4 ms·

I think "Dianetics-level bonkers" might be overly harsh. If one believes the radiation anomalies are from nuclear explosions, it seems at least remotely plausi

by gknoy 12y ago

I think "Dianetics-level bonkers" might be overly harsh. If one believes the radiation anomalies are from nuclear explosions, it seems at least remotely plausible that they came from off-planet (because who would do that to their own?). At that pointpoint it's not entirely lunacy to consider the existence of genocidal aliens. None of that means that any of those are true, but each seems to be an explanation that might occur to any normal person who accepts the preceding points. The idea of genocidal aliens has been part of our cultural zeitgeist for some time -- isn't that the premise of Mass Effect?

bronson 12y ago
Dianetics contains progressions of plausible hypotheses to try to make a nutty conclusion look plausible too. Very much like your comment. I wonder if you're reinforcing the statement you're arguing against...?
actsasbuffoon 12y ago
Uranium deposits can (under the right circumstances) can form a natural nuclear fission reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is probably correct. What's simpler: A) This is the result of a naturally occurring process that has happened on our own planet. B) Aliens I'm as excited as the next sci-fi fan to shake hands with aliens, but this isn't even remotely close to a reasonable argument.
- huxley 12y ago
  Interestingly enough, in 2011, Brandenburg thought that was the case too: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf The more recent paper seems like a rehashed subplot from Heinlein's "Rocket Ship Galileo" From chapter 11: Morrie grasped his arm, to steady himself apparently, but quite as much for the comfort of solid human companionship. "You know what I think, Ross," he began, as he stared out at the endless miles of craters. "I think I know how it got that way. Those aren't volcanic craters, that's certain—and it wasn't done by meteors. They did it themselves!" "Huh? Who?" "The moon people. They did it. They wrecked themselves. They ruined themselves. They had one atomic war too many." "Huh? What the-" Ross stared, then looked back at the surface as if to read the grim mystery there. Art stopped taking pictures. "How about it, Doc?" Cargraves wrinkled his brow. "Could be," he admitted. "None of the other theories for natural causes hold water for one reason or another. It would account for the relatively smooth parts we call ‘seas.' They really were seas; that's why they weren't hit very hard." "And that's why they aren't seas any more," Morrie went on. "They blew their atmosphere off and the seas boiled away at Tycho. That's where they set off the biggest ammunition dump on the planet. It cracked the whole planet. I'll bet somebody worked out a counter-weapon that worked too well. It set off every atom bomb on the moon all at once and it ruined them! I'm sure of it."
- jschwartzi 12y ago
  Suppose that it is a result of a natural process. How would you create the conditions necessary for supercriticality given only plate tectonics, an atmosphere, multiple asteroid impacts, and liquid water? One necessary prerequisite is enrichment of the Uranium. We currently use industrial processes to do this. How else might uranium become enriched, absent an industrial process? Are there other elements or isotopes that are also capable of supercriticality? Could those become enriched through a natural process? I'm not arguing against Occam's Razor. I actually think, given those broad questions, that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the simplest explanation(A).
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Did you read the article on natural fission reactors? Completely? If not, do so. It answers your question. No enrichment was necessary at the time, natural quantities were sufficient.
- yiyus 12y ago
  Aliens would be the result of a naturally occurring process that has happened on our own planet too. But yeah.
  - actsasbuffoon 12y ago
    Not only are you correct, but you made me laugh like a lunatic in front of my co-workers. You've won twice today.
  - api 12y ago
    You just won the thread. Congratulations.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  On the other hand again, which is more likely, warlike beings that develop nuclear weapons visiting Mars to nuke it, or warlike beings that develop nuclear weapons visiting Mars to broadcast a reality TV show with no good long term plan for the contestants.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
> The idea of genocidal aliens has been part of our cultural zeitgeist for some time -- isn't that the premise of Mass Effect? Maybe that's why the entire galactic community didn't want to believe in the existence of Reapers - "Genocidal aliens cleaning up the entire galaxy? Now this is just bonkers!".
morsch 12y ago
> because who would do that to their own? Well, as far as we know, 100% of all species who can do it, will do it.
joe_the_user 12y ago
The thing about "genocidal aliens" is... one has to assume such aliens have technology "beyond human knowledge" - since we know of no way to travel between stars. Yet the supposed methods that they used against the supposed Martian civilization seem crude and simplistic, something human beings could now if we put resources into the project. Once one begins hypothesizing "things that can do anything in ways we don't understand for reasons we don't understand but occasionally do some things we do understand but again for no clear or unambiguous reason" then one's ability to use Occam's razor is gone. Maybe a spaceship go marooned on Mars and exploded in the process of trying to fix it's warp drive. What are the odds? Clearly we don't know what the odds for any of this. A simpler hypothesis is a supposed Martian civilization wiped out itself. No necessarily true or supported by much evidence but it seems at least sort-of testable since it doesn't assume variables beyond our conception of what's possible. Human civilization has been poised on the brink of large-scale nuclear in the not-too-distant past so intelligence creating world-destroying-nukes hardly seems like that big a stretch.
- blincoln 12y ago
  "since we know of no way to travel between stars." We don't know of a way to travel between them _quickly enough to be practical for humans_. That's not a problem for machines. They can be patient and take thousands of years.

by gknoy 12y ago

bronson 12y ago

Dianetics contains progressions of plausible hypotheses to try to make a nutty conclusion look plausible too. Very much like your comment. I wonder if you're reinforcing the statement you're arguing against...?

actsasbuffoon 12y ago

Uranium deposits can (under the right circumstances) can form a natural nuclear fission reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is probably correct. What's simpler: A) This is the result of a naturally occurring process that has happened on our own planet. B) Aliens I'm as excited as the next sci-fi fan to shake hands with aliens, but this isn't even remotely close to a reasonable argument.

huxley 12y ago
Interestingly enough, in 2011, Brandenburg thought that was the case too: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf The more recent paper seems like a rehashed subplot from Heinlein's "Rocket Ship Galileo" From chapter 11: Morrie grasped his arm, to steady himself apparently, but quite as much for the comfort of solid human companionship. "You know what I think, Ross," he began, as he stared out at the endless miles of craters. "I think I know how it got that way. Those aren't volcanic craters, that's certain—and it wasn't done by meteors. They did it themselves!" "Huh? Who?" "The moon people. They did it. They wrecked themselves. They ruined themselves. They had one atomic war too many." "Huh? What the-" Ross stared, then looked back at the surface as if to read the grim mystery there. Art stopped taking pictures. "How about it, Doc?" Cargraves wrinkled his brow. "Could be," he admitted. "None of the other theories for natural causes hold water for one reason or another. It would account for the relatively smooth parts we call ‘seas.' They really were seas; that's why they weren't hit very hard." "And that's why they aren't seas any more," Morrie went on. "They blew their atmosphere off and the seas boiled away at Tycho. That's where they set off the biggest ammunition dump on the planet. It cracked the whole planet. I'll bet somebody worked out a counter-weapon that worked too well. It set off every atom bomb on the moon all at once and it ruined them! I'm sure of it."
jschwartzi 12y ago
Suppose that it is a result of a natural process. How would you create the conditions necessary for supercriticality given only plate tectonics, an atmosphere, multiple asteroid impacts, and liquid water? One necessary prerequisite is enrichment of the Uranium. We currently use industrial processes to do this. How else might uranium become enriched, absent an industrial process? Are there other elements or isotopes that are also capable of supercriticality? Could those become enriched through a natural process? I'm not arguing against Occam's Razor. I actually think, given those broad questions, that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the simplest explanation(A).
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Did you read the article on natural fission reactors? Completely? If not, do so. It answers your question. No enrichment was necessary at the time, natural quantities were sufficient.
yiyus 12y ago
Aliens would be the result of a naturally occurring process that has happened on our own planet too. But yeah.
- actsasbuffoon 12y ago
  Not only are you correct, but you made me laugh like a lunatic in front of my co-workers. You've won twice today.
- api 12y ago
  You just won the thread. Congratulations.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
On the other hand again, which is more likely, warlike beings that develop nuclear weapons visiting Mars to nuke it, or warlike beings that develop nuclear weapons visiting Mars to broadcast a reality TV show with no good long term plan for the contestants.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

> The idea of genocidal aliens has been part of our cultural zeitgeist for some time -- isn't that the premise of Mass Effect? Maybe that's why the entire galactic community didn't want to believe in the existence of Reapers - "Genocidal aliens cleaning up the entire galaxy? Now this is just bonkers!".

morsch 12y ago

> because who would do that to their own? Well, as far as we know, 100% of all species who can do it, will do it.

joe_the_user 12y ago

The thing about "genocidal aliens" is... one has to assume such aliens have technology "beyond human knowledge" - since we know of no way to travel between stars. Yet the supposed methods that they used against the supposed Martian civilization seem crude and simplistic, something human beings could now if we put resources into the project. Once one begins hypothesizing "things that can do anything in ways we don't understand for reasons we don't understand but occasionally do some things we do understand but again for no clear or unambiguous reason" then one's ability to use Occam's razor is gone. Maybe a spaceship go marooned on Mars and exploded in the process of trying to fix it's warp drive. What are the odds? Clearly we don't know what the odds for any of this. A simpler hypothesis is a supposed Martian civilization wiped out itself. No necessarily true or supported by much evidence but it seems at least sort-of testable since it doesn't assume variables beyond our conception of what's possible. Human civilization has been poised on the brink of large-scale nuclear in the not-too-distant past so intelligence creating world-destroying-nukes hardly seems like that big a stretch.

blincoln 12y ago
"since we know of no way to travel between stars." We don't know of a way to travel between them _quickly enough to be practical for humans_. That's not a problem for machines. They can be patient and take thousands of years.