Telf, can you give us just your overlay on the color/ir image of the D&M w/o my trace? Thanks <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
- Status
A stuffed animal of your choice, najaB.<br /><br />How about a weasel...a data weasel? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
It appears to be about 5 degrees at the FOM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
Cool,,, Tangent to the corner of the FOM is pretty good, but RCH's model has the D&M pointing through the 'teardrop' feature. <br /><br />Do you think we may have placed the anchor points in the wrong place? +/- 5 degrees?<br /><br />What does the overlay look like, up close, if you have to move it the 5 degrees to 'make' it work? <br /><br />So far, I think we're in the ballpark of my original margin of error estimates... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
Look at the post from 8:19 am...you tell me. I trying to do the best I can do without any guidance from your side. <br /><br />As for drawing the lines from the pyramid to the FOM, I've seen the center of the "face" targeted and the "teardrop." Besides, given the size of the photo we're using, and the fact we have to overlay the "pyramid" on top of another pryamid, it could be off a bit. <br /><br />But maybe we're ahead of ourselves here. I probably jumped the gun posting those (blame it on the medication they gave me yesterday <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />). We need to focus just on the geometry of the "pyramid" first (my posts at 8:19, etc., this morning.)<br /><br />Let's worry about the angles from the "pyramid" to the "Face" after we're sure we've locked down the anchor points, shall we? I have a feeling, given your last post, you're still going to contest them. And once again, this entire process would be much easier if someone from your side could place five dots on that photo for me. Then overlaying the Torun pentagon would be a simple task. <br /><br />Also, I know I have the week off, and am on my back recovering from the procedure yesterday, but what's with all the requests for images? Why am I doing all the work here, Max? I think I've provided enough information to drive the discussion for a while. If you want to focus on the anchor points in the 8:19 post, I'd be glad to try and fine tune that. But no more photos or lines until we do, okay?<br /><br />And again, as for the margin of error, let's wait until we have a working model of the anchor points on the pyramid. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
Telfrow... I think you're doin' a fine job!<br /><br />You've already done 100X more than Plait has!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Take your time.... no rush <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
<font color="yellow">Do you think we may have placed the anchor points in the wrong place? +/- 5 degrees? What does the overlay look like, up close, if you have to move it the 5 degrees to 'make' it work?</font><br /><br />Here's the problem is see with the geometry in the attached photo:<br /><br />If we shift Line A 5 degrees, as you suggest, to the right so it aligns with the FOM and the "arm" in that position, you throw off E, D and B. C would come closer to the "nub" at the base of the "arm." <br /><br />So, no matter how we work it, if we maintain the 60 degree angle, you can only position the pentagon with two of the five angles on or near two clearly defined anchor points. I chose the two most obvious anchor points: E and D. As you pointed out, B is "extrapolated," so it's impossible to determine a point for it.<br /><br />Do you want to see what it looks like with A and C aligned? Is that what you're asking? <br /><br /><i>Edit:</i> BTW, here's the 8:19 am post again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
Hi. If I may make a general comment.<br /><br />Since one of the issues being thrown around is the weathering of the object, perhaps some examination on the climatological conditions would be in order? It certainly has bearing on the possible surface changes over a long period of time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
><i>...perhaps some examination on the climatological conditions would be in order?</i><p>What climatological conditions? Mars has an atmosphere that's what? 1% that of Earth's sea level pressure. There's no measurable precipitation. What little air there is is low in oxygen - dry, cool and low-oxygen: it's pretty close to the perfect environment for preserving structures.</p>
Okay Max. Last series for a while. I'm sick of PhotoShop.<img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Here's the same pentagon shifted five degrees to the right, so it aligns with the center of the FOM. Note how all the other angles are thrown off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
<img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> It's the medicine they gave me. Honest. Here's the picture:<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
Great question, Yevaud! I think we would need to know the composition of the D&M too... no?<br /><br />Don't look now, but you guys have already asked more relevant questions and done more legitmate work in the last several posts than Plait, NASA, Greenberg, et al have done from the beginning.<br /><br />Even if you don't agree w/ the AOC hypothesis after this little exercise is done, you can hold your heads up high as legitimate skeptics who have maintained an open mind about an important question that has reprocussions for all of humanity.<br /><br />If NASA had done what Telfow has done, I wouldn't be here &%$#@!ing right now <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />THAT kind of effort and detailed skepticism commands respect, imho. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
NajaB: yes, but consequently, what does get into the atmosphere can move pretty fast and hit pretty hard. <br /><br />E.g., what I meant was the seasonal dust storms. When the winds have been estimated as travelling at many hundreds of km/hr. Happens every year when the Northern pole "melts." <br /><br />Look at some of those numerous Martian dust-storm photos. You'll see what I mean. Sandblast city. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">I wouldn't be here &%$#@!ing right now </font><br /><br />Huh? <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
Yeah, the wind speeds can be fairly high, but the low air pressure reduces their effect. A 100 km/h wind at 1mb is going to have much less effect than the same wind would have on Earth. The dust in the Martian dust storms is, generally speaking, <b>very</b> fine, and would act to polish, rather than erode.
Yes, but also remember that we're purportedly talking over an epoch spanning anywhere from 200M years out to 1GY. <br /><br />Plus, there's the occasional warming phase, where you get catastrophic outflows, and otherwise stable formations slumping. Over that long a period of time, and then being sand-weathered yearly? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
But I thought the feature currently under discussion (the Cydonia "complex") had been 'dated' to ~300Ky.
I think there are a number of suggested ages floating around - from 25K (Carollto?) to 200-500K (RCH - I'm still not sure about that one, Max), to 65 million (Zen) to 1-2 billion (Jon). I think one million has been thrown in there too, but I'm not sure by who or when. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
Ok, even so. I'm not sure what sort of statistics about the weathering on Martian located terrain are. Perhaps Jon could enlighten us.<br /><br />If correct, then there's another data point to consider. If not, then you get to discount a factor. <br /><br />Edit: hmmm, this is getting close to what I studied in school. <br /><br />What concerns me about the image is the bottom right quadrant. It doesn't seem to correlate to anything, and the visible lack of material and organization suggests that there never was any material there to begin with. As well, that sort of terrain loss could be explained via the mechanism of extreme weathering, but that's a real stretch... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
Further Edit: I mean in reference to the (inverted) image in the post of 05/31/05 02:09 PM, by Telfrow <br /><a target="_blank" href="http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=seti&Number=227212&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=20&vc=1"><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=seti&Number=227212&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=20&vc=1</a">>http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=seti&Number=227212&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=20&vc=1[/url]</a></a> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
Glad you're still with us tel....
<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"If we shift Line A 5 degrees, as you suggest, to the right so it aligns with the FOM and the "arm" in that position, you throw off E, D and B. C would come closer to the "nub" at the base of the "arm." <br /><br />So, no matter how we work it, if we maintain the 60 degree angle, you can only position the pentagon with two of the five angles on or near two clearly defined anchor points. I chose the two most obvious anchor points: E and D. As you pointed out, B is "extrapolated," so it's impossible to determine a point for it."</font><br /><br />Very interesting, and I agree. Something is "off" Now, boys, I am NOT a computer-literate man. In fact I am a <i>pseudo-Photo-Shopist!</i><br /><br />So <i>do</i> understand that the sketch below has no mathematical integrity. I just wanted to see what happens to the "DM - Face line" when we use Bob Wonderland's perspective, and invert the "pentagon" (what IS the word for the D&M shape? A "pentagon" has 5 <b>equal</b> sides, but the D&M shape has 'longer' sides than base/arms. Think of DaVinci's man-with-arms-spread.) To my delight, this inacurate test keeps the line 'in the ballpark. (<i>PS, Go Cubs!</i>) <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"If we shift Line A 5 degrees, as you suggest, to the right so it aligns with the FOM and the "arm" in that position, you throw off E, D and B. C would come closer to the "nub" at the base of the "arm." <br /><br />So, no matter how we work it, if we maintain the 60 degree angle, you can only position the pentagon with two of the five angles on or near two clearly defined anchor points. I chose the two most obvious anchor points: E and D. As you pointed out, B is "extrapolated," so it's impossible to determine a point for it."</font><br /><br />Very interesting, and I agree. Something is "off" Now, boys, I am NOT a computer-literate man. In fact I am a <i>pseudo-Photo-Shopist!</i><br /><br />So <i>do</i> understand that the sketch below has no mathematical integrity. I just wanted to see what happens to the "DM - Face line" when we use Bob Wonderland's perspective, and invert the "pentagon" (what IS the word for the D&M shape? A "pentagon" has 5 <b>equal</b> sides, but the D&M shape has 'longer' sides than base/arms. Think of DaVinci's man-with-arms-spread.) To my delight, this inacurate test keeps the line 'in the ballpark. (<i>PS, Go Cubs!</i>) <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>My deepest apologies. You are absolutely correct. <br /><br />I attributed it Jon (1-2b). <br /><br />And it's in the title of the thread! <br /><br />Just goes to show you what age does to your eyesight and memory. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram