Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Weitter Duckss

Mars & Life creation in Universe

123 posts in this topic

Mars & Life creation in Universe

Currently, the planet Mars is in the center of interest, because something is going on there; of the small scientific value, though, but there are for sure many “scientific” commentaries and texts.

A new “research satellite” had been launched at the beginning of the year (2014.), to “discover” how and when did water and atmosphere vanish from Mars. They are looking for something that never existed and hope for a success! Obviously, some other, hidden goals and missions are set here.

It has stubbornly been stated for Mars, just as for Earth and other planets, that they were hot, heated at the beginning and then they had been cooling down in the next 300 million of years, following their rough creation. There is not a single shred of evidence – obtained by astronomical observations – that anything similar exists anywhere in Universe.

It seems that the whole Universe was created in the same time, 4.5 – 5 billion of years ago. That is the time in which astronomers and powerful telescopes don’t detect such objects (heated planets, satellites, asteroids in the process of creation). They would need for this statement to be true: that at the beginning there are heated objects, which later cool down. The astronomical observations claim the opposite: that at the beginning there are cold objects and gas, which start to glow like dwarf stars once they grow over 10% of the Sun’s mass.

The collisions of different objects, very large and very small ones, point out to the only true statement: the objects grow by accumulating mass. These events are so frequently mentioned in the astronomers’ reports that they should not be neglected any more.

There are so many craters on planets and their satellites that even a blind person could see the fact that objects grow in the constant flow of new matter and the process is a constant, from the beginning of time and forever. And in spite of these obvious facts, we are all more inclined to accept as true any false and constructed story with false evidence that contradict the reality and physics.

We are always susceptible to such frauds; sometimes long ago, somewhere far away, it was like in a fairy tale, i.e. everything was false; the forces were too terrible and impossible to be comprehended; etc. The astronomers have never discovered anything even closely similar to that and what is interesting is that the more distant and more obscure the observed objects are, the “evidence” grow ever bigger and “less disputable”.

Mars is a relatively young planet, the age of which could be estimated to 1022 of years, i.e. more than ten sextillion of years. That number is derived from the meteorites that have fallen onto Earth and were examined in laboratories. They are claimed by agreement to be 4.5 billion of years old. To double the mass, they need almost as much, and further on, with taking into account that Earth is collecting from 4.000 to 100 thousand tons of the space material per year. The mathematicians would say that, in that case, ten sextilion of years is not enough and the others would say that it is obviously too much and that it does not fit into contemporary scientific opinions. I am not talking about opinions here, but about estimation based on the events within the Solar system. The conclusions were made only based on observations, evidence and calculating estimations.

They say that there had been atmosphere, water, oceans, living beings, etc., on Mars, and that they all vanished, “evaporated”… they talk about permafrost and that the rest of water is frozen on and under the surface of Mars.

It is interesting that, at the beginning of 2013, the NASA scientists have officially stated that, according to the research conducted by “Curiosity”, there is no life on Mars. They have been looking for it and have found no evidence of life existing on Mars.

Therefore, there is no life or traces of any form of life today or in the past. If they had found any shell or a skeleton or something else, it would mean that there was some form of life, but they had not.

***

In order for life to appear, among other conditions, water and life-supporting atmosphere are needed. Life has not been created on Mars because these two conditions don’t exist. It also means that they have never existed before, because there are no fossils. This means that life-supporting conditions, such as here on Earth, still don’t exist on Mars.

First of all, there is not a sufficient quantity of mass; it is only 0.11 of the Earth’s mass. Insufficient mass means insufficient pressure on the core, which then can’t be melted, due to the lack of particles’ work, which creates a critical pressure. When there is not a melted core, there also can’t be a rotation of core, different to the rotation of the planet’s outer parts. Without that, there is a lack of a significant magnetic field that would protect the planet from the space (cosmic) radiation. Life conditions on Mars are like living in a microwave oven.

Mass is essential in accelerating the process of creation; it should not be too large or too small. Mars has a scarce atmosphere in the process of creation, mostly consisting of carbon-dioxide. Carbon-dioxide (CO2) means the lack of life, but also the beginning of one. With the improvement of life, in accordance to other conditions, too, the structure of atmosphere will also be changed.

If there is not a melted core, there are no frequent volcano eruptions either, nor there exists a diversity of chemical elements and compounds. Furthermore, there is no significant change of atmosphere. This means that life would be limited to a random occurrence without a possibility for the life colonies to develop. If there are no active volcanoes or adequate atmosphere, water can’t be created either. Water is only another compound, made by adjoining the particles of the space object. The livelier is the work of particles, the bigger are the quantities of compounds, sustainable under given conditions. Water will appear if there is a melted core and volcanoes.

If it was true that water comes with the comets, then it would be present on Mars, too (even its age is estimated by the science to be the same as that of Earth), because comets do not choose Earth exclusively. It has more sense that comets delivered more material to Mars than to Earth, because the position of Mars is in front of Earth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mars & Life creation in Universe

What does this have to do with the universe rotating??

Currently, the planet Mars is in the center of interest, because something is going on there; of the small scientific value, though, but there are for sure many “scientific” commentaries and texts.

Er... what?

A new “research satellite” had been launched at the beginning of the year (2014.), to “discover” how and when did water and atmosphere vanish from Mars. They are looking for something that never existed and hope for a success! Obviously, some other, hidden goals and missions are set here.

Mars still has (frozen) water and an atmosphere. We're trying to discover why it has less now than it did before.

It has stubbornly been stated for Mars, just as for Earth and other planets, that they were hot, heated at the beginning and then they had been cooling down in the next 300 million of years, following their rough creation. There is not a single shred of evidence – obtained by astronomical observations – that anything similar exists anywhere in Universe.

Er... what??? There's plenty of evidence of rocky exoplanets, all of which would have formed in exactly the same way Mars and Earth did.

It seems that the whole Universe was created in the same time, 4.5 – 5 billion of years ago.

If you mean bits weren't added on to the universe later, then yes, you're right.

That is the time in which astronomers and powerful telescopes don’t detect such objects (heated planets, satellites, asteroids in the process of creation). They would need for this statement to be true: that at the beginning there are heated objects, which later cool down. The astronomical observations claim the opposite: that at the beginning there are cold objects and gas, which start to glow like dwarf stars once they grow over 10% of the Sun’s mass

I'm not sure you've entirely understood whatever research you've actually done.

The collisions of different objects, very large and very small ones, point out to the only true statement: the objects grow by accumulating mass. These events are so frequently mentioned in the astronomers’ reports that they should not be neglected any more.

There are so many craters on planets and their satellites that even a blind person could see the fact that objects grow in the constant flow of new matter and the process is a constant, from the beginning of time and forever. And in spite of these obvious facts, we are all more inclined to accept as true any false and constructed story with false evidence that contradict the reality and physics.

We are always susceptible to such frauds; sometimes long ago, somewhere far away, it was like in a fairy tale, i.e. everything was false; the forces were too terrible and impossible to be comprehended; etc. The astronomers have never discovered anything even closely similar to that and what is interesting is that the more distant and more obscure the observed objects are, the “evidence” grow ever bigger and “less disputable”.

This is, by almost anyone's standards, complete cobblers.

Mars is a relatively young planet, the age of which could be estimated to 1022 of years, i.e. more than ten sextillion of years.

Mars is 4.5 billion years old. Even the universe isn't a sextillion years old. This is nonsense.

That number is derived from the meteorites that have fallen onto Earth and were examined in laboratories. They are claimed by agreement to be 4.5 billion of years old. To double the mass, they need almost as much, and further on, with taking into account that Earth is collecting from 4.000 to 100 thousand tons of the space material per year. The mathematicians would say that, in that case, ten sextilion of years is not enough and the others would say that it is obviously too much and that it does not fit into contemporary scientific opinions. I am not talking about opinions here, but about estimation based on the events within the Solar system. The conclusions were made only based on observations, evidence and calculating estimations.

What are you talking about? How can something be both 10 sextillion years old and 4.5 billion years old at the same time? Who is saying that 10 sextillion years isn't enough time?

They say that there had been atmosphere, water, oceans, living beings, etc., on Mars, and that they all vanished, “evaporated”… they talk about permafrost and that the rest of water is frozen on and under the surface of Mars.

It is interesting that, at the beginning of 2013, the NASA scientists have officially stated that, according to the research conducted by “Curiosity”, there is no life on Mars. They have been looking for it and have found no evidence of life existing on Mars.

Therefore, there is no life or traces of any form of life today or in the past. If they had found any shell or a skeleton or something else, it would mean that there was some form of life, but they had not.

***

In order for life to appear, among other conditions, water and life-supporting atmosphere are needed. Life has not been created on Mars because these two conditions don’t exist. It also means that they have never existed before, because there are no fossils. This means that life-supporting conditions, such as here on Earth, still don’t exist on Mars.

We have no idea if there are fossils on Mars or not, we've never looked. We have not found life on Mars, no. But there was once flowing water and an proper atmosphere, so the possibility of microbes existing is pretty good.

The conditions now, don't exist. There is too much radiation on the surface.

First of all, there is not a sufficient quantity of mass; it is only 0.11 of the Earth’s mass.

First of all, there is not a sufficient quantity of mass; it is only 0.11 of the Earth’s mass. Insufficient mass means insufficient pressure on the core, which then can’t be melted, due to the lack of particles’ work, which creates a critical pressure. When there is not a melted core, there also can’t be a rotation of core, different to the rotation of the planet’s outer parts. Without that, there is a lack of a significant magnetic field that would protect the planet from the space (cosmic) radiation. Life conditions on Mars are like living in a microwave oven.

Mass is essential in accelerating the process of creation; it should not be too large or too small. Mars has a scarce atmosphere in the process of creation, mostly consisting of carbon-dioxide. Carbon-dioxide (CO2) means the lack of life, but also the beginning of one. With the improvement of life, in accordance to other conditions, too, the structure of atmosphere will also be changed.

If there is not a melted core, there are no frequent volcano eruptions either, nor there exists a diversity of chemical elements and compounds. Furthermore, there is no significant change of atmosphere. This means that life would be limited to a random occurrence without a possibility for the life colonies to develop. If there are no active volcanoes or adequate atmosphere, water can’t be created either. Water is only another compound, made by adjoining the particles of the space object. The livelier is the work of particles, the bigger are the quantities of compounds, sustainable under given conditions. Water will appear if there is a melted core and volcanoes.

If it was true that water comes with the comets, then it would be present on Mars, too (even its age is estimated by the science to be the same as that of Earth), because comets do not choose Earth exclusively. It has more sense that comets delivered more material to Mars than to Earth, because the position of Mars is in front of Earth!

I have no real comment on any of that save for the last sentence. What on earth do you mean "Mars is in front of Earth - according to whom??

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What does this have to do with the universe rotating??

Er... what?

Mars still has (frozen) water and an atmosphere. We're trying to discover why it has less now than it did before.

Er... what??? There's plenty of evidence of rocky exoplanets, all of which would have formed in exactly the same way Mars and Earth did.

If you mean bits weren't added on to the universe later, then yes, you're right.

I'm not sure you've entirely understood whatever research you've actually done.

This is, by almost anyone's standards, complete cobblers.

Mars is 4.5 billion years old. Even the universe isn't a sextillion years old. This is nonsense.

What are you talking about? How can something be both 10 sextillion years old and 4.5 billion years old at the same time? Who is saying that 10 sextillion years isn't enough time?

We have no idea if there are fossils on Mars or not, we've never looked. We have not found life on Mars, no. But there was once flowing water and an proper atmosphere, so the possibility of microbes existing is pretty good.

The conditions now, don't exist. There is too much radiation on the surface.

I have no real comment on any of that save for the last sentence. What on earth do you mean "Mars is in front of Earth - according to whom??

Wrong. Exoplanets are massive objects. How do they occur? This can be determined on the basis of the planets in our solar system.

Comets come from the end of the solar system. In their arrival at Mars in front of the Earth.

When the speed of 270,000 km / sec and half radius 13.7 billion from s / g universe closes a circle of ~ 94.5 billion years ago. Flattening of the universe stems from the large number of turns. Compare Saturn, two turns per day, higher density negative, let's 4 billion years old .. a really large number of turns.

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exoplanets are massive objects.

Wrong. Very wrong.

Massive exoplanets are massive. Small exoplanets are small.

The techniques that are used to discover exoplanets are biased towards large planets orbiting close the their parent stars (the so called hot-Jupiters).

Small planets are more difficult to detect. Those further from their parent star take longer to detect.

Only now are we beginning to detect Earth like planets, but detect them we are. Try taking a look at the following links:

NASA Discovers First Earth-size Planets

Possible Exoplanet Smaller Than Earth

Tiny Planet System Discovered

Smallest 'Habitable Zone' Planets to Date

Kepler Mission: 715 New Planets Discovered

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Very wrong.

Massive exoplanets are massive. Small exoplanets are small.

Funny how things work that way...small stuff tends to be small and massive stuff tends to be massive. :lol:

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Very wrong.

Massive exoplanets are massive. Small exoplanets are small.

The techniques that are used to discover exoplanets are biased towards large planets orbiting close the their parent stars (the so called hot-Jupiters).

Small planets are more difficult to detect. Those further from their parent star take longer to detect.

Only now are we beginning to detect Earth like planets, but detect them we are. Try taking a look at the following links:

NASA Discovers First Earth-size Planets

Possible Exoplanet Smaller Than Earth

Tiny Planet System Discovered

Smallest 'Habitable Zone' Planets to Date

Kepler Mission: 715 New Planets Discovered

In response, I add an article after which we will discuss more easily.

Do we know all about the Solar system

This is a topic about which we are certain we know it all. There is the Sun, almost a dozen of planets, more than a hundred of satellites, three belts … What is wrong then?

The first thing that attracts our attention is that some planets have many satellites (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune), and some don’t have a single satellite (Venus, Mercury).

The number of satellites orbiting around a planet is directly related to the mass of a planet and its rotation around its axis.

Small Pluto has a radius of 2 300 km, 0.002 of the Earth’s mass; it has several satellites, one of which is really big, compared to Pluto. Pluto makes a single rotation around its axis in 6.4 days!

Mercury has a radius of 4 880 km, 0.055 of the Earth’s mass; it doesn’t have any satellites and neither does Venus, which radius is 12 104 km and the mass is 0.82 (!) of the Earth’s mass. What they have in common is the lack of rotation (their rotation around their axes is approximately the same as their rotation around the Sun). Jupiter is the greatest planet, with a radius of 142 984 km, 317.8 of the Earth’s mass and it makes a single rotation around its axis in 0.41 days. It has an impressive mass, great speed of rotation and, according to that, the greatest number of satellites, and it has rings, too. A radius of Saturn is smaller, 120 500 km, its mass is 95.2 of the Earth’s mass and it makes a single rotation around its axis in 0.43 days; that is why it has lesser number of satellites and beautiful rings.

The Sun (it is only a celestial object and must abide the laws of physics) has a radius of 1 392 000 km, its mass is 330 000 of the Earth’s mass and it makes 99.86 % of the Solar system mass total. It makes a single rotation around its axis in ~26 days at the equatorial belt and 33.5 in polar belts. Even though its mass is great, its relatively slow rotation is the reason that Sun has only 0.14% of the captured objects in its orbit.

The other planets are also in accordance with the conditions stated above.

Temperature of the objects is the second thing. Besides Sun, more four objects have somewhat significant own temperature, i.e., they produce it on their own. These are: Venus, Earth, Jupiter and Neptune. Jupiter’s satellite Io can also be adjoined to this company.

Generally, all objects that have 10% and more of the Sun’s mass are solar objects, i.e., they produce their own temperature. The objects similar to the masses of Io, Earth, Venus, due to the influence of the electromagnetic forces from Sun or Jupiter (Io), have a melted core, because their mass is sufficient for that in these conditions. When Venus and Earth double their masses, they would become solar objects with their masses far below the needed 10% of the Sun’s mass. Jupiter and Neptune emit twice the energy they receive from the Sun, which is in accordance to their size. They can obtain that only by producing their own temperature, which is a fact that implies the already melted cores of these planets.

The third thing is the fuel they burn. What fuel: petrol, fusion energy, fission energy? None of these. If this was the case, we would have polluted, radioactive universe and we would be immune to all kinds of radiation, but we are not. The core of Earth is melted and hot, but without a trace of radioactivity. With all these volcanoes, we should have an environment similar to that inside the core of a nuclear plant, but we don’t. Obviously, solar objects don’t burn anything similar or anything based on these principles.

By the mass increase of 10% of the Sun’s mass, the objects become solar objects, but also do smaller objects, under right conditions. As an object increases in mass, by collecting other objects, such as comets, meteorites, asteroids, etc, a pressure inside it also grows and after right conditions are fulfilled, the particles begin with a (significant) work. Due to attraction, repulsion, rotation, a friction is being created and its consequence is the increasing temperature. Therefore, the increase of mass over the critical point leads to the increase of temperature. Temperature is also affected by rotation; the faster the rotation, the hotter the objects are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response, I add an article after which we will discuss more easily.

In response you fail to admit that your claim is provably wrong and change the subject.

Your tactics are as honest as your posts are factual.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large globs of practically unreadable and ridiculous text? Check.

Text filled with self-contradiction? Check.

Inability to read and understand facts from other posters? Check.

Ignore list? Check.

Harte

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large globs of practically unreadable and ridiculous text? Check.

Text filled with self-contradiction? Check.

Inability to read and understand facts from other posters? Check.

Ignore list? Check.

Harte

We see millions of craters in our system. Does not that mean that the body thus gaining weight?

How to fit annual increment of mass from 4000 to 100,000 tons in times past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astronomers have detected star formation, the rest of your post appears just to be drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astronomers have detected star formation, the rest of your post appears just to be drivel.

Science "see" what is happening before 5 billion years, but do not see that this process is not interrupted and lasts throughout time. I guess it's easier when everything finally, to close our eyes to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Science "see" what is happening before 5 billion years, but do not see that this process is not interrupted and lasts throughout time. I guess it's easier when everything finally, to close our eyes to reality.

What? :unsure2:

Care to elaborate a bit more on that....

Edited by CrimsonKing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science "see" what is happening before 5 billion years, but do not see that this process is not interrupted and lasts throughout time. I guess it's easier when everything finally, to close our eyes to reality.

Yeah, that's got nothing to do with what I just said. It's even more easier to talk crap than educate yourself.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The processes of creating space bodies is constant, today, as well as five billion years ago. Countless crater is evidence of this process.

Turbulent emergence of is fairy tale that we want to learn, just without coverage.

School teaches us to think and believe the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

School teaches us to think and believe the church.

Science teaches that belief is irrelevant and that evidence is everything.

Your posts consist of nothing BUT your beliefs. They contain no evidence at all. This is not science its an ego trip.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, for the craters do not want to hear. Is it your opinion that due to explosion of a star does not come until disintegration of matter? Are they at the explosion collisions of particles are different from the accelerator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, for the craters do not want to hear. Is it your opinion that due to explosion of a star does not come until disintegration of matter? Are they at the explosion collisions of particles are different from the accelerator?

2489495-say_what.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, for the craters do not want to hear. Is it your opinion that due to explosion of a star does not come until disintegration of matter?

Are they at the explosion collisions of particles are different from the accelerator?

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...from the super the collider.

The super the collider matter disintegrates. Are the forces at Supre New bigger or smaller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...from the super the collider.

The super the collider matter disintegrates. Are the forces at Supre New bigger or smaller?

The forces are a constant, the quantity of matter is astronomically different between the tests at the super collider and the amount of matter in a supernova...the amount of matter can make it appear to the untrained person that the forces acting are weaker or stronger but that is only an appearance if you don't understand the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, I am oh so confused, I can be confused easily by big words and such as that, and so far when i ask someone here to explain to me what something means, most pple are kind enough to answer my question, so I am going to do it again here.

What is this entire thread ABOUT? I am a big confused, I thought it may be about age of things at first, then i thought after reading more of the OP's posts it is about matter.. is it being continuously created and it grows? But i think i missed the boat on that one, and am thinking it is not about time or matter. Of either being created from nothign? I don't know

Could someone use plain ordinary english and pretend like i am 10 or 11 yrs old and dummy this down for me and tell me what this thread is about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone use plain ordinary english and pretend like i am 10 or 11 yrs old and dummy

this down for me and tell me what this thread is about?

No, impossible as this thread is about nothing so don`t worry, you are ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

OK, for the craters do not want to hear. Is it your opinion that due to explosion of a star does not come until disintegration of matter? Are they at the explosion collisions of particles are different from the accelerator?

What you are talking about is nuclear fusion, taking two particles then slamming them together at high rate of speed and pressure, you create an new particle. This effect is currently being studied by the mass accelerator around the world. Much how the stars went from gas stars to heavy element stars, but this makes me wonder, is there an reverse of the process that creates gas stars out of heavy element stars? The heavy elements clump up, they can't help be attracted to each other till we have planets. What is left over is asteroids, meteors, or dwarf planets that didn't quite make it. Mar's core cooled way too fast for life to gain an foothold, therefore we have an dead planet that did have water in the past, but lost it due to lack of magnetic field around her.

For an planet to create life, you need three things.

  • Liquid Oceans (Must be in Goldilocks Zone)
  • Molten Core (continental drift and magnetic field)
  • And Ozone with breathable air (This can varies depending the life)

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sory, the theme is "The Universe and relationships in the universe", but for the sake of putting the emphasis on the spin of the universe is "The universe, however, is spinning." In order to facilitate monitoring of the topic is moderated split into several sub-topics.

For the formation of life is necessary rotation of the body. Rotation creates a temperature difference works because of which particles can enter into the process of association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sory, the theme is "The Universe and relationships in the universe", but for the sake of putting the emphasis on the spin of the universe is "The universe, however, is spinning." In order to facilitate monitoring of the topic is moderated split into several sub-topics.

For the formation of life is necessary rotation of the body. Rotation creates a temperature difference works because of which particles can enter into the process of association.

That, by all means of respect, is utter nonsense. You don't have a clue of what you speak.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.