Where Martian dust comes from

July 24, 2018, Johns Hopkins University
A portion of the Medusae Fossae Formation on Mars showing the effect of billions of years of erosion. The image was acquired by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

The dust that coats much of the surface of Mars originates largely from a single thousand-kilometer-long geological formation near the Red Planet's equator, scientists have found.

A study published in the journal Nature Communications found a chemical match between dust in the Martian atmosphere and the surface feature, called the Medusae Fossae Formation.

"Mars wouldn't be nearly this dusty if it wasn't for this one enormous deposit that is gradually eroding over time and polluting the planet, essentially," said co-author Kevin Lewis, an assistant professor of Earth and planetary science at the Johns Hopkins University.

In the film The Martian, a dust storm leads to a series of events that strands an astronaut played by actor Matt Damon. As in the movie, dust on Mars has caused problems for real missions, including the Spirit Mars exploration rover. The fine, powdery stuff can get into expensive instruments and obscure solar panels needed to power equipment.

On Earth, dust is separated from soft rock formations by forces of nature including wind, water, glaciers, volcanoes and meteor impacts. For more than 4 billion years, however, streams of water and moving glaciers have likely made but a small contribution to the global dust reservoir on Mars. While meteor craters are a common feature on the fourth planet from the sun, the fragments created by the impacts typically are bigger than the fine particles that comprise Martian dust.

"How does Mars make so much dust, because none of these processes are active on Mars?" said lead author Lujendra Ojha, a postdoctoral fellow in Lewis' lab. Although these factors may have played a role in the past, something else is to blame for the large swathes of dust surrounding Mars now, he said.

Ojha and the science team looked at the dust's chemical composition. Landers and rovers far apart on the planet have all reported surprisingly similar data about the dust. "Dust everywhere on the planet is enriched in sulfur and chlorine and it has this very distinct sulfur-to-chlorine ratio," Ojha said.

They also studied data captured by the spacecraft Mars Odyssey, which has orbited the planet since 2001. Ojha and his colleagues were able to pinpoint the MFF region as having an abundance of sulfur and chlorine, as well as a match to the ratio of sulfur to chlorine in Mars dust.

Earlier findings suggest that the MFF had a volcanic origin. Once 50 percent of the continental United States in size, the wind has eroded it, leaving behind an area that's now more like about 20 percent. Yet it is the largest known volcanic deposit in our solar system.

Wind-carved ridges known as yardangs are the remnants of erosion. By calculating how much of the MFF has been lost over the past 3 billion years, the scientists could approximate the current quantity of dust on Mars, enough to form a 2 to 12 meters thick global layer.

Dust particles can also affect Martian climate by absorbing solar radiation, resulting in lower temperatures at the ground level and higher ones in the atmosphere. This temperature contrast can create stronger winds, leading to more dust being lifted from the surface.

While seasonal dust storms happen every Martian year (twice as long as an Earth year), global storms can form about every 10 or so years.

"It just explains, potentially, one big piece of how Mars got to its current state," Lewis said.

Explore further: Image: Mars dust storm

More information: Lujendra Ojha et al, The Medusae Fossae Formation as the single largest source of dust on Mars, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05291-5

Related Stories

Image: Mars dust storm

July 20, 2018

The high resolution stereo camera on board ESA's Mars Express captured this impressive upwelling front of dust clouds – visible in the right half of the frame – near the north polar ice cap of Mars in April this year.

NASA encounters the perfect storm for science

June 14, 2018

One of the thickest dust storms ever observed on Mars has been spreading for the past week and a half. The storm has caused NASA's Opportunity rover to suspend science operations, but also offers a window for four other spacecraft ...

Dust storms on Mars

August 24, 2015

In the 1870's astronomers first noted the presence of yellow clouds on the surface of Mars and suggested they were caused by windblown dust. Today, dust storms on Mars are well known and those that display visible structures ...

Recommended for you

Magnetized inflow accreting to center of Milky Way galaxy

August 17, 2018

Are magnetic fields an important guiding force for gas accreting to a supermassive black hole (SMBH) like the one that our Milky Way galaxy hosts? The role of magnetic fields in gas accretion is little understood, and trying ...

Another way for stellar-mass black holes to grow larger

August 17, 2018

A trio of researchers with The University of Hong Kong, Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics in Taiwan and Northwestern University in the U.S., has come up with an alternative theory to explain how some ...

First science with ALMA's highest-frequency capabilities

August 17, 2018

The ALMA telescope in Chile has transformed how we see the universe, showing us otherwise invisible parts of the cosmos. This array of incredibly precise antennas studies a comparatively high-frequency sliver of radio light: ...

57 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2018
"How does Mars make so much dust, because none of these processes are active on Mars?"... Although these factors may have played a role in the past, something else is to blame for the large swathes of dust surrounding Mars now, he said.

Electric discharge processes explain this quite easily and completely.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2018
Electric discharge processes explain this quite easily and completely.


So could invisible pink dust fairies. Where is the evidence? What is the mechanism? Where has it been written up?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2018
del.
rossim22
4.8 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2018
cantdrive... you can't just shout "because electricity" after every scientific announcement.

Yes, we learn more and more about how charge exchange affects the entire Martian atmosphere and planetary dynamics around the solar system.

Yes, models were put in place before scientists had all of the data and are now left to merely tweak their existing models rather than start from anew.

However, there just isn't the extraordinary evidence that's required to force a paradigm shift, at least not in this article.

My advice for you is to lay low and wait until enough data is accumulated that someone already respected in the field is willing to risk his/her financial well-being and respect of peers to pursue a different (and less ad hoc) paradigm.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2018
Electric discharge processes explain this quite easily and completely
Electric discharge processes explain everything quite easily and completely. Except the Grand Canyon which was dug by Paul bunyan and his big blue ox Babe. Or the bible flood whichever.
Spacebaby2001
3.8 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2018
My advice for you is to lay low


I don't know, you (or at least I) can learn a lot from people arguing with the conspiracy theorists on this site. As obnoxious as they are.
rossim22
2.8 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2018

I don't know, you (or at least I) can learn a lot from people arguing with the conspiracy theorists on this site. As obnoxious as they are.


I am a supporter of 'plasma cosmology' along with cantdrive.

He is not a conspiracy theorist because the 'electric universe' is not a conspiracy theory because there is no conspiracy.
Mainstream scientists aren't refuting the truth and deciding to build upon GR for some unknown reason, they are just plagued with a dogma which possesses unfalsifiable claims at its foundation. Confirmational bias is the real culprit here, with so many extravagant computer models to pat us on the back and tell us that we're on the right track when we don't have all the pieces. We're too far down the rabbit hole now.

In that light, cantdrive damages his own side by appearing even more uncredible than us supporters usually do. At least provide some details on the ideas behind the EU claims, not just pointing from afar with "it's electric, duh."
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2018
I am a supporter of 'plasma cosmology' along with cantdrive.


And where, in the scientific literature, within the last couple of decades, can we see this 'plasma cosmology' spelled out, so that it can be assessed in light of things we know now, as opposed to a vague collection of hypotheses based on things we didn't know 4 or 5 decades ago?
Who are the people behind this 'plasma cosmology'? What are they saying? Where are they saying it?
Spacebaby2001
4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
@rossim22 You're by far the most level headed non crazy sounding supporter of 'plasma cosmology' that I've encountered on this site. Thank you.

From my perspective as a layperson, the field of physics and science in general is far too vast, diverse, and successful to in reality be oppressed and crippled by these chains of dogma and unfalsifiable claims you put forth.

However, my opinion means absolutely nothing in regards to how the universe actually works, so if you are in the field of science please bring on the plasma revolution. I just want more reasons to say "holly shit I can't believe we did that" like with the Rosetta Mission or, "Damn I don't understand anything about reality" like when MIT created time crystals. I love it all.
rossim22
2.3 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2018
jonesdave, you always express the same fallacy. "Obviously it's wrong because most/all scientists agree something else is correct" isn't an argument at all.

The problem is (and where this starts to get a wrap for "conspiracy theory") is how cosmology is funded today. If you want to make an advancement in this field, you typically need a telescope. How do you get telescope time? You need funding. How do you get funding? Build upon what we already 'know' or 'confirm' what colleagues have already spent time modeling.

No conspiracy, it just makes sense and IMO at no fault of those scientists.

The effects of gravity were discovered first so that's where the theories began.

GR developed so rapidly that by 1933 Zwicky had already postulated dark matter. It wasn't until 1967 that scientists acknowledged that stable (Birkeland) currents and charge separation could exist in space. That's a pretty big piece of the puzzle we were missing.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2018
^^^Same old whinges from the EU crowd. Have you ever been through the freely available databases of science data at NASA or ESA? Has anybody in the EU/PC pseudoscience cult done so? Would any of them even understand the data if they did? You want to find currents here, there and everywhere? Check the data.
Like I said, who are these researchers? What are they publishing? And where? And forget about Thornhill, Talbott, Scott and the other crackpots. I'm talking about actual physicists.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018
The effects of gravity were discovered first so that's where the theories began.


Given that there is no scientifically valid alternatives to gravity (doing what, exactly?), then you are between a rock and a hard place. And GR is one of the most tested scientific theories of all time. It seems to do pretty well.
rossim22
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2018
^^^ I'll repeat myself since you missed it.

1915 - GR is postulated. Separation of charge cannot exist in space, that's 'known.'
1929 - Increasing redshift with distance is interpreted as expanding universe. Separation of charge cannot exist in space, that's 'known.'
1933 - Dark matter is postulated. Separation of charge still cannot exist in space, that's 'known.'
1964 - 'Cosmic microwave background' is discovered and, through reasoning, is used to confirm the existence of Big Bang. Separation of charge STILL cannot exist in space, that's 'known'.

1967 - Birkeland's theories are finally DIRECTLY OBSERVED. Turns out charge separation can exist in space after all.

I'm not saying any theory is correct, I'm saying GR is wrong. I'm skeptical as every scientist should remain. An experiment is an attempt to falsify, not confirm. Intentions to confirm will possess an inherent bias.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2018
jonesdave, you always express the same fallacy. "Obviously it's wrong because most/all scientists agree something else is correct" isn't an argument at all


No, it is due to the EU/PC crowd not being able to come up with a valid hypothesis, that is also matched by evidence. However, if you would like to discuss PC stuff, and do it among actual physicists/ astrophysicists/ plasma physicists, then may I suggest that you resurrect this thread at ISF?

http://www.intern...osmology

I would suggest reading through it first.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018
Separation of charge STILL cannot exist in space, that's 'known'.


What on Earth are you on about? Have you ever heard of the Debye length? And Birkeland currents around Earth happen for a specific environment found around a planet with a magnetic field and an atmosphere. I fail to see the relevance. What the hell is causing the charge separation you need, and where are you seeing it, that nobody else can? Where is this stuff written up. No need for a telescope, just a valid hypothesis that matches evidence.
rossim22
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
Look, I have no interest in this derailment.

Birkeland currents were predicted in 1908 and the theory was considered fringe science for over 50 years while GR reigned supreme in cosmology.

Standard Cosmology kept the ideas that described their roles in earth's environment but had no use for the significance in general astrophysical phenomenae because they already had over 50 years of effort into a paradigm.

They weren't going to turn back then and aren't going to anytime soon unless one of two things happen which I've already stated:

- an already well-respected cosmologist accepts the risk and delves into the PC paradigm against the views of their peers, thus opening the door for others to follow suit.
OR
- there is undeniable, extraordinary evidence in favor of plasma cosmology which also directly disputes the current theory
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
Birkeland currents have definitively been detected connecting the Sun to the Earth, jonesdumb just prefers his faerie tales rooted in willful ignorance.
rossim22
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018
Cantdrive, calling him jonesdumb will only cause him to retaliate and turn this into more of a pissing match than it already is.

Currents are now known to connect planets to the sun and moons to the planets. Problem is there was already a dogma in place when these discoveries were made and none of them refute GR on their own.

All in all, if Einstein was aware of the significance and prevalence of electromagnetism in space before he proposed GR, then today's perspective of our universe would be very different. But... that doesn't matter now does it?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
an already well-respected cosmologist accepts the risk and delves into the PC paradigm against the views of their peers, thus opening the door for others to follow suit.
OR
- there is undeniable, extraordinary evidence in favor of plasma cosmology which also directly disputes the current theory


Lol. There is nothing to delve into. I keep asking - where is this hypothesis? Who is responsible for it? Where is it written up? Nobody is going to investigate something that doesn't exist.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018
Birkeland currents have definitively been detected connecting the Sun to the Earth, jonesdumb just prefers his faerie tales rooted in willful ignorance.


No, they haven't.
rossim22
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018


Nobody is going to investigate something that doesn't exist.



You mean like dark matter?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2018
Currents are now known to connect planets to the sun and moons to the planets. Problem is there was already a dogma in place when these discoveries were made and none of them refute GR on their own.


Really? Are you talking about the induced currents around Saturn and Jupiter? Due to neutral gases from volcanism/ water becoming ionised photoelectrically, and then moving through the large magnetic fields of those planets? What has that got to do with PC woo?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018


Nobody is going to investigate something that doesn't exist.



You mean like dark matter?


Bullet Cluster. Among other things. What I'm saying is that you don't have an hypothesis for any of this, so how can anyone investigate it? Write it up, and maybe, if it's in a relevant peer reviewed journal, somebody might notice it.
rossim22
2.3 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2018
Birkeland currents have definitively been detected connecting the Sun to the Earth, jonesdumb just prefers his faerie tales rooted in willful ignorance.


No, they haven't.


Please see "magnetic flux ropes" which is a misnomer of Birkeland currents.
rossim22
1.8 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018


Nobody is going to investigate something that doesn't exist.



You mean like dark matter?


Bullet Cluster. Among other things. What I'm saying is that you don't have an hypothesis for any of this, so how can anyone investigate it? Write it up, and maybe, if it's in a relevant peer reviewed journal, somebody might notice it.


You think Kristian Birkeland could have had his hypotheses published in peer reviewed journals even when he was considered a fringe scientist? No. It doesn't work like that.

Hell... the guy built a freakin' vacuum chamber at the turn of the 1900's and directly observed plasma behavior. He was still thought of as a pseudoscientist. Nobody noticed, nobody investigated until 50 years after his death.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018


Nobody is going to investigate something that doesn't exist.



You mean like dark matter?


Bullet Cluster. Among other things. What I'm saying is that you don't have an hypothesis for any of this, so how can anyone investigate it? Write it up, and maybe, if it's in a relevant peer reviewed journal, somebody might notice it.


You think Kristian Birkeland could have had his hypotheses published in peer reviewed journals even when he was considered a fringe scientist? No. It doesn't work like that.


That was a hundred bloody years ago! Get up to date! What is wrong with you people? Where is this 'hypothesis' written up? You keep saying that scientists ignore it. So, WHAT ARE THEY IGNORING? Answer the question. Youtube? Dunderdolts? Lol. You think actual scientists are going to go looking at crap on there? So, they aren't ignoring anything, are they? You can't tell me who is writing it, or where they are writing it.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2018
Birkeland currents have definitively been detected connecting the Sun to the Earth, jonesdumb just prefers his faerie tales rooted in willful ignorance.


No, they haven't.


Please see "magnetic flux ropes" which is a misnomer of Birkeland currents.


Wrong. Please feel free to join up at ISF and put your proposition to an actual plasma physicist. I suspect you aren't relevantly qualified to argue the case, but try if you wish.
rossim22
2.1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2018
Birkeland currents have definitively been detected connecting the Sun to the Earth, jonesdumb just prefers his faerie tales rooted in willful ignorance.


No, they haven't.


Please see "magnetic flux ropes" which is a misnomer of Birkeland currents.


Wrong. Please feel free to join up at ISF and put your proposition to an actual plasma physicist. I suspect you aren't relevantly qualified to argue the case, but try if you wish.


I wouldn't waste my time arguing with anyone so close-minded like yourself.

I only post here in the hopes that maybe one person will look into it themselves and build an interest in cosmology like I have. I don't care if they agree with me or not. I feel I'm as objective as possible, like all scientists should be.
rossim22
2.1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2018

That was a hundred bloody years ago! Get up to date! What is wrong with you people? Where is this 'hypothesis' written up? You keep saying that scientists ignore it. So, WHAT ARE THEY IGNORING? Answer the question. .


Look, you're not getting it. And that's fine.

There's no link that I can provide where you'll read it and have an aha! moment.

GR was built upon a foundation that pays little to no attention to electromagnetism whatsoever, and it works mathematically! Who can argue space-time? It's not falsifiable! Who can argue dark matter? It cannot be directly observed in anyway by its very definition but who cares?! Brilliant!

If GR worked before electromagnetism had been observed in the cosmos, of course GR will still work after. You just mash ad hoc hypotheses onto what has already been "confirmed" and keep the ball rolling.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2018
Wrong. Please feel free to join up at ISF and put your proposition to an actual plasma physicist.

This is jonesdumb's typical response as he is incapable of explaining why he thinks there is a difference between a Birkeland current and flux rope. His willful ignorance again.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
Wrong. Please feel free to join up at ISF and put your proposition to an actual plasma physicist.

This is jonesdumb's typical response as he is incapable of explaining why he thinks there is a difference between a Birkeland current and flux rope. His willful ignorance again.


Err, thicko - what exactly are you qualified in? Pure woo, yes? Never seen the inside of a university, have you, woo boy? Go away, you burke.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018

That was a hundred bloody years ago! Get up to date! What is wrong with you people? Where is this 'hypothesis' written up? You keep saying that scientists ignore it. So, WHAT ARE THEY IGNORING? Answer the question.

There's no link that I can provide where you'll read it and have an aha! moment.


No, you idiot; I have spent a number of years at university, learning about things that are way beyond idiots like you. Yes? What are you qualified in? Other than finding woo sites on the web? You are as big a waste of space as the idiot cantthink. You don't understand science, and are therefore incapable of having a rational conversation about the subject.
I'll ask you again, dummy; where is this PC crap? Who has written it? Where can I find it?
If you can't answer that, woo boy, then go away. Yes?
Want me to link to a bunch of crap you brought up on Cosmoquest, some years ago? Show everyone how thick you really are? Electric comet, woo boy?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018

That was a hundred bloody years ago! Get up to date! What is wrong with you people? Where is this 'hypothesis' written up? You keep saying that scientists ignore it. So, WHAT ARE THEY IGNORING? Answer the question. .


Look, you're not getting it. And that's fine.

There's no link that I can provide where you'll read it and have an aha! moment.


Jesus. Thick or what? Which university did you attend, woo boy? What subjects did you take? More to the point, which ones did you pass?
You are saying that the thing that scientists are ignoring doesn't actually exist? Christ, mate! Do you realise how thick that makes you look, given your previous drivel? Just...............go away. You are seriously stupid, Rossim. Eh?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
There's no link that I can provide where you'll read it and have an aha! moment.


Yes, there is, woo boy. Just show us where this crap has been written up. We'll all have a laugh, sorry, a look. What is it about this woo? Is it a secret? How are people ignoring it, when it doesn't even f!"££$g exist? Get a life, you loon. Let us into this secret. Otherwise we'll keep f£$898&g ignoring the crap. Yes?
Tell us, Rossim; who wrote this crap? And where is it, dear? If you can't answer that, then may I suggest that you do one?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
OK, gloves off. This is the thicko Rossim on Cosmoquest some years back, trying to defend the idiot Thornhill's woo:
https://forum.cos...ghlight=

Now, is that dumb, or is that dumb? Eh, Rossim? Want me to grab some stuff off the Rosetta Blog, as well? Science really isn't your thing, is it, dear?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
I feel I'm as objective as possible, like all scientists should be.


Errrr, you aren't a scientist, are you Rossim? I very much doubt that you have ever been anywhere near a university, have you, dear? What are you qualified in? Astrology? Velikovskianism? Phrenology? Give up, woo boy, yes?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2018
Summary of this thread, so far:

Rossim: Scientists are ignoring PC woo.
Me: Which PC woo?
Rossim: Not telling you. It's a secret.
Me: So, what exactly are they ignoring, then?
Rossim: Not telling you, nanananana.

Dumb arses or what? Seriously!
Visitor5
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2018
The great Martian war of the microbes started with a similar argument, clouding opportunity's judgement and solar panels. Thus the Martian nanobot space force was created to defend Mars from terraformation.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2018
Schooling obviously did not make you any smarter JonesDumb. It did make you a consensus stooge with a strong faith in authority. A great defender and believer of non-falsifiable peer reviewed nonsense like the theological construct of Big Bang miracles and Dark Matter magic.
Does not matter if it was fifty or a hundred fifty years ago you vapid twat.
https://phys.org/...nts.html
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2018
GR was built upon a foundation that pays little to no attention to electromagnetism whatsoever, and it works mathematically! Who can argue space-time? It's not falsifiable! Who can argue dark matter? It cannot be directly observed in anyway by its very definition but who cares?! Brilliant!.


You sound superficially reasonable, but make no sense.
How in the world is GR not falsifiable?
How the hell do you want to "see" dark matter if it cannot interact via EM?
How do you explain galaxy rotation curves, star velocity dispersions in galaxies, galaxy cluster masses, gravitational lensing, the CMB angular power spectrum, structure formation after BB, Bullet Cluster, type Ia supernova distance measurements, sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations, redshift-space distortions and Lyman-alpha forest observations? They can all be "seen".
You really make no sense.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
Schooling obviously did not make you any smarter JonesDumb. It did make you a consensus stooge with a strong faith in authority. A great defender and believer of non-falsifiable peer reviewed nonsense like the theological construct of Big Bang miracles and Dark Matter magic.
Does not matter if it was fifty or a hundred fifty years ago you vapid twat.
https://phys.org/...nts.html


Lol. And the idiot links to something that has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Burke.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018
GR was built upon a foundation that pays little to no attention to electromagnetism whatsoever, and it works mathematically! Who can argue space-time? It's not falsifiable! Who can argue dark matter? It cannot be directly observed in anyway by its very definition but who cares?! Brilliant!.


You sound superficially reasonable, but make no sense.

You really make no sense.


Correct. The problem with people like Rossim, is that he has been conned by scientifically illiterate con artists, such as Wal Thornhill. He, like the rest of the electric wooists, doesn't have the education, nor qualifications, to see why he has been conned. As per the Cosmoquest link I posted upthread. I have encountered him, and many like him, in various places over the years, and none of them seem to have even a vague idea about real science. Everything they seem to believe is a mish-mash of stuff cobbled together by Velikovskian loons, such as the idiot Thornhill.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018
But like I said, just keep this rationale in your mind for the upcoming Rosetta mission. If it shows volatiles exploding out of the comet, then you are absolutely right. If it shows a Debye sheath forming, building electrical potential until discharges occur, then a fundamental revolution of our understanding of the cosmos is in order. ***I have absolutely no problem in admitting that I'm wrong when the opportunity presents itself.***

https://forum.cos...t2190060

Right, Rossim, it would appear that that opportunity has presented itself! Care to admit that you got conned? And that a large chunk of the reason you were wrong is because you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to see through the rubbish and lies spewed forth by con artists like Thornhill?
Any reason why anybody should take you, or your cult, seriously?
rossim22
1 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018
Lol wow! Jonesdave, I think your IQ dropped a few notches before you began typing those last comments.

Nothing you said regarding me, or my views, or my comments here on this article was accurate.

And I never insulted or resulted to name calling once before you went off on your asinine rant.

You being so hurt about how you "spent a number of years in university" as if that provides some support for your argument displays one of the principal reasons why this dogma persists, even when it's built upon an UNFALSIFIABLE foundation.

I never once said that plasma cosmology is being "ignored," those are your words that you keep repeating.

As I've already said, any ideas related to PC will not gain steam unless one of two things happen, you can read above since I've already stated them twice.

Clearly, you've proven incapable of distinguishing my comments from your own so I don't have much more to add.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2018
As I've already said, any ideas related to PC will not gain steam.......


Correct, because, as far as I can see, they don't exist. Would that be a fair summation?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2018
And Rossim also said:

GR was built upon a foundation that pays little to no attention to electromagnetism whatsoever,...


So, what about EM should we be incorporating into modern scientific approaches that aren't already in there? Why are you keeping on making out that we are all missing something, but are then totally incapable of telling us what that something is? You see the problem here? There is no such thing as PC as far as I can see. Yes, Alfven had some strange ideas back in the day, and Peratt came up with a laughably bad galaxy model, but that would seem to be the extent of it.
rossim22
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2018

So, what about EM should we be incorporating into modern scientific approaches that aren't already in there?


How can one conceivably falsify the idea of space-time?

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018

So, what about EM should we be incorporating into modern scientific approaches that aren't already in there?


How can one conceivably falsify the idea of space-time?



Answering a question with a question leads me to think that PC has no ideas of its own on this matter. Assuming it actually exists.
rossim22
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2018
How can one conceivably falsify the idea of space-time?

How can one conceivably falsify the idea of dark matter?

Not to mention scientists still don't know why mass would cause the bending of space-time to produce the effects of gravity in the first place... but hey, it works mathematically!
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
How can one conceivably falsify the idea of space-time?

How can one conceivably falsify the idea of dark matter?

Not to mention scientists still don't know why mass would cause the bending of space-time to produce the effects of gravity in the first place... but hey, it works mathematically!


So, you have nothing to add other than the usual whinges of EUists? Have you got any science we should be looking at? If not, what are you doing here? If you have, let's see it.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2018
@rossim
Not to mention scientists still don't know why
scientists also still don't know why people can cling to an obviously false idea, claim or belief when the empirical evidence clearly shows them to be wrong, either, but it's a well-known fact and studied by everyone from biologists and neurologists to psychiatrists

yet here you are - still making the same false arguments to support your beliefs, regardless of the empirical evidence

rossim22
2 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018

So, you have nothing to add other than the usual whinges of EUists? Have you got any science we should be looking at? If not, what are you doing here? If you have, let's see it.


I see you keep avoiding my questions.

A theory should be falsifiable, no? Is space-time falsifiable? It's a tenant of GR but merely an assumption nonetheless.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
@rossim
I see you keep avoiding my questions
not really
https://scholar.g...ear+mass

why do you cling to your current eu beliefs when they're demonstrably wrong and proven as such in laboratories (like at pppl.gov )?

is it because you don't like the terminology used?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
***A theory should be falsifiable, no?*** Is space-time falsifiable? It's a tenant of GR but merely an assumption nonetheless.


But you don't seem to have one! The strength of GR is that it makes predictions about what should occur, if it is correct. Take the very recent story posted on here:
https://phys.org/...tem-menu

Now, does PC have anything to offer? Of course it doesn't.

And I think you mean 'tenet'.

yep
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2018
Math is not empirical evidence and never will be.
A Plasma Cosmology with the Electric Universe concepts offers a reality without space magic making up 95% of the universe.
Seemed like a nice offer to me.
jonesdave
not rated yet Jul 28, 2018
Math is not empirical evidence and never will be.
A Plasma Cosmology with the Electric Universe concepts offers a reality without space magic making up 95% of the universe.
Seemed like a nice offer to me.


PC/EU concepts don't work. Not only that, they don't seem to exist. All we have is woo and word salad. In other words - nada. On the other hand, take a look at the latest observations of the star S2 around Sgr A*. Perfectly confirming GR. So, where is the EU/PC equivalent? Something to do with Velikovsky, is it? Or Venus hurtling out of Jupiter? Maybe you can do better than Rossim; what is this PC woo, and where can we see it?
jonesdave
not rated yet Jul 28, 2018
Seemed like a nice offer to me.


Yes, it probably would. Like every other EUist I have encountered, you are likely to be totally ignorant of physics and maths, and are therefore easily conned by crap such as you evidently believe, due to not having the skill set to see through it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.