Scientists have no idea what made this huge hole on Mars

While i do not recall the guesswork of the scientists, they came up with a staggering amount of unknowns about sea life that they believe is not yet discovered and named.

 

Sorry to break it to you like this but you obviously don't know the difference between science and pseudoscience. Just because I'm out of step on this subject doesn't mean I'm effing stupid you know! Now call up the BBC news online and see what the 'astrophysicists' have been up to recently, and be impressed by it. You know you will be!

 

I don't know what 'triggered' means.

 

Pseudoscience pretty much describes you to a tee,

Noun 1. pseudoscience - an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

Based on pseudoscience, many dishonest beliefs have derived, supposing that the reality relies on one's perception, not on the observation and experimentation matters.

Does not follow the scientific method.

Definition of scientific method
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method

There are experiments like these you can carry out on at home

http://practicalphysics.org/estimating-size-earth.html

Lack of understanding doesn’t mean anyone is stupid at all, disputing things proven again and again via. the scientific method just beacause they don’t agree with your perception starts to cross the line.

So were any of the examples I gave you incorrect or pseudoscience?

 

We're now going around in circles so best that you continue to believe it all, and I'll be skeptical. But I still can't see what there is to be gained by concentrating efforts and resources on a dead planet like Mars. You can correct me on that if you like?

 

Again it’s not a matter of belief, I find some of the things hard to believe, but look at the underlying data and concepts.

If it experiments and data match the theory then only option is to come up with an experiment to disprove it or an alternative theory.


As for Mars, I think we, as in mankind, should strive for things beyond our current reach. Ultimately mankind is one asteroid / disasteraway from extinction.

Mars is one small step on a very long path to us having a viable alternative. Think of it like insurance, you can’t get insurance after your car is wrecked.

 

Chapeau sir, chapeau !

 

Well that's essentially the entire point - don't waste it all on a planet which will be hostile to human life, find a planet on which we could live and thrive, and waste it all on that one? lol And when 'they' do identify that bolt-hole planet, then will be the time to start moving the raw materials and machinery which will be needed to build villages and towns and cities and their infrastructures ready for when we have to escape to it in our zillions from whatever it will be that we're escaping from. In fact, that would fit in with your 'insurance' principle, in that there's no point in having the insurance if we can't settle on another planet when we desperately need to, so let's get it ready now? Do you agree with that idea?

 

I don't know what that means either!

 

In principle yes, but you don't try to run a marathon on day 1 if you never ran one before. You start off by running shorter distances.

Only 2 man,ade things have it out of the solar system. At the moment we would still struggle to design an enclosed eco system to keep people alive either in a spacecraft or on another planet.

 

Oh don't worry, UK_archer et al will soon dream up an answer to that little difficulty.

 

Asked and answered

 

Source please?

 

Yes, but at the rate it's going, we're just wasting time; it'll take at least a thousand years to transport the materiel to our new planet to build all those habitations and sewerage systems, and power stations etc, and we'll be long gone by then? And even if everything else on it is ideal, supposing there's no water on the planet, or oceans, or forests? And how could there be an enclosed eco system capable of sheltering and sustaining billions of people? I suggest you haven't quite thought this through?

 

Helium was discovered on the sun before being discovered on earth

edit: ps where has any scientist stated that they know "exactly" what a planet/star is comprised of?

 

Well it's one of the reasons NASA has been sending stuff to Mars for the last thirty years - to find out if there's a core etc?

 

Did you miss out on secondary school chemistry?

 

Why do you ask?

 

You highlighted a section of a post suggesting that you never attended a basic chemistry lesson - setting fire to magnesium, setting fire to sodium, setting fire to hydrogen etc - Remember the colours? I presume you do know that the perceived colour is a direct consequence of the frequency of the emitted light?

 

I have recently said that I know nothing about science, nor want to know. Something else I don't know is where you're coming from?

 

So your request for a source was not really a request for a source?

 

For a reason I need not go into, it was to call a bluff.

 

What is your purpose of trolling in your own thread?

 

If I tell you I'll have to kill you.

 

I'm confused. If you admit that you don't know anything about science, and you don't want to learn anything about it, then why are your postings here exclusively about science?