Scientists have no idea what made this huge hole on Mars

There is a dichotomy here - science and astrology. My argument is with the latter.

 

Yet you keep insisting you have sufficient understanding to dispute whole fields of science....and medicine for that matter, which is closely linked. Fascinating.

I am starting to believe that a degree (or preferably Doctorate) in abnormal psychology is not only useful for spending time on this site, it might be essential.

 

did those scientists set fire to those chems in outer space? are they suggesting that everything we see is on fire? if not on fire, then the colors represent something else... as we have no direct knowledge/tangable proof, then there could be other elements as of yet unknown that emit same colors as known ones... way too many 'ifs'...

 

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. If you’re saying Mars is a waste how do you suggest we learn and acquire the knowledge needed to travel to another planet?

No one is suggesting we go there now, but without exploration we will never learn.

 

Source for what Spectroscopy? first let me know what type of sources you would accept and I’ll get back to you.

 

I agree with you, I have no faith in astrology, it’s pure junk, but I’ll assume you mean astronomy and astrophysics.

Astrophysics is subject to peer review and the scientific method just as much as chemistry, biology and other fields of physics. If you have an issue with astrophysics then I guess the same would apply to theoretical physics and quantum theory and the work carried out at CERN.

 

Did the hole form after Trump was elected??

 

I think there are squid in the moons of the Jovian and Saturnial undersea oceans

 

LOL. It's not just the colours! Each element has a unique frequency signature spectrum. And no, there are no unknown natural occurring stable elements left to be discovered.

 

an assumption (some call 'educated guess') based on what we know , here on earth, at the moment & using instruments built by scientists to detect them... it's possible they got the instruments wrong, it's equally possible that there are 'things' in space that alter signatures/frequencies and that we don't know they exist, ergo incorrectly assuming they are reading data correctly, with made made instruments that might not be absolute...

to say otherwise is pure arrogance...

 

Not an assumption. There aren't any missing stable elements in the periodic table. Do you know what makes an element an element and what action on an element gives the observed spectrum? Did you know that helium was identified on the sun before it was found on earth by measuring the spectrum of EM waves emitted by the sun using these man made instruments?

 

Mars had a big zit and it popped.

Next question.


Second guess
Or maybe something like the ones appearing in Siberia.
A pool of something with a lower evaporation temperature, evaporating.
Leaving an empty reservoir / pool.


Moi

​

 

You're not getting the most basic question of all, viz.: supposing they found an exact replica of this planet (I mean for one thing what would be the chances?) - how would the entire population of Earth get there; and if it could, how would the available space be apportioned according to the varied ethnic, religious, regional mindsets and ideologies, etc? And with that impossibility in mind, what would be the selection process anyway? Would you like to see your offspring go and you and your generation of relatives left behind? It's the same as the question 'If I were to be offered immortality, would I take it up?' I'll bet your answer to that is a resounding 'No way!', as would mine. As would anybody's who had the intelligence to contemplate the implications of it? I suggest your rationalizing is a bit superficial? The whole idea is ridiculous. Maybe you're watching too many sci-fi movies?

 

CERN and its equivalents worldwide is just another sinecure for the space fraternities to justify their existence and secure their jobs for life. But hey, it's better than working for a living?

 

Oh, of course it is.

 

Well actually I do have faith in astrology; astrology is the study of what's up there, and who can deny that there are planets, suns, stars etc (although don't get me started on 'black holes'! Hawking was only joking you know)? This just demonstrates how far apart our respective rationalizing is, and I really see no point in continuing the discussion, do you?

 

And we’re back i can’t understand it so it’s not true.

I know you have no interest in learning but somehow think you know what is true and what is false, it here are a couple of sources on spectroscopy. You might find the bit about MRI (yes this is based on spectroscopy) scans interesting but since it’s all pseudoscience and have no practical purpose according to you I’m not sure how you will square that one.

https://www.britannica.com/science/spectroscopy

Or you could try the royal society of chemistry
http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/collections/spectroscopy/introduction#

Or the royal museums greenwhich
https://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/astronomical-spectroscopy

Unless they are both in on it too?

 

I love when people are honest !

 

True one of us looks at facts and data and one of thinks there are 12 types of people in the world.

But if you would like to post proof of Astrology that would be great. Or you could provide a source, since you’re suddenly into having sourced material, while you’re at it a something to back up your claim the Hawking was only joking would be good too.

Astrology is not the study of what’s up there, it supposedly how the motion of celestial bodies effect people, though how stars millions of light years away can effect someone has never been shown.

 

Yeah because nothing useful comes out of CERN, oh like enhanced CT scans spectral imaging

 

Sorry, I mean astronomy.

 

I'm not easily fooled.

 

Well it's nice to know something did, seeing as how much it cost and is costing?

 

CERN is a piece of useless garbage that will never achieve anything !

 

I know you, but somehow you have faith in Astrology which has no proof what so ever but Astronomy which is peer reviewed and even has experiments you can do at home for proof you deny.

Come on it’s either fake or it’s not, try looking at CERNs website it will tell just what the practical benefits have been.