CNRS: The Mystery of the Martian Moons Solved

[Ann]

How do I put this, Evermore? Us "regulars" here at Starship Asterisk* aren't out to prove you wrong. But we aren't going to take the time and effort to listen to you in particular, or carefully study all the urls you send us or treat you as if we think you understand more than we do. Why do we behave like that? Because we get our information from the trusted sites, those that are typically quoted in this very forum.

Why aren't we looking for "alternative" sites, those that you recommend? That is because we are impressed with the comprehensive picture that is painted by conventional astronomy sites, which report results from observations, computer simulations etc. that are carried out using conventional science. These sites also explain how the observations and computer simulations etc. were carried out, what methods were used, what assumptions were made and what conclusions were drawn for what reasons. In short: We can, if we want to, try to find out if there was something wrong with the methods used, assumptions made or conclusions drawn to achieve the results. More importantly, other scientists, who have access to the understanding and equipment necessary to follow up and test the results achieved by other people, can come to a different result.

A perfect example of how well this works was when one scientific team thought that they had found gravitational wave echoes of the Big Bang. Another team could show that the apparent gravitational wave signals could easily have been produced by something as simple as dust in our galaxy. Note that the second team didn't say that gravitational wave remnants of the Big Bang absolutely don't exist, only that the experiment carried out to detect them had been unable to do so. The gravitational waves themselves may or may not be present. That was very fine science indeed.

Your approach is very different, Evermore. You get personal and angry. But science should not be about personal attacks. It should be about finding out as much as possible about the universe. I will speak for myself now. Personally I'm not going to read any claims about the universe that are made in an aggressive or retaliatory manner. In my opinion, that kind of approach is incompatible with good science.

Is it impossible that at least some of the claims you are making are correct? Well, since I haven't studied what you say or what evidence you present, I have no right to say that your claims can't be correct. But it is not up to me to be the judge of that.

If your claims are correct, then other scientists should find out that they are. If you are right, then the things you believe in will eventually be reported as truths (or as reasonable possibilities) in the most prestigious astronomical magazines. And if that happens, it will happen because other scientists have tested your claims and found them good.

I'm sorry to say that I will not listen to you until your claims have become at least tentatively acceptable main stream science, Evermore. That is because I don't have the time and absolutely not the energy to listen to even a fraction of all the "alternative theories" out there.

One last observation, Evermore. Some people might argue that I myself hold a few borderline "alternative" views, for example about color. But when I argue for what I believe, I always defend my views in my own words, using my own line of reasoning, and usually illustrating my arguments with pictures for clarity. People who don't agree with me can argue with me, by attacking the arguments I present.

You basically argue with urls. That means that you aren't even necessarily able to understand or summarize the arguments that have been made by someone else, and that you are referring to. You are arguing by proxy, without necessarily understanding what you are talking about at all.

As long as you argue with urls, Evermore, I'm not even going to try to discuss the points you are trying to make.

Ann

[geckzilla]

As long as you argue with urls, Evermore, I'm not even going to try to discuss the points you are trying to make.

I don't think Evermore even really read the last URLs they posted. You can see the original search terms were an attempt to search for the formation of Phobos, and it turned up a page, but that page didn't actually have anything to do with how Phobos originated. It's only about the grooves of Phobos, and their hypothesis is volcanic material creating crater chains to cause its linear features. It has almost nothing to do with Phobos's history prior to that, other than to say it must be a rubble pile. How it came to be as a rubble pile orbiting Mars is not mentioned.

[Chris Peterson]

As long as you argue with urls, Evermore, I'm not even going to try to discuss the points you are trying to make.

I don't think Evermore even really read the last URLs they posted. You can see the original search terms were an attempt to search for the formation of Phobos, and it turned up a page, but that page didn't actually have anything to do with how Phobos originated. It's only about the grooves of Phobos, and their hypothesis is volcanic material creating crater chains to cause its linear features.

Oh, it's worse than that for Evermore. Nothing in the paper suggests volcanic material was involved. It addresses the seven current hypotheses regarding the groove formation- none of which involve volcanism. It argues that the only workable hypothesis of the seven is that the grooves were formed by surface debris ejected following giant impacts. That's precisely the mechanism that the new research reported above proposes for the formation of the Martian moons themselves.

The reference given not only doesn't provide evidence for Evermore's hypothesis, it weighs against it.

[Evermore]

Here is some material you might consider glancing over .. which you seem to do in any case when discussion opposes your opinion .. glance over .. however, there is a lot of material in this url, so even if you glance over it you will gain. https://books.google.ca/books?id=F_cvPN ... os&f=false

Do you realize that this chapter you have linked to, titled Grooves of Phobos does not even discuss the formation of Phobos itself? It is all about the grooves on Phobos.

Yes .. but there is a great deal of very interesting information in the entire read .. including the composition of Phobos which is exactly what would be expected if Phobos was a collection of volcanic ejecta.

[Chris Peterson]

Here is some material you might consider glancing over .. which you seem to do in any case when discussion opposes your opinion .. glance over .. however, there is a lot of material in this url, so even if you glance over it you will gain. https://books.google.ca/books?id=F_cvPN ... os&f=false

Do you realize that this chapter you have linked to, titled Grooves of Phobos does not even discuss the formation of Phobos itself? It is all about the grooves on Phobos.

Yes .. but there is a great deal of very interesting information in the entire read .. including the composition of Phobos which is exactly what would be expected if Phobos was a collection of volcanic ejecta.

It's also what would be expected for impact ejecta- a hypothesis actually supported by strong evidence.

[Evermore]

As long as you argue with urls, Evermore, I'm not even going to try to discuss the points you are trying to make.

I don't think Evermore even really read the last URLs they posted. You can see the original search terms were an attempt to search for the formation of Phobos, and it turned up a page, but that page didn't actually have anything to do with how Phobos originated. It's only about the grooves of Phobos, and their hypothesis is volcanic material creating crater chains to cause its linear features. It has almost nothing to do with Phobos's history prior to that, other than to say it must be a rubble pile. How it came to be as a rubble pile orbiting Mars is not mentioned.

That page was preceded by and followed by many other pages, Geckzilla, and while I did not read them all I scanned them all (which is what is done on forums, generally speaking. Of course we are still in very early stages of discovery regarding the universe, so we have long and entertaining paths in all directions, and it should be enjoyable open mindedness on everyones' rather than assertions of dominance and ego based on scanty information, that tendency not alien to myself, included, so to speak.

[Evermore]

Do you realize that this chapter you have linked to, titled Grooves of Phobos does not even discuss the formation of Phobos itself? It is all about the grooves on Phobos.

Yes .. but there is a great deal of very interesting information in the entire read .. including the composition of Phobos which is exactly what would be expected if Phobos was a collection of volcanic ejecta.

It's also what would be expected for impact ejecta- a hypothesis actually supported by strong evidence.

Not so. The interior is said to be the same as the exterior, which would not be the case if impacts only were involved.

[Chris Peterson]

Yes .. but there is a great deal of very interesting information in the entire read .. including the composition of Phobos which is exactly what would be expected if Phobos was a collection of volcanic ejecta.

It's also what would be expected for impact ejecta- a hypothesis actually supported by strong evidence.

Not so. The interior is said to be the same as the exterior, which would not be the case if impacts only were involved.

First, there is almost nothing known about the interior of Phobos outside of a few bulk properties like porosity. Second, you would expect no difference between the interior and exterior from impact debris. Phobos is not large enough to undergo differentiation, even assuming molten material.

[Evermore]

How do I put this, Evermore? Us "regulars" here at Starship Asterisk*

Why aren't we looking for "alternative" sites, those that you recommend?

Your approach is very different, Evermore. You get personal and angry.

it will happen because other scientists have tested your claims and found them good.


As long as you argue with urls, Evermore, I'm not even going to try to discuss the points you are trying to make.

Ann

As long as you ironclad yourself among 'us regulars here at Starship Asterisk' or anywhere else you diminish your ability for individual creative research and thought.

I do not seek out 'alternative' sites .. I merely google and find what I find .. most often my sources being NASA and other equally sound sources, certainly the case in this case.

It is human to get angry at insults, Ann, such as Chris's oft' repeated 'your ignorance of' which he throws at many forum participants who suggest viewpoints other than his own, that insult which no one at Asterisk seems to be able to suggest is inappropriate, as it IS meant in an insulting way rather than in the true sense of the word, an incomplete education on a topic, or Chris could suggest references of whatever type to substantiate his claims. However, my long post was NOT angry in the least, as I began using Chris's 'your ignorance of' an opportunity to refine my emotions.
Now .. if you, Ann, read anger in my long response, you are being mislead. It is for good reason that the human voice is supplanting many other technologies as security for financial transactions in which the people are not actually present, and even then, in the case of identical twins, the human voice would almost certainly easily differentiate the twins. Emotions can be 'read into' printed media, and emotions should have little to do with scientific discussion, except the emotion of joyful discovery .. anything more is misplaced .. anger certainly very badly misplaced, as now we all know in part, but then ....

As long as you will not read or at least scan urls presented as information you may never attain understanding of the other person's viewpoint, whether it is right OR wrong. Of course, forum participants could simply make simple statements to be taken as fact, which seems to be the accepted manner for 'regular forum participants' a few of whom never seem to substantiate those claims with references of any kind, url or otherwise, book titles, etc.

[Chris Peterson]

It is human to get angry at insults, Ann, such as Chris's oft' repeated 'your ignorance of' which he throws at many forum participants who suggest viewpoints other than his own...

I'm not angry. And it isn't an insult to point out a conclusion that stems from ignorance.

I think you'll find a great many times over the years where somebody's view here has differed from my own, and I've made no claim they were ignorant.

You have many characteristics of people who come to science forums and push non-scientific or pseudoscientific views. When people point out the flaws in their arguments, they double down on their beliefs. Just the opposite of what scientists do. They start getting angry. They start getting personal. They get banned.

[Evermore]

It's also what would be expected for impact ejecta- a hypothesis actually supported by strong evidence.

Not so. The interior is said to be the same as the exterior, which would not be the case if impacts only were involved.

First, there is almost nothing known about the interior of Phobos outside of a few bulk properties like porosity. Second, you would expect no difference between the interior and exterior from impact debris. Phobos is not large enough to undergo differentiation, even assuming molten material.

Porosity, indeed, so much so that the moon is said to breaking apart. (Now you may say many objects break apart, and that is true, but Phobos has a highly unusual porosity.

There will be a difference between interior and exterior, possibly the exterior carrying a scattering of heavier objects like iron meteorites for instance, an even finer pulverization of dust.

[Evermore]

It is human to get angry at insults, Ann, such as Chris's oft' repeated 'your ignorance of' which he throws at many forum participants who suggest viewpoints other than his own...

I'm not angry. And it isn't an insult to point out a conclusion that stems from ignorance.

I think you'll find a great many times over the years where somebody's view here has differed from my own, and I've made no claim they were ignorant.

You have many characteristics of people who come to science forums and push non-scientific or pseudoscientific views. When people point out the flaws in their arguments, they double down on their beliefs. Just the opposite of what scientists do. They start getting angry. They start getting personal. They get banned.

I did not say you were angry, Chris, Ann was saying I was angry, which I was not. And you too often use the phrase "Your ignorance of ..." to be merely a statement that someone needs further education, it is an oft' repeated phrase from you .. seemingly a pet phrase.

You, Chris, exhibit strongly the characteristic you attribute to those proposing what you call 'pseudoscientific' views. When I presented evidence, you insist it is not evidence, etc. You become angry, you become insulting, you either push the ban button, or impose your will for a ban on the moderator.
And yes, you just threatened to have me banned, but that is normal in discussion forums anywhere. Enjoy your sense of power, but you have already found out it carries little satisfaction, and many negative consequences, including loss of participants, loss of new knowledge and loss of impetus to discussion.

[Chris Peterson]

I'm not angry. And it isn't an insult to point out a conclusion that stems from ignorance.

I think you'll find a great many times over the years where somebody's view here has differed from my own, and I've made no claim they were ignorant.

You have many characteristics of people who come to science forums and push non-scientific or pseudoscientific views. When people point out the flaws in their arguments, they double down on their beliefs. Just the opposite of what scientists do. They start getting angry. They start getting personal. They get banned.

I did not say you were angry, Chris, Ann was saying I was angry, which I was not. And you too often use the phrase "Your ignorance of ..." to be merely a statement that someone needs further education, it is an oft' repeated phrase from you .. seemingly a pet phrase.

You, Chris, exhibit strongly the characteristic you attribute to those proposing what you call 'pseudoscientific' views. When I presented evidence, you insist it is not evidence, etc. You become angry, you become insulting, you either push the ban button, or impose your will for a ban on the moderator.
And yes, you just threatened to have me banned, but that is normal in discussion forums anywhere. Enjoy your sense of power, but you have already found out it carries little satisfaction, and many negative consequences, including loss of participants, loss of new knowledge and loss of impetus to discussion.

You did not say I was angry, but you do now? I'm insulting? I can impose my will on a moderator? (Watch out Geck... the brain waves are coming your way.)

A loss of participants is not necessarily a bad thing. Over the years it has seldom been negative in this forum.

[Evermore]

Another interesting comparison between Phobos and Mars:

"Observations of Phobos in the thermal infrared suggest a composition containing mainly phyllosilicates, which are well known from the surface of Mars. The spectra are distinct from those of all classes of chondrite meteorites, again pointing away from an asteroidal origin."

This is what would be expected though, if Phobos were once part of Mars.

[Chris Peterson]

Another interesting comparison between Phobos and Mars:

"Observations of Phobos in the thermal infrared suggest a composition containing mainly phyllosilicates, which are well known from the surface of Mars. The spectra are distinct from those of all classes of chondrite meteorites, again pointing away from an asteroidal origin."

This is what would be expected though, if Phobos were once part of Mars.

Quite. Which is part of why the current thinking is leaning in the direction of Phobos having once been part of Mars. Did you entirely miss the news that started this discussion in the first place?

[Evermore]

Another interesting comparison between Phobos and Mars:

"Observations of Phobos in the thermal infrared suggest a composition containing mainly phyllosilicates, which are well known from the surface of Mars. The spectra are distinct from those of all classes of chondrite meteorites, again pointing away from an asteroidal origin."

This is what would be expected though, if Phobos were once part of Mars.

Quite. Which is part of why the current thinking is leaning in the direction of Phobos having once been part of Mars. Did you entirely miss the news that started this discussion in the first place?

Impact.

However .. like an early post in this thread read .. the world "solved" is misleading .. it's just another theory.

And, as it is said that Phobos is too small to have been formed from its own gravity .. that opens the idea of electromagnetic attraction between components .. electromagnetic properties in the dust and rock created by, perhaps, lightning in the volcanic clouds.

[Evermore]

You did not say I was angry, but you do now? I'm insulting? I can impose my will on a moderator? (Watch out Geck... the brain waves are coming your way.)

A loss of participants is not necessarily a bad thing. Over the years it has seldom been negative in this forum.

You would not threaten a banning if you were not angry.

You cannot impose your will, but you can strongly motivate. (And yes, of course, the decision is the moderators, but I suggest moderators are becoming weary of banning people who oppose your views.) And yes, your often use of what strongly seems to be a pet and specific phrase of "Your ignorance is ..." can only come from an insulting spirit, otherwise you would use more careful wording, perhaps suggesting some reading material or (God Forbid) url to enlighten the 'less learned' one.

A loss of participants, except for acts of a criminal or thoroughly obnoxious or lewd nature, or being deliberately and purposesly disruptive in obvious ways, is a loss of value. 'The world is flat' can easily rule, even today.

[Chris Peterson]

Quite. Which is part of why the current thinking is leaning in the direction of Phobos having once been part of Mars. Did you entirely miss the news that started this discussion in the first place?

Impact.

However .. like an early post in this thread read .. the world "solved" is misleading .. it's just another theory.

No. That's where you are completely wrong, and again showing ignorance of how science works. It's not "just another theory". It's the best theory. It's the theory that is best tested, is supported by the most evidence, and has the most support. The objection to the word "solved" was not an indictment of the theory or its strength.

And, as it is said that Phobos is too small to have been formed from its own gravity .. that opens the idea of electromagnetic attraction between components .. electromagnetic properties in the dust and rock created by, perhaps, lightning in the volcanic clouds.

Now you're really grasping. It is quite well understood how electrical (not magnetic, however) attraction can begin the process of bringing together dust particles in space, before gravity becomes dominant. Particles become charged in the solar environment. There's no need to invoke some hypothetical volcanic clouds.

[Chris Peterson]

You would not threaten a banning if you were not angry.

I did not threaten to ban you.

[Evermore]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... olved.html

This shows how volcanic clouds create lightning.

'Static' would draw that volcanic dust and rock in space together where gravity would not.

[Chris Peterson]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... olved.html

This shows how volcanic clouds create lightning.

'Static' would draw that volcanic dust and rock in space together where gravity would not.

I understand about lightning in volcanic clouds. I also understand how particles in space become charged, without any need to involve lightning. You're inventing a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.

[geckzilla]

Chris has been around here a while. He's not influencing me or trying to impose his will on the mods. He just sees a pattern and is noting that you're following it, Evermore. You are ignorant and you don't even accept it. We're all ignorant about many things. You come in here and demonstrate it and then don't accept any criticism, instead doubling down. It's tiresome and it's something that has been repeated over and over and always results in a ban once we finally give up on you. Your ignorance is not as good as Chris's expertise. You don't even know his background, you just dismiss him outright. We can dismiss you, too. Goodbye.

[Chris Peterson]

You would not threaten a banning if you were not angry.

I did not threaten to ban you.

But you threatened a ban.

I did not. But I'm now predicting it.

[bystander]

Please don't feed the trolls.

[Chris Peterson]

I know Chris has some knowledge of several topics, as do we all, but according to his own Cloudbait website (which he is to be commended for) he is "... and my own as an amateur astronomer ..." certainly not a professional astronomer, volcanologist, geologist, physicist, cosmologist, stellar expert, astro biologist, chemist, materials scientist, etc .. all of which he presents himself as with his profound statements of what he considers facts on those topics, but which he does not support by evidence of any kind, but which when shown he is not the only participant here with some knowledge becomes antagonistic and insulting.

I am both a professional astronomer with peer-reviewed publications, and an amateur astronomer, depending on the specialty. I have also presented professionally as a geologist, and as an amateur. Science can be that way. A person can be a scientist whether they are professional or amateur, it makes no difference. The important point is that a scientist is evidence driven, and has a very high respect for the consensus views of experts when considering ideas outside their own specialty. A good scientist is able to recognize that their own hypothesis can be weak compared with others. It is one thing to believe a thing is possible, and quite another to believe- with little or no support- that it's likely.