Blue Flowers of Mars

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

extrasense

Guest
++With the Flowers picture, I believe that I've mathematical proof that a rock can not produce the light scattering and shadows that are being observed++<br /><br />-- How interesting. Can you also prove that the shadows and light scattering MUST be produced by life? Or do you merely want to believe that it is? --<br /><br />Since rocks are excluded, what other options remain?<br />Remember what had Sherlock Holmes used to say?<br /><br />ES<br /><br /><br />

B

bobvanx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>R.I.P.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh, I will.

E

extrasense

Guest
-- And where is that proof? We are not told.. And how in the name of all good sense does mathematics have anything to do with 'rock flowers?' --<br /><br />Well, let us see if you can follow some physics and math.<br /><br />I am going to prove first, that the amount of light from one direction , scattered by a surface in a particular other direction, depends only on two things: the brightness on the edges, and the total amount of light that is falling on that surface.<br />In other words, the total amount of scattered light does not depend on the shape of the surface involved, as long as those two values are fixed.<br /><br />From this follows, that if we have a shape where a darker than edges area present, there also should be present an area which is brighter then edges as well.<br /><br />In case of Martian flower presented, there is a darker than edges area, but there is no brighter than edges area.<br /><br />Which contradicts our rule about rock brightness.<br />The only case such thing can happen, is when the object is not a rock.<br /><br />This is the outline of a proof. It answers you question: "how mathematics have anything to do with 'rock flowers?' "<br /><br />If you agree with the logic here, and want to see the proof of the fact, that the total amount of scattered light does not depend on the shape of the surface involved, I can produce it for you too. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />ES<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

K

kmarinas86

Guest
I recommended that people don't believe in Life on Mars.<br /><br />Instead, they should talk about Earth-based ET issues.<br /><br />oh wait. .i talk that back. that position has already been taken =P<br /><br />leave it to me to be the only one existence capable of seeing both sides and making straight what are fake circles and which formations are genuine.<br /><br />who cares about abductions when there are so many delusions of people! i mean, there is no life these pictures. so what if life is on mars, those pictures don't show it.<br /><br />in any case, see if there is hope for people losing their goofy extrasenses...

E

extrasense

Guest
You have asked for math <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Here are the formulas:<br />http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mycommon/ProofOfLight.JPG<br /><br />Some explanations:<br /><br />n normal vector of length 1<br />Bn normal brightness<br />I light intensity<br />& constant coefficient<br /><br />Bz observed brightness<br />N normal vector we use for convenience, it is not normalized<br /><br />f(xy) the shape that reflects light<br /><br />Tx a vector that touches the shape with dy = 0<br />Ty a vector that touches the shape with dx = 0<br /><br />The (8) underscores the fact, that N is normal to the shape<br />Z is chosen to point to the observer, consistent with Bz being observed brightness<br /><br />(4) and (10) give (11) <br /><br />Sigma is total observed brightness.<br /><br />We use the Green's theorem, to convert the area S integral into integral over the edges dS<br />of the area.<br /><br />As promised, the final expression (17) for the Sigma does not depend on the internal shape of the lit area.<br /><br />That's the all he wrote <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />ES<br /><br /><br /><br />

A

arit

Guest
extrasense,<br /><br />Hi,<br />I read your formulas. <br />I have some background with lights/materials (not bragging, but I wrote the lights/materials specification design for a big mechanical engineering CAD software, I think it's relevant in our case).<br />I did not understand your formulas. Could you present it, maybe, in a more 'presentable' way so we can understand it? Maybe using a computer, not your hand, and maybe add some units and comments as well....<br /><br />Thanks<br />arit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

E

extrasense

Guest
-- Could you present it, maybe, in a more 'presentable' way so we can understand it? --<br /><br />Forget about MY formulas, do you understand the Green's theorem? <br /><br />Since you "wrote the lights/materials specification design", what formula, if any, you've used to calculate the brightness of a surface in 3D presentations?<br /><br />ES<br /><br />

A

arit

Guest
ES,<br /><br />Regarding Green's theorem, yes.<br /><br />Regarding "what formula, if any, you've used to calculate the brightness of a surface in 3D presentations? "<br /><br />Fortunately, I did not have to re-invent the wheel in this case. We used Open GL:<br /><br />glMaterialfv(GL_FRONT, GL_SHININESS, mat_shininess);<br /><br />And now you are thinking: So he didn't actually WRITE the brightness function, and you would be right. <br /><br />But this doesn't mean I can't understand your formulas if you explain them. <br /><br />Regards<br /><br />arit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

E

extrasense

Guest
OK,<br /><br />Point to the first you want me to explain, by #<br /><br />ES<br />

E

extrasense

Guest
Steve,<br /><br />are you really psychatrist or just pretending to be one?<br />Because pretending that is sort of a bad sign <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

T

thechemist

Guest
To be honest, even the "ETs in Roswell" stands a higher chance than "Blue flowers on Mars". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />To be fair though, "Copulating rocks on Mars" (in another SETI thread) is even more unlikely <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

A

arit

Guest
ES,<br /><br />Please start with number 1. If possible, try to refer ONLY to #1. After I understand that one, and we both agree on what it means, we can talk about number two, OK? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

A

arit

Guest
steve<br />"This is common to ES, and SE. It's clear the claims are mental illusions and not real. "<br /><br />Well, I am open minded. The the way I see it, case is very simple: Skyeagle did not claim to have mathematical proof of UFO==ET. He says something different, which is (in short): "Things" were seen. Since we can't prove these things are human, they must be extraterrestrial. I think this line of thought is not incorrect, but we need to do much more work (observations?) to exclude a terrestrial solution, IMHO.<br /><br />On the other hand, extrasense claims to have mathematical proof. Now, that is something I can relate to ( I am no mathematician, but as a mechanical/software engineer I think I can understand a proof if someone explains it to me slowly...). So I am giving ES the chance. Who knows... He might convince me!<br /><br /><br />Regards<br /><br />arit<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

D

dub_

Guest
"To be fair though, "Copulating rocks on Mars" (in another SETI thread) is even more unlikely" <br /><br />What thread is that?

B

D

dub_

Guest
I must not have read the thread that well. Oh well <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

E

extrasense

Guest
I won the challenge of making a clay model, that scatteres light like the Flower on Mars. <br />It has a pretty veird shape <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The proof is correct, but the conclusion was erroneous, since it has assumed invisibly, that the shape of edges must be flat.<br /><br />ES<br />

A

arit

Guest
So this means that your "mathematical proof" is incorrect? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

E

extrasense

Guest
-- So this means that your "mathematical proof" is incorrect? --<br /><br />The math itself is correct. It was incorrectly applied to the case in hand, as if the edges were to be necessarily plain, in order to produce even lighting.<br /><br />The alternative shape is really veird, and it is not consistent with available stereo image of the flower.<br /><br />ES<br /><br />

D

dub_

Guest
You've got no proof but vague mathematics, a blurry picture, a bunch of logical fallacies, and interpretation.<br /><br />How unscientific. I'm sorry but you get an F.

B

bobvanx

Guest
These flat disks in the center of this image look too much like sand dollars, to be anything else! They prove that Mars not only had oceans here, but that complex life evolved in them, remarkable similar to earth life!<br /><br />And this proves that we originated on Mars, and moved the entire exosystem to Earth when we polluted Mars! And this proves that we haven't learned anything because we are polluting the Earth! And our hopes to move to Mars when we are done pillaging Earth will prove to be psuedoscience at its best!<br /><br />http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/296/1N154465135EFF3853P1992L0M1.HTML

E

extrasense

Guest
You want a perfect proof from me, but do not care that a lot of things you take as legit are much less proven.<br /><br />

E

extrasense

Guest
--- And our hopes to move to Mars when we are done pillaging Earth will prove to be psuedoscience at its best! ---<br /><br />Sure, <br />I will include this in my roster of pseudoscience, along with quantum computing and Marxist theory.<br /><br />What an idiot would want to move from our beautiful planet to cold a baren desert of Mars? And these nitwits tell us what a great future it will be!<br /><br />ES<br />

D

dub_

Guest
That's an unsubstantiated comment.<br /><br />I any case, for this I require better proof.

O

odysseus145

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You want a perfect proof from me, but do not care that a lot of things you take as legit are much less proven.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Such as? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
0
Views
2K