Large Hardon Collider

[Shiroikage]

max, you are a fucker

[Max™]

When you say thing like this

to defend your opinion, you obviously think highly of your thought experiments. If you werent using that defense in every arguments, I would ignore it, but it's not the first time. You always mention how great mind were persecuted, how similar your thought process is to Xth genius...etc.

I do believe you're misreading something in my statement, I was pointing out that many scientists use thought experiments, and mentioned a recognizable example. I wasn't defending the validity of my claim, I was defending the ability to "think real hard about shit" which I used to make the claim. Explaining why I reached certain conclusions, etc, etc, etc. You're conflating the two arguments, and flat out putting words in my mouth. I don't claim to be a genius, I don't compare myself to "geniuses", but it is neat when I see something from a well known scientist which mirrors what I was thinking, naturally.

I mean, seriously, it doesn't even bother you that our Earth contains 1.5% water? Explain me what happened to this 1.5% in your thought process? The planetoid only hit the mantle of the Earth, but avoided the crust? I could make educated guess, but shit, don't tell me your brain computed all that already...that's just not possible.

The intense heat and pressures of the collision would have removed a certain amount of water from the crust rocks, the exposure to vacuum as it cooled would have removed a certain amount of water, and in the end it seemed that you would find a similar level of remaining water content in deep mantle rocks (which undergo intense drying/pressure as well) as I expected they would find on the moon. That is how it works out when I build a proto-earth planet in my head, slap it with another planet at a steep enough angle to launch a large amount of material into orbit, and allow the material to cool. The composition of the second planet was unknown, unfortunately, but for this I assumed it is similar enough to the earth to just treat all of the launched material as earth rocks. Apparently I wasn't too far off.

There you go again with the "it's not possible" crap, and I already explained that, clearly I'm psychic.

Here, let me see if I can read your mind:

Spoiler: show

u mad

How'd I do?

[Kaylia]

So basically, in your model, the magma shoot up in space would coincidently happen to have the same amount of water as the magma on Earth? Which is off by a 1000 factor.

The intense heat and pressures of the collision would have removed a certain amount of water from the crust rocks, the exposure to vacuum as it cooled would have removed a certain amount of water, and in the end it seemed that you would find a similar level of remaining water content in deep mantle rocks (which undergo intense drying/pressure as well)

Vacuum pressure, how does it work?

[Kuya]

Hey Max, why do you think people are persecuting you?

[Tristam]

Max, you're doing something known as "hand waving". Which basically amounts to an educated guess when you don't really know much about the process. Scientists sometimes do it when they're asked a question they can't answer directly, but usually they're up front about the fact that they're making a "guesstimate" on limited information. It's basically speculation, not model building or thought experiments. You're speculative "model" was wrong on a number of levels, some of which were pointed out by the paper you casually wave around, and you're retreating back to saying only that "the moon should have more water than assumed". Well no fucking kidding, that's not a really big jump, and odds are at least 50/50 you would have been proven "correct" since more advanced detection methods are now able to detect trace amounts of water that weren't available when these rocks were first analyzed for water.

And yes, you DID make the absurd claim that you have different cognitive capabilities than others and that you're just plain able to magically see physics and "build modles" better than others. Then you invoked Einstein's name, as if your wild speculation had anything in common with a real physical model for something. Classic crackpot move.

[Shiroikage]

i have been saying max is a crank since forever

[Max™]

So basically, in your model, the magma shoot up in space would coincidently happen to have the same amount of water as the magma on Earth? Which is off by a 1000 factor.

Vacuum pressure, how does it work?[/

Deep mantle material water content =/= surface magma water content.

The rocks started out with a given amount on Earth, the heat/violence of the impact itself would remove quite a bit from the rocks, as would exposure to the vacuum. Where exactly do you think the water liberated from the rocks goes at that point?

Does it just vanish? There certainly wouldn't be any trace of it floating around in the vicinity of the newly formed ring system, and it definitely wouldn't want anything to do with the cooling ejecta at any point prior to the final formation of the moon, huh?

Why would I have thought that? Obviously any water which was near Earth orbit at that point flew off on random trajectories, totally ignoring the gravitational influence of the Earth and the ring material.


I didn't just randomly guess, I considered the mechanics of a roughly mars sized object striking a roughly earth sized object at a few thousand meters per second, with albeit simplified structure for the rock layers (just concentric spheres), and a certain amount of water content in the rock to start with.

You know a collision between objects that size at that velocity would take several minutes between the initial impact and the far side of the smaller object reaching the impact region?

After running it forward, besides noting that it is odd that we wound up with a single moon, rather than two or three, I noticed that there should have been a fairly large amount of water in the moon after it formed. The stresses on the material, and exposure to the extreme environment of the vacuum led me to think that I could find similar reductions of water levels in a rock which was subducted deep into the mantle.

I said I have a knack at visual modeling, which I've been using while studying physics for a long ass time. I didn't say shit about comparing myself to Einstein, you misread a statement comparing two thought experiments in which I merely chose a well known example. Had I brought up Dirac's belt, would you have gotten the reference?

[Tristam]

Except that your model is shit according to all evidence, including that which you cited. You don't understand solubility, you don't understand thermodynamics, you don't understand modeling. Your cavalier attitude towards science is insulting to people who are professionally invested in it, especially when you cherry pick and refuse to admit your mistakes. You haven't studied physics for a long ass time, I know people who have studied physics for a long ass time and it's so fucking specialized that the idea that someone can model planetary impacts and come up with an accurate amount for water on the moon in their head is fucking absurd. You CANNOT do this shit in your head, much smarter people are doing it with the benefit of technology, and some of that work is in the pnas paper which SHOWS HOW YOU ARE WRONG.

You're shitting up a thread that could be good again, as much as I like watching you flail about like a fool, could you at least have some respect for the people that care about the real science in this thread?

[BerenTebogo]

I will say, as I have absolutely zero knowledge of the topic at hand here as I've neither studied it nor looked into it recreationally, no scientist, no matter how great, finalized any theory or proposition off of solely a thought experiment. Einstein, Newton, or others can be cited as much as necessary but history has a way of making heroes out of men. Were they astoundingly brilliant? Yes. Did they model complex systems of equations and geometrical patterns in their head? Yes. Did they then proceed to subject the previous models, patterns, equations, and hypothesis to rigorous testing as well as peer review?

The answer is a resounding yes.

While I appreciate Max has zeal for the subject, which is great, and while I have equally as much zeal with probably even less anecdotal and self-researched knowledge, I see an extreme lack of humility, which is something that every scientist should have.

Should you advocate for your ideas in the face of reasonable dissent from your peers? Yes. Should you out and out dismiss well-reasoned and factual rebuttals by citing source material that is not your own? No. Absolutely not.

Again, I have zero understanding of the topic at hand, so I can't weigh in on the exact subject, but I can weigh in on the fact that even if Max is right he is going about it all wrong. Science is subject to peer review, scrutiny, and must be defended by the person submitting the work from and of their own work as it pertains to the currently accepted work in the field of study. Science is not law, and it is not reality TV, it is never about being adversarial, and if it is, you're doing it wrong. If you can't defend your topic on the facts and evidence alone then it isn't worth defending.

I ponder many things in my mind. Some I write down, some I don't. Some I consider to be extremely profound and I run them by my peers (many of whom are here) and sometimes I turn out to be on the right path, yet others I am way off base. When I am told, or shown, how and why my thinking is incorrect I appreciate it and I use that new knowledge to apply to later ideas. Again, I think taking any approach other than this when it comes to science is indicative, primarily, of a stark need for a personal perspective adjustment.

[Max™]

Tristan, you don't know enough to make these claims, but you're right it is has indeed gone on long enough.

Let's go with "I'm psychic", and leave it at that.


Sath, I didn't finalize a claim, I stated a possibility, and explained a bit about why. Then the whole "omg you can't possibly do that, where the fuck did you get that idea" shit started, I pointed out in the first place that it was just something I suspected based on "thinking about shit real hard", which got turned into "I'm absolutely certain shit will be like this" by others. Incidentally it appears either my "thinking about shit real hard" ability wasn't too far off, as there was more water after all, or I'm psychic obviously.

[Kaylia]

Deep mantle material water content =/= surface magma water content.

The rocks started out with a given amount on Earth, the heat/violence of the impact itself would remove quite a bit from the rocks, as would exposure to the vacuum. Where exactly do you think the water liberated from the rocks goes at that point?

Does it just vanish? There certainly wouldn't be any trace of it floating around in the vicinity of the newly formed ring system, and it definitely wouldn't want anything to do with the cooling ejecta at any point prior to the final formation of the moon, huh?

Why would I have thought that? Obviously any water which was near Earth orbit at that point flew off on random trajectories, totally ignoring the gravitational influence of the Earth and the ring material.

Way to repeat what I was saying in the old argument (what page was it anyway? I want to reread your first statement).

You're basically telling me the stuff will be drier than the Earth, but wetter than the previous minimum? Wetter than 1 part per 10 billions, drier than 1 part per one hundred...Yeah, odds were totally against you, especially after the discovery of some water on the Moon implying it was more than the minimum and less than the maximum.


For the 4th time, the rocks that were sent in space were warmed by the planetoid more than a little, and are cooled in vacuum. They won't have any properties similar to the magma on Earth. They will cooldown eventually, but it wont nr typical magma.
Not only this, these rocks will once again be turned into magma after landing on the Moon.

Prentending you know the composition of these to the "part per billion" is retarded

I didn't just randomly guess, I considered the mechanics of a roughly mars sized object striking a roughly earth sized object at a few thousand meters per second, with albeit simplified structure for the rock layers (just concentric spheres), and a certain amount of water content in the rock to start with.

Go for for the NASA or something. Even with their super computer, they have trouble to modelize what happened exactly.

You should write a paper as soon as possible too, they simply found that the magma had some water, they havent made the link yet with Earth-like magma. I'm sure they will be enlighted by such reasoning.

After running it forward, besides noting that it is odd that we wound up with a single moon, rather than two or three, I noticed that there should have been a fairly large amount of water in the moon after it formed. The stresses on the material, and exposure to the extreme environment of the vacuum led me to think that I could find similar reductions of water levels in a rock which was subducted deep into the mantle

So, your brain computation crashed, and you pressed "continue"?

If there is one big Moon, don't you think there is a chance that the "ring" might not have been one, invalidating your previous step.

[Chun Liroy]

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comi...timeisiit2.png

[kuronosan]

Tristan, you don't know enough to make these claims, but you're right it is has indeed gone on long enough.

Let's go with "I'm psychic", and leave it at that.


Sath, I didn't finalize a claim, I stated a possibility, and explained a bit about why. Then the whole "omg you can't possibly do that, where the fuck did you get that idea" shit started, I pointed out in the first place that it was just something I suspected based on "thinking about shit real hard", which got turned into "I'm absolutely certain shit will be like this" by others. Incidentally it appears either my "thinking about shit real hard" ability wasn't too far off, as there was more water after all, or I'm psychic obviously.

I'm a biologist, not a physicist, but I think we really need to go with "you're wrong" and leave it at that.

Leave your ego at the door or quit calling yourself a scientist. Your pick.

[Eliseos]

i have been saying max is a crank since forever

Nah, real scientists publish their contact information with their hotmail address in their publications.

[Shiroikage]

Nah, real scientists publish their contact information with their hotmail address in their publications.

well, naturally

[Max™]

I actually never said I was making specific findings about this field, as this was merely something I was thinking about out of idle curiousity, I simply stated something I expected would be found, and the reasons why. Feel free to continue reading too much into that though. :D

[Psion]

Personally, all I think a scientist really needs is a sense of wonder, and a lack of common sense. Science should always be about data, regardless of what common sense says. If you get caught up in what "should be" and not what it is, you're gonna miss out on a lot of big discoveries.

But what do I know, I'm just a young man going into chemistry because I can't really get a job in what I really want. But one day, I'll find a way to make my own dream come true, regardless of how impossible it might seem.

And seriously, just lay off on Max, you all are getting way too hyped up over nothing. Remember, asperger's is a lack of a dictionary for relating to others, and what you might have misinterpreted as egotism from Max's part is simply nothing at all, just a lack of understanding between you and him. I also have ASD myself, and I sometimes offend people without meaning to myself, simply because I didn't grasp some nuance. Do I apologize if I offend someone? Usually yes, but when I do so I apologize for saying it the wrong way, and not for saying something hurtful.

So uh, can we sorta get back to the topic of you know, science? I like hearing about new stuff, but drama is simply old news repeated over and over again, with different variations. :s

[Kryssan]

Personally, all I think a scientist really needs is a sense of wonder, and a lack of common sense. Science should always be about data, regardless of what common sense says. If you get caught up in what "should be" and not what it is, you're gonna miss out on a lot of big discoveries.

Science is always about data. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no loss in science. There is just data.






Data will always tell you something. Most of the time it tells you that you're a fucking moron and a complete idiot for trying whatever it was that yielded said data. That being said, it was still useful to know it. We might feel that we wish the data could be acquired in an easier method or one that didn't hurt as much. But information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not truth. Without the experience we could not know for sure the outcome, could not ascertain the extent of the data, and therefore it is a necessary part of the data.






All that being said. Max is still a quack. And he's nowhere near as adorable as the duck in those commercials. AFLAC MAX, AF-ucking-LAC.

[pahnphoenix]

Data will always tell you something. Most of the time it tells you that you're a fucking moron and a complete idiot for trying whatever it was that yielded said data. That being said, it was still useful to know it. We might feel that we wish the data could be acquired in an easier method or one that didn't hurt as much. But information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not truth. Without the experience we could not know for sure the outcome, could not ascertain the extent of the data, and therefore it is a necessary part of the data.

it's very important to keep such ideas in mind if you think ("really fuckin hard" or not) about science or philosophy and don't want to be led astray. while the quoted text is maybe a little quaint, there are important distinctions between information/knowledge/wisdom/truth; the distinctions themselves lie somewhere shifted to the right of that spectrum and are pretty difficult to tease out. even if you can't convincingly draw the lines between them, the thing that is of the most practical importance is to recognize which one you're dealing with in a given instance, and realize that each has its own kind of value and use.

understanding how to use data/information without making any claims about truth or knowledge is critically important, and one of the bigger skills you can take from science and bring into the rest of your life.

re: bickering, don't care.

[Eliseos]

This thread needs some love, so:

The European Space Agency's Venus Express is helping planetary scientists investigate whether Venus once had oceans. If it did, it may even have begun its existence as a habitable planet similar to Earth.

These days, Earth and Venus seem completely different. Earth is a lush, clement world teeming with life, whilst Venus is hellish, its surface roasting at temperatures higher than those of a kitchen oven.

But underneath it all the two planets share a number of striking similarities. They are nearly identical in size and now, thanks to ESA's Venus Express orbiter, planetary scientists are seeing other similarities too.
"The basic composition of Venus and Earth is very similar," says Håkan Svedhem, ESA Venus Express Project Scientist. Just how similar planetary scientists from around the world will be discussing in Aussois, France, where they are gathering this week for a conference.

One difference stands out: Venus has very little water. Were the contents of Earth's oceans to be spread evenly across the world, they would create a layer 3 km deep. If you were to condense the amount of water vapour in Venus' atmosphere onto its surface, it would create a global puddle just 3 cm deep.

Yet there is another similarity here. Billions of years ago, Venus probably had much more water. Venus Express has certainly confirmed that the planet has lost a large quantity of water into space.
It happens because ultraviolet radiation from the Sun streams into Venus' atmosphere and breaks up the water molecules into atoms: two hydrogens and one oxygen. These then escape to space.

Venus Express has measured the rate of this escape and confirmed that roughly twice as much hydrogen is escaping as oxygen. It is therefore believed that water is the source of these escaping ions. It has also shown that a heavy form of hydrogen, called deuterium, is progressively enriched in the upper echelons of Venus's atmosphere, because the heavier hydrogen will find it less easy to escape the planet's grip.

"Everything points to there being large amounts of water on Venus in the past," says Colin Wilson, Oxford University, UK. But that does not necessarily mean there were oceans on the planet's surface.
Eric Chassefière, Université Paris-Sud, France, has developed a computer model that suggests the water was largely atmospheric and existed only during the very earliest times, when the surface of the planet was completely molten. As the water molecules were broken into atoms by sunlight and escaped into space, the subsequent drop in temperature probably triggered the solidification of the surface. In other words: no oceans.

Although it is difficult to test this hypothesis it is a key question. If Venus ever did possess surface water, the planet may possibly have had an early habitable phase.

Even if true, Chassefière's model does not preclude the chance that colliding comets brought additional water to Venus after the surface crystallised, and these created bodies of standing water in which life may have been able to form.

There are many open questions. "Much more extensive modelling of the magma ocean-atmosphere system and of its evolution is required to better understand the evolution of the young Venus," says Chassefière.
When creating those computer models, the data provided by Venus Express will prove crucial.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0624091753.htm