Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Evidence of Life on Mars?

- Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:04:17 EST sojeXM9D No.57606
File: 1553511857280.jpg -(163544B / 159.71KB, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Evidence of Life on Mars?
George Hale - Mon, 25 Mar 2019 17:41:25 EST izGRJ+VN No.57607 Reply
Looks like a quack site.
Giuseppe Piazzi - Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:02:10 EST 457vC2+I No.57608 Reply
1553554930599.jpg -(5858B / 5.72KB, 275x183) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>Life on Mars?
It's a God-awful small affair
To the girl with the mousy hair
But her mummy is yelling no
And her daddy has told her to go
Margaret Burbidge - Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:05:28 EST aGo2dCNY No.57612 Reply
1553569528033.jpg -(174344B / 170.26KB, 981x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
If it is then they're doing a good job of mimicking conventional scientific skepticism
>The evidence is so controversial the Journal of Astrobiology and Space Science Reviews subjected the article to extensive peer review by six independent scientists and eight Senior Editors, three of whom rejected and eleven of whom recommended publication but only after significant revisions. The Journal's official position is: "Evidence is not proof and there is no proof of life on Mars. Abiogenic explanations for this evidence can't be ruled out."
Imagine the gigafacepalm if turns out that the results from the Viking landers in the 70s were accurate and everyone just wrote it off when we could have been 4 decades ahead of the game now instead
Clyde Tombaugh - Thu, 28 Mar 2019 21:02:44 EST RXXyr7wh No.57624 Reply
and yet absolute absurdities like dark matter are generally accepted to be true parts of reality by the astronomical community.
why does unobservable dark matter exist until its proven not to while seemingly observable hints of organic life on a second planet don't exist until they're proven to be true even though the existence of organic life has already been proven.
i believe in provable or disprovable life on mars a hell of a lot more than i ever will in magical invisible dark matter in the galactic halo 50k light years distant.
Irwin Shapiro - Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:27:20 EST aGo2dCNY No.57625 Reply
1553833640133.gif -(448175B / 437.67KB, 253x343) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>dark matter
Imagine inventing a mysterious invisible force when your theories and numbers don't dovetail with observable reality. Wouldn't a normal person call the numbers and theories into question instead of announcing that ghosts are the reason why their perfect and unquestionable theory doesn't produce the numbers which are observed in IRL? Instead we get
>the theory works if splonge
>splonge. hmm i wonder
>splonge, yes its splonge for sure
>rabble splonge rabble rabble rabble splonge
>oh yeah, sponge for me too boss
>hey everybody, splonge!
>and the nobel prize for physics goes to the department head for his splonge theorem
like srsly, why not just invoke jesus?
Arno Penzias - Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:55:15 EST D3ZayY6M No.57627 Reply
1554404115232.jpg -(69914B / 68.28KB, 404x420) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It is. The first snapshot on Wayback Machine from 2018 shows that the "journal"'s about page links to cosmology.com, aka the well-known sham Journal of Cosmology, and the two publications appear to share the exact same staff.

Here are a few of them, if you're curious. Wickramasinghe of course had a prolific scientific career in astrochemistry before going off the deep end and claiming, among other things, that the red rain of Kerala was alien bacteria trying to invade the Earth and that all the numerous well-preserved Archaeopteryx dino-bird fossils are hoaxes. Deepak needs no introduction. And the third guy, the executive editor-in-chief, is also the lead author of the Mars paper! Wow, the peer review must've been super thorough with no conflicts of interest
Johan Galle - Wed, 17 Apr 2019 23:11:14 EST 9YXtXzja No.57649 Reply
The only place anyone is going to listen to you, sincerely, is /pol/
Alan Guth - Tue, 07 May 2019 00:55:24 EST VXVyTSl5 No.57681 Reply
agreed go to /tinfoil/, science is true there is no conspiracy other than the conspiracy of what we don't know correcting past knowledge or at least better explaining current knowledge
Wilhelm Beer - Tue, 07 May 2019 08:11:58 EST RXXyr7wh No.57682 Reply
To have made that reply you would have first had to have read the post. Maybe you got angry at it because it made you feel dumb for not understanding the preconceived notions that you've decided to adopt.
Bruon Rossi - Thu, 09 May 2019 00:39:34 EST VXVyTSl5 No.57686 Reply
Who knows mane, your ideas could have been adopted in a similar manner without use knowing. Come back with more bullets of you gonna Galileo us
Margaret Burbidge - Thu, 09 May 2019 03:41:46 EST fh8kySk7 No.57687 Reply
If you remember what you learned about history with respect to Galileo, the situation was that what passed for the scientific community back then utterly refused to acknowledge Galileo's findings, even though they were plainly and obviously accurate and could be observe by anyone, because maintaining the status quo was more important to them than gaining new insight on the universe.
The lesson to be taken from the whole unfortunate GG incident in not that anyone who disavows the conventional wisdom should be held to unreasonable standards of proof until they shut the fuck up and go away. nevertheless contemporary astronomers do just that, people's careers are ended if they openly voice certain opinions. you can't discuss redshift quantization in conventional professional astronomy even though its an observable effect. its off limits to discussion because nobody has figured out a way to explain redshift quantization in terms of big bang cosmology so you're just going to have to pretend you never heard of it if you want a career in the science as a professional.
a what kind of a professional is arguable, but its pretty certain that no scientist would willfully ignore observable evidence. are they priests? lawyers?
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Thu, 09 May 2019 12:40:31 EST izGRJ+VN No.57689 Reply
> you can't discuss redshift quantization in conventional professional astronomy even though its an observable effect.
Interesting, so which theory explains the effect properly?
Vera Rubiin - Thu, 09 May 2019 15:39:51 EST 457vC2+I No.57690 Reply
Not that poster, but redshift quantization is just an observable phenomena, which, like most astronomical phenomena, is used to suggest a cosmological theory. It's presence is not a smoking gun for any particular non-standard cosmology, but it is most useful to steady state or big bounce type theories. LCDM usually tries to explain it away as a selection effect or the result of the geometry of super-clusters.
However, to say that there has been no discussion of this topic is also a little misleading. The most recent back and forth about it was between Schneider (2007) suggesting the selection effect argument, countered by Bell and Comeau (2010) who argued that the previous analysis mishandled the data and offered no explanation as to how selection effects resulted in redshift peaks without excessively smoothing the data.

I don't know what's so hard about admitting that scientists might sometimes have pet theories and biases. The decimation of super-symmetry in this decade should all put a fresh reminder of that in our minds. So what's so unbelievable about the idea that scientists, being human, aren't absolutely perfect arbiters of what is and isn't a compelling argument, and that cultural and social forces have at least some impact of scientific discourse?
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Thu, 09 May 2019 17:29:14 EST izGRJ+VN No.57692 Reply
>Not that poster
Yeah that was more of a rhetorical question too ;)

>It's presence is not a smoking gun for any particular non-standard cosmology, but...
Well for what it's worth a majority of the stuff that comes up when googling it are creationist site. Oh and there is a paragraph on it on rationalwiki, which is always a chuckle.
William de Sitter - Thu, 09 May 2019 20:30:18 EST GcneW8jC No.57693 Reply
this is the world of professional logical science?
>quantized rdshift? you're imagining it!
but dark matter is totally real on the other hand, if you think that doesn't exist then apparently thats also reason to question your sanity and judgement even though the apparent gravitational effects of dark matter can be just as easily explained by cosmological expansion, which is also observable.
You seem really well read on these topics, but
>scientists might sometimes have pet theories and biases
no, emphatically. if you have pet theories and biases then you're not a scientist, its one or the other. one can have pet theories and biases or are one can be an unbiased observer. being biases and being scientific are two concepts that are fundamentally at odds. that phrase you posted is illogic, you cause people mental when you say stuff like that. reading sent granting jags of hated cognitive dissonance into my central nervous system, reading that was like the opposite of getting high, please don't do it again or at least spoiler it.
stop having stockholm syndrome for posers who stand in the way of progress by faking their way into positions of authority. people need to be held accountable when they fuck up and are wrong, otherwise they get their heads up their asses and start huffing their own farts. peer review is supposed to do that, but that system only works when most of the peers are acting in good faith as scientists.
it all such a disappointing shame
William de Sitter - Thu, 09 May 2019 20:34:28 EST GcneW8jC No.57694 Reply
do you honestly think that you're going to just come up with an intelligent opinion on a topic as deep baseball as redshift quantization by googling it? like some soccer mom can just figure this shit out from the kitchen while shes microwaving ur hot pockets?
you can read the astrophysical journal free online, why not read a little of that before spouting off some ignorant, uninformed opinion?
Otto Struve - Fri, 10 May 2019 05:35:45 EST 457vC2+I No.57695 Reply
  1. Get better at english grammar.
  2. You are arguing in bad faith when you say things like
>>if you have pet theories and biases then you're not a scientist,
because by that definition there have never been any scientists. No one is ever a perfect anything, and no true scotsman can tell me otherwise. You obviously know this, you know scientists aren't robots that are perfectly dispassionate, so why pretend otherwise, especially when I'm ostensibly the only other person in this thread helping defend your point?
Karl Jansky - Fri, 10 May 2019 15:48:00 EST izGRJ+VN No.57696 Reply
>do you honestly think that you're going to just come up with an intelligent opinion on a topic as deep baseball as redshift quantization by googling it?
Better than digging through pages of ramblings from crank sites.
And the nice thing about that approach is: Even the most consorted effort of the Kookweb can't push the related rationalwiki snippet off the front page.

(Just doing my part so it stays that way)
quantized redshift is bogus: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Doppler_Effect#.22Quantized_redshift.22
Thomas Gold - Sun, 12 May 2019 21:56:30 EST aGo2dCNY No.57698 Reply
>Get better at english grammar.
>You are arguing in bad faith
making up random magical new rules of engagement when you come across something you don't like, but can't figure out a logical a way around. Moving goalposts is about as bad faith as it gets.
You'll make up any excuse to avoid ever questioning your beliefs, won't you? Just as if you're following a religious faith.
Arguing in favor of bias in science is just so blatantly absurd, anyone who could do that must have their head pretty far up their own ass.
Rudolph Minkowski - Mon, 13 May 2019 00:38:55 EST 457vC2+I No.57699 Reply
It wasn't an argument. It was advice.
>>random magical new rules of engagement
Good faith is a prerequisite of all argumentation and always has been.
>>moving goal posts
The point I made is actually in defense of the point you were articulating, but you're so blind with paranoia you can't even parse what people are saying to you. The goal post is the one you established: your point seems to be 'scientists behave like religious people, see!' well guess what the thing I said that you sperged out so hard to was; 'sometimes scientists can have biases too.' Which, just to make sure you're paying attention, is saying the exact same thing.
>>Arguing in favor of bias in science
If you think everyone who points out something is advocating that thing, I can understand why you're so buttfrustrated all the time. Trust me, it's not them, its you.
>>anyone who could do that must have their head pretty far up their own ass.
Yes, anyone who can go out of their way to twist other's words into being caricatures of their imagined foes and shadow boxing with them is pretty much exclusively sniffing their own farts and interacting with no one. As you seem pretty fixed on doing so, enjoy, and leave me out of it.
Henry Draper - Wed, 15 May 2019 01:06:44 EST aGo2dCNY No.57703 Reply
You're pretty much a girl, can you try and stay on topic instead of turning everything into some kind of faggoty emotional bullshit? I guess you must turn to that tactic to avoid admitting when you're wrong about something.
Whatever bitch, you're fucking dumb
Bernard Burke - Wed, 15 May 2019 18:52:32 EST 457vC2+I No.57704 Reply
I am a girl nice misogyny btw and everything I have been posted to you has been relevant to the topic that you slid the thread to. You come in the thread screeching about how scientists are religious because of dark matter, then get increasingly angry and repeat yourself without really defending your points. As for me, If I admit I was wrong, then I admit you were wrong, because the thing I was claiming was the same as the thing you were claiming (fool that I was, thinking you could tell an argument that supports your claim from one that refutes it.) So basically all this is is you throwing a fit not because I said something different from you, but because I said the same thing as you but not the way you wanted me to say it. So who is emotional again? Obviously your critique of scientists didn't come from the deep place of understanding of the state of science that I thought it did but just because you're an angry asshat who wants to lash out at everything. Therefore, once again, kindly fuck off from this thread, board, chan, planet, etc.
George Gamow - Sat, 18 May 2019 01:55:59 EST aGo2dCNY No.57707 Reply
1558158959830.jpg -(41376B / 40.41KB, 600x395) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
wow lol ur turning in to a total crybaby and melting down, wow motherfucking objective science is powerful stuff
Gerard Kuiper - Sun, 19 May 2019 08:49:08 EST izGRJ+VN No.57708 Reply
1558270148061.jpg -(24252B / 23.68KB, 800x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Now at least both the dark matter and the pseudoscience thread are fucked.
Tycho Brahe - Mon, 20 May 2019 15:24:27 EST 9YXtXzja No.57709 Reply
1558380267354.jpg -(204861B / 200.06KB, 1001x785) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
tits or gtfo. Nobody gives a fuck that you claim to be a girl on the internet.
Johannes Kepler - Mon, 20 May 2019 15:58:30 EST 457vC2+I No.57715 Reply
1558382310047.jpg -(17892B / 17.47KB, 150x205) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
He called me a girl as an insult. It was directly relevant to his 'accusation'. If it was insulting to me, why would I claim it if it was false? If it's true, what reason do I have to prove it to you; it's only relevant to showing him that he's an ass for even using that as an 'insult.' You two little buddy-buddies who like to huff each other's posts might not have noticed this since you invaded so recently, but /sagan/ is incredibly slow. It's really easy to tell who is trying to stir the pot and slide threads, especially when you guys go around in every thread saying the same shit (which always amounts to 'science is wrong my science is better lol.' Maybe you guys should go back where you belong? No one is going to play your game the way you want to play it here. We just like talking about space.
Paul Goldsmith - Tue, 21 May 2019 02:05:44 EST hk6dUEp3 No.57718 Reply
Female here, you guys are pathetic. I'm 29 and get dick regularly.
Paul Goldsmith - Tue, 21 May 2019 02:14:16 EST hk6dUEp3 No.57719 Reply
Why would any egirl like her or me need to prove herself to some skeptical e-virgin who's too beta to even trade with a dick pic? I could care less if you think I'm a man, that's no way to make a gal feel playful and just makes me think you're desperate. It's more fun for me to send nudes to people who don't ask.
Paul Goldsmith - Tue, 21 May 2019 02:18:40 EST hk6dUEp3 No.57720 Reply
Just ignore the pimps sis. No man worthy of lewds would be so insecure that he wastes time online claiming we women don't exist.
John Bahcall - Tue, 21 May 2019 16:54:31 EST 457vC2+I No.57723 Reply
Here's another reason to not post nudes: this is a work-safe board and it's topic is space and astrophysics. Anything else is off-topic. It's significant that the people who were harping about how 'lol you don't wanna dabate me in science u can't handle it' now mostly care about e-penis measuring and repeating a meme from 2005.
John Wheeler - Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:45:00 EST 1EIToYWZ No.57734 Reply
1559375100747.jpg -(24521B / 23.95KB, 512x384) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
women are all idiots, they have on average 200 cc less brain matter than men, a substantial percentage. women and male chimps have similar brainpower.
Karl Jansky - Sun, 02 Jun 2019 20:55:39 EST 457vC2+I No.57735 Reply
Discussion of human brain volumes has nothing to do with astronomy (besides being an obvious troll.) Anyway, brain volume and neuron density matters little at human level intelligence; which is why such modest differences in brain volume and neuron density show no measurable difference in intelligence rankings between men and women. Dogs have almost twice the brain volume of cats; do you really think they're any smarter? Elephants have brains twice the volume of humans; do you think they're twice as smart?

What most significant in the evolutionary history of encephalization is not pure brain volume or neuron density, but brain mass to body mass ratios. Obviously, on average, human women are superior in this metric since human brain mass is fairly constant between sexes but female body mass is proportionally lower. But, we can see from intelligence rankings, that doesn't matter either.

Ok? So fuck off with the sexist bait, thanks.
Joseph Lockyer - Wed, 05 Jun 2019 05:16:01 EST e9RQF+Pm No.57736 Reply
But... Dogs are smarter than cats. More patient and tolerant of failure too. I mean you don't exactly see guide cats.
Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Thu, 06 Jun 2019 14:13:40 EST izGRJ+VN No.57737 Reply
Cat's aren't fully domesticated, at least genetically.
House cats still have very much in common with their wild counterparts.

You could argue that dogs are geniuses when it come to social intelligence. No other animal including other humans instantly know the state of mind of people they are around based on non-verbal cues.
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:26:58 EST 9YXtXzja No.57745 Reply
No, humans just suck at understanding feline body language and behavior. That, and cats are less prone to taking shit from humans, due to not being pack animals (in general) with clear social hierarchy.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:52:15 EST HUBAqrsF No.57747 Reply

dog = wolf re: social hierarchies is a common misconception and canine research disproves the whole alpha theory
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:15:30 EST 9YXtXzja No.57748 Reply
Dogs are not originally descended from wolves, though had interbred with them at times. Only eskimo dogs are true wolf dogs, and huskies and malamutes don't even recognize proper dogs as their own species, nor do they have the same or remotely similar patterns of vocalization. DYOR, you really need to.
Bernhard Schmidt - Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:45:41 EST HUBAqrsF No.57749 Reply

you are stupid. your post about the pyramids being electric power plants was full of evolution denial. i thought you were banned anyway
Harlow Shapley - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:21:51 EST 7rYnqTgm No.57750 Reply
Are you the original A wizard?
Because you're still dumb as fuck
Fred Whipple - Tue, 02 Jul 2019 20:37:44 EST eygzYfFg No.57753 Reply
Wow, a fucking racist neonazi the future immigrant is also an evolution denialist. Who would have thought... It's almost like retardation comes in pairs.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.