites are either asteroids or dead comets captured by mechanisms such as gas drag from an expanding atmosphere, enlargement of the Hill sphere, or enhanced collisions. These mechanisms would not work on a planet the size of Mars.

    The release can happen due to tidal forces. For example: the Moon recedes approximately 38mm away from the Earth every year.
    I would need to plunge into some calculations I am currently incompetent at, to demonstrate to you that the time scales involved would make this impractical for the Mars scenario. Moreover the moon only moves away until such time as the Earth is tidally locked with it. At this point the direction is reversed. (That's theoretical since the time to reach that point takes us past the red giant stage for the sun.)

    It would be good if Marcus could give a better explanation for that. I know he mentioned a Lagrange point. Are we assuming that Mars had gotten to be tidally locked so that it would always face the same side toward Jupiter? (This condition is also true of IO).
    If he is going for tidal locking then again, I strongly suspect, his time scale will be out, plus he now needs a process to allow Mars to escape from Jupiter's gravity and spin itself up to a 24 hr day. Where is the angular momentum coming from. Unless he can model that with some degree of plausibility his idea is dead in the water.

    There is a heck of a lot of water in the asteroids. The Earth's oceans may have been supplied courtesy of asteroids rather than comets. But marcus says there were comets with air, that generate massive flows when they strike Mars.

    Edit: I've just noted that Wayne had already addressed a couple of your points, so there is some repetition in my post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Edit: I've just noted that Wayne had already addressed a couple of your points, so there is some repetition in my post.
    That's OK with me. Sometimes it helps to have more that one rational person make a point or three
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    Nice level of dialogue, I'm impressed.

    Ok some point to clear up.

    The shadow of mars...when I showed the video to a friend they were confused by Mars going dark. I thought it best to mention why it went dark, it is unrelated to the turbulence.

    This is basically a flyby of Jupiter by Mars, the momentum gain by falling into Jupiter's gravitational well is sufficient to get it back out. By capured I really meant "enter the Hill sphere" but decided it was too esoteric jargon. I almost dropped Lagrangian as well but it was more vital to the concept so I went with a terse explanation.

    The warping of Mars is by coming uncomfortably close to the Roche limit, this is related to the tidal forces being talking about.

    All the asteroids were created by the L1 point entering Mars (at ~1.7 Jrad) so the started there. But you are right when you say the don't stay there, it is a small unstable region and their momentum carries them off quickly. Just noting that will not fall as fast as normal due to conflicting gravitational field

    The giant crater is the Hellas crater, the video end with a texture map of Mars from Nasa so you can trace it back.

    The asteroids have Mars' momentum so they travel with Mars away from the L1 point and into region where Mars can regain it's gravitational dominance...well some do.

    The atmosphere follows a similar trajectory as the iron and stone so it returns at the same time. I can see how you interferred "Little Prince" asteroids with atmosphere. The proper term is bolide but I dropped it due to the jargon reason given above.

    Thanks for the great posts, I'll get to any missed or new points shortly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus MacGregor
    Nice level of dialogue, I'm impressed.
    So far that makes one of us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus MacGregor
    The warping of Mars is by coming uncomfortably close to the Roche limit, this is related to the tidal forces being talking about.
    You are generating Hellas and the crustal dichotomy from this warping. This would require that Hellas be more or less central within the Highlands. It isn't. So you need to add a further mechanism to account for that. What is it?

    The age of Hellas is not consistent with your speculation, since it postdates the creation of the crustal dichotomy.

    I'd like you to address all the points eventually, but for the moment could we stay with the age questions:
    1) Age of meteorites versus age of Martian surface.
    2) Age of crustal dichotomy versus age of Hellas.

    You know, as I look at this more closely it gets, as Alice might say, wronger and wronger. How does your speculation explain: chondritic meteorites; the concentration of carbonaceous chondrites (i.e. C-type asteroids) towards the outer part of the asteroid belt; the existence of the HED group; the Tharsis Bulge; the relative crater count, higlands vs lowlands; etc.? Don't address those now - focus on the age issues, but there is a stream of issues here. New hypotheses should offer a superior explanation to observations, not inferior.

    As a sidebar discussion point, if you are serious about this why go the cartoon route to present the idea instead of a properly formulated research paper? I'm afraid that brands you up front as a misguided amateur. Flashy videos might convince the youtube generation, but they'll leave any scientifically inclined person unimpressed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    Ok first off let's get an estimate of the mass of the mass escavated from Hellas during this event.
    Let's take high values so 9km deep, 1150 radius, density 3.9 kg/l

    This lead to a value of 1.45 x 10^20 kg

    Now the mass of the asteroid belt is about 2.9 x 10^21 kg

    Thus only a percentage of the asteroid belt would have a Martian origin.
    5% x fraction which do not collide with Jupiter or Mars
    So only a fraction of asteriod must be consistant and the HED group you mention with its igneous effects makes it a frontrunner.

    Now there are two main sources for determining age; Crater counting and radiometric dating. The event described adds a large source of error to both of these.

    Let's focus on crater counting, the returning debis will preferentially strike the southern half of the planet. This is the primary source of the age problem you mention.

    The hellas crater is central to a large highland region, but not the entire southern half. The southern half is caused by Mars approaching north of Jupiter while spinning. This is shown in the video. Thus a high altitude deformation covers the southern half.

    To address the sidebar note, sure a high detail scientific paper in a journal is a great idea. The first step in doing so is to get a good list of the points a peer reviewer will find exception with. Thus I needed to find a person who is antagonistic and highly knowledgable. (A nice novice just says it is pretty which does not help me) The internet is a great place to find an antagonist. You are the best candidate I have found so far and I thank you for your challenging questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    This is an odd news report from today...


    New solar system formation models indicate that Jupiter's foray robbed Mars of mass
    June 5, 2011

    article

    Planetary scientists have long wondered why Mars is only about half the size and one-tenth the mass of Earth. As next-door neighbors in the inner solar system, probably formed about the same time, why isn't Mars more like Earth and Venus in size and mass? A paper published in the journal Nature this week provides the first cohesive explanation and, by doing so, reveals an unexpected twist in the early lives of Jupiter and Saturn as well.

    Dr. Kevin Walsh, a research scientist at Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®), led an international team performing simulations of the early solar system, demonstrating how an infant Jupiter may have migrated to within 1.5 astronomical units (AU, the distance from the Sun to the Earth) of the Sun, stripping a lot of material from the region and essentially starving Mars of formation materials.

    "If Jupiter had moved inwards from its birthplace down to 1.5 AU from the Sun, and then turned around when Saturn formed as other models suggest, eventually migrating outwards towards its current location, it would have truncated the distribution of solids in the inner solar system at about 1 AU and explained the small mass of Mars," says Walsh. "The problem was whether the inward and outward migration of Jupiter through the 2 to 4 AU region could be compatible with the existence of the asteroid belt today, in this same region. So, we started to do a huge number of simulations.

    "The result was fantastic," says Walsh. "Our simulations not only showed that the migration of Jupiter was consistent with the existence of the asteroid belt, but also explained properties of the belt never understood before."

    The asteroid belt is populated with two very different types of rubble, very dry bodies as well as water-rich orbs similar to comets. Walsh and collaborators showed that the passage of Jupiter depleted and then re-populated the asteroid belt region with inner-belt bodies originating between 1 and 3 AU as well as outer-belt bodies originating between and beyond the giant planets, producing the significant compositional differences existing today across the belt.

    The collaborators call their simulation the "Grand Tack Scenario," from the abrupt change in the motion of Jupiter at 1.5 AU, like that of a sailboat tacking around a buoy. The migration of the gas giants is also supported by observations of many extra-solar planets found in widely varying ranges from their parent stars, implying migrations of planets elsewhere in universe.

    More information: "A Low Mass for Mars from Jupiter's Early Gas-Driven Migration," Nature, June 5, 2011.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Not the first time the influence of Jupiter has been proposed to account for that. If correct this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of your hypothesis. It was good of you to point it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus MacGregor
    This is an odd news report from today...


    New solar system formation models indicate that Jupiter's foray robbed Mars of mass
    June 5, 2011
    So, are you suggesting that, rather than actually orbiting Jupiter as a moon, that Mars may have simply passed very close to Jupiter at some point in its early development?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    Yes kojax that is exactly whatI am suggesting.

    And no Ophiolite this adds weight to my hypothesis. A great deal of weight.


    BTW I have debunked your lame attempts to debunk me, have you given up and admitted defeat yet? Just admit it your "No it wrong but I have no reason to back up my stance" is just your having problems in imagining how strange the universe can be. Or do you have another counterexample concept you have not shared yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus MacGregor
    Thus I needed to find a person who is antagonistic and highly knowledgable. The internet is a great place to find an antagonist. You are the best candidate I have found so far and I thank you for your challenging questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus McGregor
    BTW I have debunked your lame attempts to debunk me, have you given up and admitted defeat yet?
    Consistency and honesty are not your strong suits, I see.

    Marcus your hypothesis is both infantile and ignorant. I am doing you the courtesy of treating it seriously. If you do wish to work with me to adapt your proposal so it has some semblance of plausibility I am willing to do so. If, instead, you intend to indulge in petty schooll yard sqabbling I'll blow your sorry ass so far out of the water the Innuit will mistake it for a new star. Which is it to be? Your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Marcus, just because you've managed to avoid one round of debunking doesn't mean your theory is necessarily a strong one. It just means that it may fall within the realm of possibility (if it doesn't fall prey to some other serious flaw). Probably the standard theory of Mars' development is still stronger. However, I still want to understand the theory better before drawing any conclusions.

    If we're just talking about Mars passing near Jupiter, then you're still saying the Lagrange point was beneath the surface for a moment. And I'm sure you're not really trying to discuss the Lagrange point itself. You're just saying that material at the surface of Mars was more strongly pulled upon by Jupiter's gravity than by Mars' gravity - for a moment.

    Wouldn't the friction created by all that contortion create a lot of heat, turning the planet into a big ball of magma? If it's a ball of magma, then after it gets out of Jupiter's reach, it's unlikely for there to be a big crater left over. The planet would just reform into a sphere, like water in a water balloon. The only way to get a deformation away from spherical shape is if the planet is in a solid, or at least semi-solid state when it happens, or if it cools very quickly afterward, while it's still in that shape.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    You're right kojax, passing the first round does not mean truth.

    The heat involved is an interesting point. Generally I considered the heat to be a bigger problem with the giant impact of the standard theory.

    I am indeed discussing the Lagranian L1 point itself entering the solid surface, to the same depth as hellas. So about 7-9 km.

    Mars should be travelling around the escape velocity of Jupiter at the time so around 60 km/second, so a very quick cut.

    So I have to get a good rough calculation on the tidal heating during the entire event. That may take a bit, unless a forum reader knows of some good resources for this kind of calculation offhand.

    Off the top of my head I am going to posit a few ideas.

    1) That there are also massive drops in pressure which lead to cooling.
    2) The heat is carried away. For example, by the boiling of water ice with the vapour being carried away with the atmosphere.
    3) The entire event has a time period measured in days and this is too short a time to heat up to molten

    Now some numbers have to be crunched to see which of these would be minor and which would be dominant.

    Interestingly, this may be the key at getting the earliest possible date of the event. A "brand new" Mars which is still molten from heat of formation cannot be a candidate. A "warmest possible Mars" could be extracted from the heating calculation and this temperature compared to the predicted time for that temperature.

    There is of course a great deal of solidified lava on Mars, but that is a feature of the mainstream theory as well. If someone could find the heat calculation from the giant impact mainstream view that would be very helpful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    Ok so here is an extremely rough ballpark estimate of heat added
    Let's assert that the frictional force and thus heat is proportional to the change in gravitational potential energy and estimate high for all values.
    Let's take the surface to mean the top 9 km of the planet.
    Let's say all of it gets moved 9 km straight up.
    Let take the delta E to be mgh.
    delta T equals delta E/(mass*specific heat)
    masses cancel.
    Let's take the specific heat to be equal to that of granite.
    That leads to a high estimate of 42 degrees celsius change in temp.

    (Io is very hot because this happens over and over not just once; like rubbing sticks together)

    Let's take a look at the standard model doing lowball estimates
    Hit by a pluto sized planet.
    Thus the velocity is around the escape velocity of Mars 5km/s
    Let's say the impacting planet transfers half its kinetic energy as heat then doesn't affect calculation.
    thus delta E= 1/2 *1/2 * (mass of pluto) * 5000m/s* 5000m/s
    The mass of pluto is equal to the top 23km of the martian surface.
    Again taking the specific heat of granite
    This leads to the top 23 km rising by 7900 degrees

    Thus the melting of the surface is highly likely in the standard model and highly unlikely in the proposed model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9
    A little update:
    I have had some discussions with some planetary scientists about this idea and have been told that the idea looks promising.
    It is now just the fairly labourious task of getting the idea published.
    The model's has changed slightly since the video due to some insightful suggestions:
    Rather than an outward from Sun approach and an inward departure; it is now a L4/L5 crossing.
    Also it is not solely L1 gravitational interaction causing the ejection of matter, but the explosive decompression of dissolved gases in the mantle that such an interaction would trigger.


    My thanks to The Science Forum for giving me a good platform to discuss my initial concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus MacGregor View Post
    A little update:
    I have had some discussions with some planetary scientists about this idea and have been told that the idea looks promising.
    It is now just the fairly labourious task of getting the idea published.
    My thanks to The Science Forum for giving me a good platform to discuss my initial concept.
    Are you the first individual to put forward this scenario?
    Also, given you claim you have been told the idea has merit, by planetary scientists, I don't really understand why you believe the process of "getting the idea published" is going to be a "laborious task".
    Last edited by Halliday; November 13th, 2011 at 05:33 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Nice graphic skills with the vids, but lacking science.

    Pretty clear pseudoscience.
    For starters: Run some orbital models that show it's even possible, explain the composition of Mars, which seems to match other models better.
    Moving this.
    Lynx
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •