Binary,

I am going to downgrade you to heckler. Look that up

dfrank

Personal attack noted.

Dfrank, you are trying to reduce the rules of fluid behavior to some imaginary simple case where you can say "definitely yes" or "definitely no." It was your choice to try to argue that fluid dynamics doesn't allow for this observation, and therefore it is your burden of proof to show that fluid dynamics can't produce the effect seen. Simply wondering how it can, and assuming it can't, doesn't cut it; nor does accusing others of religious dogmatism when all you have is handwaving and wishful thinking. You seem to have little understanding of what proof entails in a scientific sense.

Fluids interact in complex ways with complex surfaces. I live in Utah. I fly frequently over the deserts of southern Utah and Nevada. I have seen endless depictions of the interactions between air and particulates, including highly characteristic duning behavior, and I am highly disinclined to fit any one or two simple rules to it. My scientific understanding of fluid flow and my observation of its effect at many scales is the basis of my opinion that your claim is delusional simply because it tries to oversimplify.

Duning in this case suggests prevailing laminar fluid flow in a single direction with moderate chaotic diversions. However, passing over the depression there will create a highly turbulent flow under the laminar layer, but without necessarily disturbing much of it above, so it can continue to be laminar and produce dunes downstream.

In enclosed turbulent flow such as that, the lowest velocities are found in the center, which is then where entrained particles will tend to precipitate. These will be much finer particles than the surrounding pre-existing material (because they were light enough to be entrained). And so an aggregation of them will appear lighter in value when photographed.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

These "personal observations" are a waste of time.

It's time to "fish or cut bait"...either present your evidence or admit that you have none.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Is the next step botheration or noodge? Or, was I a noodge before the downgrade? I'm unclear on your scale.

Are you ever going to present any evidence of water on Mars? Come on. Do it for me. Let if flow! Or, I'll have to up my noodgery.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

JayUtah,

Thanks for the science. It will take me a while to wrap my mind around it. It is research time. Sorry for the personal attack. I heard it can be because it can’t be till I want to throw-up.

I will get back as soon as I finish, thanks again

dfrank

DFrank,
Can you explain why the many, many scientists who are directly involved in the minutia of the rover research missions are not seeing the "water" you are seeing? They are studying every image you have seen, and more. They want to find water more than anyone.
Why would they ignore what you see as obvious signs of water? Is it possible that you are mistaken in what you think you see?

It's quite apparent it was research time prior to August 19th, the date of your first post in this thread.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Apology accepted.

From my point of view, you offered a line of reasoning by which you proposed to falsify the blown-dust hypothesis. But all you did was handwave toward irrelevant examples and attempt to simplify the behavior of fluid entrainment to a frankly absurd degree. Therefore I disputed the strength of your rationale. Rather than strengthen it, you passed the burden of proof to me. That's not how it works.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

In post 455, we see:

I assume that was supposed to be "I heard it can['t] be [water] because it can't be till I want to throw-up." Yet, way back in post 33 I said:

This was discussed in your previous thread. Did you forget it? There are both pressure and temperature issues. At that pressure, there is a very narrow temperature range where liquid water can exist: Too high and there is vapor, too low and there is ice. During summer the maximum recorded atmospheric temperature during the day was too high, and it dropped well below freezing every night. There would only be a brief period with a "just right" temperature. That would not be conducive to bodies of liquid surface water existing for extended periods.

Ultimately, as previously noted, there could be rare eruptions of liquid underground water. Given the conditions, it is expected that most underground water would be extremely well frozen permafrost. All of this means that, if you're going to suggest an image shows flowing surface water, you are going to need very good evidence to support it. You haven't provided it.

And that's where we still are. You aren't being told "it can't be." You are being asked for evidence. We're still at the same point we were at the beginning of this thread, and where we were in the earlier thread. You haven't provided the evidence required to support your position.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

JayUtah,

I study water, atmospheric dynamics. I see dunes that act like melting snow dunes and pooling I say so. I really don’t care how it is suppose to work as long as it works. I just want to know. It will take a while I am working on your statements

dfrank

Van,

Please quit whipping that temperature and pressure pony, we are past that. It about wind and dust vs. snow.

dfrank

Respectfully...you are not in a "position" to be dictating to others what we are or are not past.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Can you explain why the many, many scientists who are directly involved in the minutia of the rover research missions are not seeing the "water" you are seeing?

I'd sure like to hear the answer to that question too. Since Dfrank has conceded a lack of evidence for powerful religious interests suppressing that investigation, I'm wondering if he continues to believe suppression of some kind is indicated.

Why would they ignore what you see as obvious signs of water? Is it possible that you are mistaken in what you think you see?

I think Dfrank has made it quite clear that he might be mistaken, which is the basis for his argument that NASA has some obligation actually to drive the rover to the ditch in question and clear it up for him and for the thousands of other laymen also presumably riding the edges of their seats to see if their idle speculation has any substance to it. It only takes a minute, he says. It takes no effort, he says. So why the reluctance, even if his claims are entirely mistaken?

Pure conspiracism, if you ask me. That whole line of reasoning is based on the notion that Dfrank's claims make any sense; and further based upon the notion that NASA has some sort of obligation to check out layman's claims, no matter how absurd or evidence-less they may be.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I see dunes that act like melting snow dunes and pooling I say so.

I think it's abundantly clear that no one cares what you think something looks like if you can't prove it. Your entire argument to date has been little more than your repeated statements of belief.

I really don’t care how it is suppose to work as long as it works.

Unfortunately scientists can't afford to be so cavalier about causation. And neither can you, when you're trying to tell people what something can and can't be. You simply are not prepared to discuss your beliefs among people who don't already share them.

I just want to know.

No, you want to prove your point at all costs. After 16 pages of admissions of all the evidence you don't have, all the suspicions you can't prove, and all the research you say you need to do -- without relaxing your claim in the least -- it's quite clear what you desire.

It will take a while I am working on your statements

What exactly are you doing? When I investigate this sort of specific question it takes about a week's worth of computations on a half-million-dollar computer. Don't tell me you're just googling around for more dubiously-relevant examples.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

JayUtah,

Personal attack noted.

I am a meteorologist. I study earth weather. I built my first weather station by hand when I was 10 years old. When I was in college I did not take the finals in my atmospheric science class. A student ask the professor why I did not, he replied, “I don’t want to waste his time.” Please don’t call me a layman because I don’t know everything about dust on another planet.

dfrank

JayUtah,

You gave me some information and I am going to see if it debunks my conclusion. Hope you were not blowing smoke. We will see unless you don’t want to see.

dfrank

Irrelevant to my point. If you keep insisting people are telling you "it can't be" I'll keep pointing out references from early in the discussion that show that isn't what is being said. Rather, you have (since the beginning, weeks ago) been asked for evidence for your argument, and we're still waiting for it.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Personal attack noted.

Not a personal attack. You attempted the "looks like that to me" argument again. It is a matter of observation that no one in this thread accepts that argument. Kindly stop making it.

You arrogantly propose that you can ignore how things work, yet lay burdens of proof on those who do, requiring them to disprove your idle suppositions. Kindly accept the burden of proof for the claims you make.

You accuse me of arrogance for ordinary expertise learned in the practice of my profession, yet set yourself up as a meteorologist of such eminence that your professors stand in awe of you. Frankly I'm not impressed. The complex behavior of fluid flow to which I alluded is part of the same physical kernel in the computational weather forecast models that are the bread and butter of modern meteorology. If you want to be treated as an expert, then kindly display expertise; don't merely insist that you have it.

None of this is remotely a personal attack. It is simply the rules of engagement for this board, and largely also for real life.

Please don’t call me a layman because I don’t know everything about dust on another planet.

Please don't insinuate that you do. Give evidence or retract your claim. But either way, quit stalling.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You gave me some information and I am going to see if it debunks my conclusion.

And how exactly are you doing that? That is not an idle question. Science is about the transparent conduct of an investigation. Please explain the process by which you are testing your claims according to this new understanding.

Hope you were not blowing smoke. We will see unless you don’t want to see.

So now you're setting me up to be part of this imaginary cabal that you say prevents NASA from following up on obvious clues? Or am I being paranoid?

What I want to see is the process you're using to test your claims.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Dfrank - my patience with your handwaiving, personal attacks, and, at 469 posts in, failure to produce ANY relevant evidence, has come to an end. You have already been suspended twice for these behaviors. You have 3 times now failed to heed my warnings. Your next post will either conclusively demonstrate your EVIDENCE, without personal attack, or you will be permanently banned. Your choice. Note that the community will decide the relevancy of your entire theorem upon the nature of your reply.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

A request for clarification on Dfrank's behalf - Is an alternative answer of "I don't have evidence" still acceptable?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

My $.02? I would think that acceptable, however if he has no evidence, then there is really nothing left to discuss, ie. either way this thread is over.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Yes. That is still perfectly acceptable

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

...explained the secretary, as the CFO was arrested and hauled away.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

Dfrank has requested 7-14 days in which to put together a presentation. Dfrank relayed that he is only now becoming aware of the exact nature and demands of the board, and also wishes to incorporate things learned from JayUtah. Request granted. Thread locked until Dfrank PMs myself or another moderator requesting the thread be opened to present his evidence.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Dfrank has communicated he is prepared to continue to defend his hypothesis and answer questions. Thread unlocked.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Gentlemen,

After careful consideration of the presentation I was trying to make in conjunction with a better understanding of this forum I would like to say, “I do not have evidence.”

I would rather have said, “I was wrong.” Image interpretation is based on an individual’s background and area of expertise. That being said it is hard to bridge the gap in words alone. For example, JayUtah gave his interpretation based on his interpretation of Laminar Flow.

http://www.answers.com/topic/laminar-flow?cat=health

From his stand point of particulates of a geological nature and my contention of particulates of a meteorological nature and associated potential phase change, it is hard to reconcile even without the micro-topographic influence.

I hope to ask a lot of questions in the future. You guys can rest assured; I will make no claims unless I have the evidence.

dfrank

After careful consideration of the presentation I was trying to make in conjunction with a better understanding of this forum I would like to say, “I do not have evidence.”

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to think about it.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Well while not actually a defence of the theory, here an "I just don't know" is perfectly acceptable, and often a LOT harder to admit that just carrying on waving your hands. A good and honest move Dfrank. I hope that in the future you find the evidence require to draw a correct conclusion.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I agree. Good going Dfrank, and do know I would be very happy to find confirmed evidence for liquid water (even if rare) on Mars.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser