Martians Worship Sun ! Tell NASA imbeciles...

[alpha_taur1]

Yes, a few 'equilateral triangle blocks' short of a full pyramid if you ask me. <br />

 

[extrasense]

----- 'equilateral triangle blocks' -----<br /><br />Never happen naturally on Earth!<br /><br />es<br />

 

[yevaud]

Try Quartz, Rubies, Sapphires, etc... <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>

 

[extrasense]

None of the crystals you mention, actually none of the crystals period, has shape of equilateral triangle or its symmetry<br /><br />e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s<br />

 

[yevaud]

Sure they do. Do you understand Fractal Geometry, and how certain shapes repetiticiously appear time and again in nature? Guess not...!<br /><br />And you seem to be under the misapprehension that an equilateral triangle is a shape that's somehow precluded by natural action, such as scouring by wind and sand. Which, by the way, Mars has quite a lot of.<br /><br />And that's just by random wind action, not how crystalline shapes in rock formations occur as a natural product.<br /><br />You're way off the mark on this one. <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>

 

[extrasense]

I wish you knew what you are talking about. Geometry has nothing to do with it. There is limited number of crystal symmetry classes possible. http://home.hetnet.nl/~turing/promorph_crystals_2.html<br /><br />I will not be able to produce a single picture of naturally occured equilateral triangular block. Such thing do not exist on Earth or Mars. No wind can produce it too, period.<br /><br />e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s<br /><br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

How odd...because on another page at the very site you provided, they discuss the internal crystalline structure of naturally occurring rocks, including equilateral triangles.<br /><br />And you still seem to think that this particular shape is precluded in nature via a whole range of mechanisms. Still dead wrong. This is so off the mark it's not even funny.<br /><br />Do you have Trangi-phobia? <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>

 

[extrasense]

The thing is that you can protest a lot, but you <b>can not</b> produce a single picture of natural equilateral triangle 3D object.<br /><br />Because such object does not exist, period.<br /><br />es<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">The thing is that you can protest a lot, but you can not produce a single picture of natural equilateral triangle 3D object.</font><br /><br /><br />YES HE CAN<br /><br />yes he can

 

[yevaud]

A short list of minerals with naturally occurring equilateral triangular shapes in them:<br /><br />Agate<br />Actinolite (Quartz)<br />Adularia (Moonstone)<br />Alexandrite<br />Almadine (Garnet)<br />Amazonite<br /><br />I'm still in the A's...shall I go on?<br /><br />Naturally Occurring Amazonite Crystals - mind telling what you see there?<br /><br />Hmm...? <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>

 

[extrasense]

Do not pretend being a garden hose:<br /><br />..............**********************<br />..........*.......................................*./<br />.......*......................................*.../ <br />...*......................................*...../<br />*********************....../<br />....................................../....../<br />................................... /....../<br />................................../....../<br />................................/....../<br />............................../....../<br />............................/......*<br />........................../....*<br />......................../..*<br />....................../* <br />.....................*<br /><br />This shape we are interested in, not a pyramid.<br /><br />It has a translational symmetry coinciding with trilateral symmetry direction.<br /><br />e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s<br />

 

[yevaud]

All I'll say is, please don't attempt specious rhetoric-chopping with me. I am well familiar with it.<br /><br />I have shown you exactly the geometric shape you say can't occur in nature. And it took me less than 5 minutes to find it.<br /><br />Period. Discussion over. <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>

 

[yevaud]

<b>1. Specious, adjective: <br /><br />* Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument. <br /><br />2. Rhetoric, noun: <br /><br />* The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.<br />* Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous.<br /><br />3. Chopping, verb:<br /><br />* To cut into small pieces.</b><br /><br />In short, you're splitting hairs, ad-infinitum, to match your argument. That is what's known as being "disingenuous." <br /><br />One important aspect of the scientific method: you don't discard inconvenient facts to fit your theory, you discard theories, until it conforms to the facts.<br /><br />You're doing the precise obverse. <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>

 

[extrasense]

It does not matter how much time you've spend, since you did not find what you were supposed to find.<br /><br />Try again, babe<br /><br />e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s<br />

 

[yevaud]

The most humorous thing of all is that the object (just one of many) I gave the link to actually fits the standard you seem to want to apply <b>better</b> than the rocks in your picture.<br /><br />So...try again?<br /><br />As I said: Specious Rhetoric Chopping. <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>

 

[extrasense]

As I've said,<br /><br />Do not pretend being a garden hose: <br /><br />..............********************** <br />..........*.......................................*./ <br />.......*......................................*.../ <br />...*......................................*...../ <br />*********************....../ <br />....................................../....../ <br />................................... /....../ <br />................................../....../ <br />................................/....../ <br />............................../....../ <br />............................/......* <br />........................../....* <br />......................../..* <br />....................../* <br />.....................* <br /><br />This is the shape that we are interested in.<br /><br /><br />es<br />

 

[yevaud]

Please refer back to: Chopping, Rhetoric, Specious. <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>

 

[arit]

Yevaud, <br />Excellent posts! You proved the triangle case, and I learned a new few words. Don't waste your time trying to convince es, he is in-convinceable.<br /><br /><br />Regards<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>

 

[pizzaguy]

Earthsister was fun, this guy is boring.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1"><em>Note to Dr. Henry:  The testosterone shots are working!</em></font> </div>

 

[yevaud]

He is at that. <br /><br />Hey, ES...word to the wise: repetition is not evidence.<br /><br />"Mmm. Boy's about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."<br />Foghorn Leghorn <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>

 

[extrasense]

You would fit perfectly between NASA imbeciles and sabotuers.<br />The job is your for applying <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />es<br />

 

[yevaud]

<font color="yellow">You would fit perfectly between NASA <i>imbeciles</i> and sabotuers.</font><br /><br />Possibly so. I have enough technical and scientific training to accomodate the first, and my military experience would fit the second nicely.<br /><br />On the other hand, you have no credibility at all, so you would well fit the italicized ad-hominum you used.<br /><br />I trust you understand (which I know you don't. This is for pro forma's sake only) that you have made:<br /><br />1. Weak, non-arguments.<br />2. Presented no credible evidence at all.<br />3. Cannot back up your points.<br />4. Split hairs when the above is proven to you.<br />5. Discount all critiques of your arguments.<br />6. Expect others to swallow yours, unscrutinized.<br />7. Have a fixation with weird, "pop-science."<br />8. See things that aren't there.<br />9. Reject counter evidence that <b>is</b> there.<br /><br />Well? <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>

 

[telfrow]

Bravo, Yevaud.<br /><br />re: <font color="yellow">"imbeciles abnd sabotuers..."</font><br /><br />Again, I ask: Do we need a penalty box here too?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/mad.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>

 

[yevaud]

<font color="yellow">Do we need a penalty box here too?</font><br /><br />Hmm. Possibly one of those Star Trek "Pain Booths" would do well here. (I can just hear Ensign Chekov's hideous shriek now..."EEaaaarrrrggghhhh!!!!")<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <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>