OT: Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity

I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.

Good job!

-Zz "Zz Yzx" rhymes with "physics"; or " Isaacs" if you prefer.

formatting link

Reply to
Zz Yzx
Loading thread data ...

SEE?!?! Results already:

formatting link

Reply to
Zz Yzx

formatting link
may even find out it is "reddish"... and ... round.

...The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalm 19:1

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:19-20

Reply to
Michael Joel

Perhaps it's just hyperbole. Like when you're watching a good baseball game and the announcer says, "Now, that's some real pitching."

Reply to
-MIKE-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:a5365$5021532c$4b75eb81$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:

Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and reasoning. Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to something totally new. Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus far do not prove one way or another. Curiosity may or may not find evidence to substantiate those hypotheses or wild ass guesses. We won't know until ...

Reply to
Han

...or too young?

Reply to
krw

would be in the right place? Kerry

Reply to
Kerry Montgomery

formatting link
may even find out it is "reddish"... and ... round.

...The heavens declare the glory of God ================================================================================

Now how many people do you think plonked you due to your uncalled for spewing of religious garbage?

Reply to
CW

formatting link

================================================================================

Well, anybody who plonked him for that particular "religioius garbage" would have plonked the crew of Apollo 8.

I'm sorry, I don't believe in any of it, but some of it is pretty damned good poetry and people who get angry at the recitation of said poetry I find to be exceedingly annoying.

Reply to
J. Clarke

I am a major believer in separation of church and state. But that reading, on Christmas eve, circling the moon, was perfect. Even if my tax dollars were paying for it. -- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

formatting link
>>> They may even find out it is "reddish"... and ... round.

================================================================================

You're so tolerant.

Reply to
-MIKE-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:46b23$5021693e$4b75eb81$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:

Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ...

Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them, generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree.

Indeed.

Curiosity the rover/laboratory is what I meant, not "being curious"

Reply to
Han

Saawwwwwry. It was an attempt at humor, but I didn't take into account that most of this group has not been involved in the energy or mineral exploration industries. So I'll explain:

In those industries, there is a long-standing, good-natured feud between geologists and engineers. We take every opportunity to put humor or hurt on the other discipline. We adapt jokes, we cajole, we irritate, we compete for promotions.

Hence the put-down reference to real science.

Reply to
Zz Yzx

I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science doesn't have much to do with facts. In science there really are none.

Was that story ever verified? How does one observe a fact - in a field that does not accept facts as facts?

The apple fell to the ground. That is a fact - but the why and how is complete opinion (layman's term for theory). The majority wins. But the problem is that testing, and re-testing, and re-re-testing does not always result in the exact same outcome. The "wrong" outcomes get attributed to someone doing something wrong. How does one know that that

1 out of a 1000000 times of it being different doesn't mean the whole idea of the why and how is wrong but only shows itself 1 out of a 1000000 times? How does one know the subject has been tested with a method that will provide the factual results instead of the wanted results?

All the work of science is based on limited knowledge. The problem is that it is thought of as "fact" (or at least elevated beyond what it is faith). And the attitude (teaching for decades now) is that "they're the experts". So it is accepted by most without even thinking about it (look at all the insane things they have come out with that was simply accepted by the vast majority with gawking eyes and open mouth - only to have to be all taken back, yet you never see their faith shaken in them).

Go to college for X years studying all the theories and methods used... isn't that circular - teaching how to do something and basing it on previous theories - why would it be surprising to get the usual results?

When theories (exalted opinions) are based on other theories, based on other theories - it is all a stone wall being built without mortar.

Some of the photos are labeled blah...blah.."water". "ancient"...blah..blah.."water"

Is this the objective method of science? - Maybe I missed the "fact" of water discovered?

....Keep searching for the meaning of life - ignore the answers given.

Reply to
Michael Joel

Actually, I believe the previous landers proved that surface water once existed on Mars. In one of the interviews about Curiosity, A NASA spokesman said something on the lines of "now we've proven water, we're looking for organic compounds".

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

I think we've gone way too far. The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law", not "no government employee shall mention". By the way, NASA got sued over that one. They won but they also forbade the astronauts from any further mention during a mission.

Reply to
J. Clarke

...and the words "Congress shall" weren't just fluff, either. That right wasn't taken away from the states.

Reply to
krw

Which is funny, because later decisions ruled that federal employees (astronauts) don't lose their constitutional rights to free speech nor free exercise of religion when they walk through the doors of the workplace... or in this instance, space capsule.

Bottom line, the forefathers wanted us to have freedom "of" religion, not freedom *from* it.

Reply to
-MIKE-

I think you have never met a real scientist.

What field would that be?

No, that's the layman's term for a hypothesis.

No, the model that most closely fits the facts wins.

That is called "precision".

Only if the "wrong" outcomes are different from many, many other measurements of the same quantity.

Different experimenters perform the measurement using different techniques. Yes, it's possible that one in 10,000 times the velocity of light is 1 meter per hour instead of 300,000 kilometers per second, but that's not the way to bet.

All the work of everything is based on limited knowledge. So what do we do, just sit aroung wringing our hands and accomplishing nothing because we can't know everything?

You are conflating fact, which is a measured observation, with theory, which is a model that attempts to establish rules base on the facts.

If teachers are teaching that we should believe scientists because the are experts, well, we all know that the education system is down the crapper and this is just another symptom.

We believe science for one simple reason. It works, where religion and all the various philosophical systems that are not based on the scientific method do not.

Which "insane things" are these?

And yet we have numerous examples of scientists coming up with experimental results that invalidate previous models or with models that more accurately explain the facts and toss the earlier models down the crapper.

Theory is based on observation, not on other theory. If you think you have a counterexample please present it.

Which photos are those? There are photos that show what appear to be ancient water courses. If you have a better explanation for them please present it.

Who has claimed that water was discovered?

You'd ignore the answers if the answers beat you to death with a baseball bat.

Reply to
J. Clarke

Larry Blanchard wrote in news:jvsh53$pno$1 @speranza.aioe.org:

Yes, I agree. There is an abundance of indirect evidence that surface water existed. Does it still exist? Then we get the search for organic compounds. That will be interesting, because there are organic compounds in meteorites. So different organic compounds need to be found for "life" to be proven. It is science, search and research for the evidence ...

Reply to
Han

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.