Dr John Brandenburg - Mars destroyed by N bomb

[stickwhistler]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... rence.html


"In November 2014, plasma physicist Dr John Brandenburg revealed his theory that an ancient civilisation on Mars was massacred in a nuclear attack.

Now, he’s back, and he’s going to be presenting new evidence for his theory at a Nasa-sponsored conference today.

He claims there is no other explanation for his proposal that a ‘weapon’s signature’ remains from the attack on Mars."



I make no comment, merely post here so you can see what passes for science in the main stream media.

[nick c]

He claims there is no other explanation for his proposal that a ‘weapon’s signature’ remains from the attack on Mars

This is the type of twisted logic that results when uniformitarian dominated science is forced to deal with the obvious signature of catastrophes....natural catastrophes. They cannot accept what is plainly displayed before their eyes. The uniformitarian paradigm does not even permit the consideration that there is an alternative, that Mars was devastated by global catastrophes which were the result of relatively recent planetary catastrophism.

In the 1940's (long before space probes and when the mainstream was entertaining theories of higher forms of life on Mars) Velikovsky wrote that as a logical consequence of his theory, Mars would be found to be a destroyed world having had a series of contacts with planetary bodies larger and more massive than itself.

It is, rather, a dead planet; every higher form of life, of whatever kind it might have been, most probably had its' Last Day......

.....The "canals" on Mars appear to be a result of the play of geological forces that answered with rifts and cracks the outer forces acting in collisions...

....An interplanetary contact must have caused a conversion of motion into heat, and consequently resulted in an excess of thermal radiation over the quantity of heat brought to the planet by insolation.....

.....interplanetary electric discharges could also initiate atomic fissions with ensuing radioactivity and emission of heat.

From Worlds In Collision pp 364-8

The real irony of this theorized Martian nuclear holocaust is that it is a part of the human race's attempt to remember; not realizing that the threat of a world ending nuclear war is humankind's attempt to reenact the traumas of the past.

[chrimony]

The real irony of this theorized Martian nuclear holocaust is that it is a part of the human race's attempt to remember; not realizing that the threat of a world ending nuclear war is humankind's attempt to reenact the traumas of the past.

Psychobabble. The threat of nuclear war is a natural consequence of technological advancement and competing groups.

[nick c]

The threat of nuclear war is a natural consequence of technological advancement and competing groups.

Chrimony,
That is pitiful. You accuse me of resorting to psychobabble and then you respond with an absurd statement!
How is world destruction a "natural consequence of technological advancement"?
Obviously something is missing in your chain of logic.

[chrimony]

That is pitiful. You accuse me of resorting to psychobabble and then you respond with an absurd statement!
How is world destruction a "natural consequence of technological advancement"?
Obviously something is missing in your chain of logic.

I'm actually shocked that you consider my statement absurd. It seems completely obvious to me, though I will note you left off the part about "and competing groups" when you quoted me. Why is that?

The simple explanation for my statement is that war technology has always been advancing along with technology itself, as all else being equal, having better war technology is an advantage when fighting. The weapons became so advanced and devastating that they threaten worldwide calamity. Is this really controversial or hard to understand? Isn't that explanation a whole lot less far-fetched than yours?

[nick c]

It seems completely obvious to me, though I will note you left off the part about "and competing groups" when you quoted me. Why is that?

Because it is irrelevant. The issue reduces down to the question, what is rational behavior on a collective level?
Where is the rationality in obliterating and making uninhabitable the planet we live on?
Answer: War is not rational behavior, especially in an age when total destruction is a very real possibility. It is ritualistic and compulsive on a collective level. Excuse the psychobabble!

From your post it seems that because it has been around so long, you calmly except war as expected (like the author of the Martian nuclear war scenario) under the pretense that the winner stands to gain against a competing group.
Economists since Adam Smith, have studied the behaviors of "competing groups" and have concluded that specialization and trade are much less costly than war even for the victor. Is that not obvious? Most of the time human societies do behave under those principles, but inevitably they lapse into startling periods of irrationality.

How do you feel when confronted with the possibility that some rogue government or terrorist group obtains and is able to deliver nuclear weapons?

[Frantic]

The real irony of this theorized Martian nuclear holocaust is that it is a part of the human race's attempt to remember; not realizing that the threat of a world ending nuclear war is humankind's attempt to reenact the traumas of the past.

Nick, just to clarify. You are saying that, we(humanity) see the destruction in the evidence we find on Mars, but we interpret through a modern day human filter with all its emotional baggage? The trauma of the nuclear age has imprinted a fear on the mind that can influence thoughts, and we reenact the trauma with a new hypothetical aggressor? In error we think in human terms instead of the correct size and timescales where it is much much more logical to presume natural causes?

[nick c]

Or did you mean by Trauma's of the past, the literal traumas on the planets?

Yes, humans experienced celestial catastrophes which sparked the notion of world destruction or Doomsday. The collective effect is analogous to amnesia in an individual. The victim continually reenacts and recreates similar circumstances in an attempt to remember the original trauma.

[chrimony]

From your post it seems that because it has been around so long, you calmly except war as expected (like the author of the Martian nuclear war scenario) under the pretense that the winner stands to gain against a competing group.
Economists since Adam Smith, have studied the behaviors of "competing groups" and have concluded that specialization and trade are much less costly than war even for the victor. Is that not obvious? Most of the time human societies do behave under those principles, but inevitably they lapse into startling periods of irrationality.

Your statement amounts to, "Can't we all get along?" Yet nature is full of violent conflict. Humans are no exception. And sometimes they just can't get along, even when it leads to more loss than a peaceful solution, because people aren't robots and have emotions. You don't need to invoke an ancient cosmic catastrophe that somehow causes people to go to war.

How do you feel when confronted with the possibility that some rogue government or terrorist group obtains and is able to deliver nuclear weapons?

It sucks, but the only way to prevent that would have been to stop war and technological progress. The nuclear bomb was a result of a war and a technological arms race, which is a very mundane explanation compared to the idea that humanity subconsciously wishes to bring about the end of the world and invented nuclear bombs to do it to reenact a cosmic event from what, 100 thousand+ years ago? Come on, Nick.

[moses]

Chimony,
My friend, the owner of a mining company tells me about his secretary who was raped and now claims that this has affected every aspect of her life. Pscho-babble he calls it too. But she claims that all the people she meets contrive to remind her of that traumatic past event. Paranoia says my friend.

How could one's past trauma possibly affect other people's behaviour. It would be like they could see the trauma and are compelled to respond to it. Nobody could consider this possible, except, of course, unless you were a new age psychotherapist. Because they see this sort of thing all the time. And this effect has enormous implications in all the relationships one has.

And I don't see much difference between the mainstream mind that can't see past catastrophes and the mainstream mind that totally rejects the possibility of the above effect.
Cheers,
Mo

[nick c]

come on chrimony,

Your statement amounts to, "Can't we all get along?" Yet nature is full of violent conflict. Humans are no exception. And sometimes they just can't get along, even when it leads to more loss than a peaceful solution

I find it interesting that you think that destroying the planet and making it uninhabitable is a rational situation.

because people aren't robots and have emotions.

You are confusing individual behavior with that of the collective. Or are you saying that humans are not behaving rationally on the collective level?

[chrimony]

My friend, the owner of a mining company tells me about his secretary who was raped and now claims that this has affected every aspect of her life.

And imagine all the untold number of horrors that have happened to your ancestors at some point or another, even if there was no cosmic catastrophe. Do they impact every aspect of your life? You're comparing a traumatic event that happened to a woman, and how it impacts her life, to a hypothesized event from thousands of years ago and claiming that humans subconsciously desire to reenact this event.

I find it interesting that you think that destroying the planet and making it uninhabitable is a rational situation.

I didn't say it was rational. I said it was a natural consequence of war and technological progress, that nature is inherently violent, and humans are no exception. Invoking a cosmological event from 100+ thousand years ago is unnecessary and absurd, and I dismiss it with Occam's razor.

You are confusing individual behavior with that of the collective. Or are you saying that humans are not behaving rationally on the collective level?

Both. Is this some surprising revelation? Are you claiming that humans always act rationally, except when an event from 100+ thousand years ago occurred?

[Metryq]

Forgive the off-topic post, but has anyone read the book yet?

[viscount aero]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... rence.html


"In November 2014, plasma physicist Dr John Brandenburg revealed his theory that an ancient civilisation on Mars was massacred in a nuclear attack.

Now, he’s back, and he’s going to be presenting new evidence for his theory at a Nasa-sponsored conference today.

He claims there is no other explanation for his proposal that a ‘weapon’s signature’ remains from the attack on Mars."



I make no comment, merely post here so you can see what passes for science in the main stream media.

This is a NASA-sponsored lecture event? So they will entertain alien life on Mars that destroyed itself but not plasma phenomena?

[Metryq]

This is a NASA-sponsored lecture event? So they will entertain alien life on Mars that destroyed itself but not plasma phenomena?

Don't forget NASA's Alcubierre "warp drive," which relies on twisted space and "exotic matter" never before identified. But otherwise, yes, they're hardcore scientists.