Dr. John Brandenburg Responds to Musselwhite and Electric Universe

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Sep 5, 2016.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,558
    (this is an attempt to re-create a thread that was accidentally deleted by my web host)

    Dear Alex ,

    here is my reply to the Xe 129/ Xe132 question, I will also answer the electric universe comment

    Xe129 :

    It is a consensus among scientists that the Solar system formed within a half-life or so of Aluminum 26 half- life 0.7million years , from a supernova , meaning many radioactive elements were present to provide energy for geologic processes in the early planets. Among these radioactive isotopes Pu 244 half-life 82 million years ,during which it can decay by spontaneous fission releasing a characteristic pattern of Xe isotopes, Iodine ( I) 129 decaying to Xe 129 at half-life 17 million years and Hf 182 decaying to W 182 half-life 9 Million years. Since these isotopes produce well identified decay products they are useful in identifying timescales of major geologic events on terrestrial (rocky planets) planets. In terms of Xe129/Xe 132 the atmospheres of Jupiter, Earth , the Solar wind , and the gases in primordial meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites , dating from the formation of the Solar system, all resemble each other , being nearly 1:1 .


    The Xe 129 / Xe 132 ratio being 2.5 on Mars is a glaring mystery, making it very different from every other known planetary or solar system reservoir, so it is natural for scientist to try to figure out natural models to explain it. This is particularly true because Xe 129 was a known nuclear weapons signature since 1945 and therefore a sensitive issue even when it was discovered on Mars. However, these models natural models to explain the Xe 129 superabundance on Mars are fraught with difficulties. The major problem is that Mars meteorite components, thought to represent the primordial Martian atmosphere also have a ratio of Xe129/Xe 132 of 1:1.
    It is possible, because of the half-life of I 129 of 17 million years , to create models where Mars had an early atmosphere with xenon resembling the Mars meteorite Chassigny, which has Xe 129 /Xe 132 of 1:1 , that was then lost within a few million years due to impacts in the Early bombardment epoch[1]. During this short time of forming an early atmosphere on Mars and then losing most of it, this model explains, all the I129 was bound within rocks. Mars would then outgas a new atmosphere, this being enriched in Xe 129 from the decaying I129. One would then obtain a new Mars atmosphere, now enriched in Xe129. We will call this the EAL ( Early Atmosphere Loss) model. However, this EAL model only works if the outgassing is of only an atmosphere much smaller than the previous one. That is, it only works if Mars can barely replace its atmosphere, and is like it is now for all of its history, thin. This is because we know from trapped gases in the Mars meteorite Chassigny and other Mars meteorites, that Mars xenon isotope spectrum trapped in its early rocks is Earthlike. Therefore, if Mars simply outgases a new dense atmosphere the enhanced Xe 129 component will be overwhelmed by the same xenon mass spectrum Mars had before, which resembles Earth and the Sun in Xe129/ Xe132 . Thus EAL only works if the replacement atmosphere is like Mars atmosphere is now, thin.
    There are serious problems with this EAL model. The most serious problem is that Mars atmosphere was very dense for its first ½ Billion years or more as evidenced by the numerous liquid water channels on Mars. These channels span ages, conservatively, from very early to at least 3 billion years ago. This requires a dense CO2 rich atmosphere ( roughly one atmosphere ) to maintain temperatures and pressures on Mars to allow liquid water to flow hundreds of miles for long periods of geologic time, and to flow into a Northern Ocean [2] So, if Mars lost its early atmosphere it obviously outgassed a new that was very dense and from the same solar system standard reservoirs as before, hence the extra dose of Xe129 from I 129 would have been rendered insignificant. These problems do not end there. The loss of an early atmosphere would have to have occurred within the first 17million years or so, otherwise most of the I 129 would have decayed to Xe 129 and been outgassed into the early atmosphere and lost, however, estimates for Mars accretion time ,based on Hf-W, are 10million years to 30million years [3]. Meaning Mars had barely even time to assemble into a molten sphere of lava before most of the I 129 decayed, releasing the Xe 129 into the Early Mars atmosphere rather than storing it for later. The xenon pattern for Pu 244 spontaneous fission , with a half life of 82 million years , which would be expected to contribute strongly to any replacement atmosphere in the EAL model[1], is absent, indicating any replacement atmosphere was so dense it overwhelmed any trace Xe spectrum contribution from Pu244. Krypton , a heavy noble gas like Xenon, has a distribution of isotopes that looks like the Solar Wind, and many other gases resemble Earth isotopically. To make the EAL model work one would have to postulate that xenon outgasses differently from other noble gases, and there is no evidence for this. If there was any such evidence, you would have heard of it. Some have suggested the I 129 arrived as a large number of impactors, but the known meteorite reservoirs of Xe resemble Chassigny and Earth.
    So therefore, the EAL model makes sense only if you ignore the vast trove of other Mars data, including that on the other Martian gases. For such a glaring problem on Mars as the Xe 129 and so loaded with implication, even a bad model that gives it some mundane explanation will be entertained. The only other model for the why the Xe129 /Xe132 ratio on Mars occurs, is mine: that the Xe 129 was added late in Mars history.

    1. Bogard, D.D.,R.N. Clayton, R.N. , Marti, K., Owen, T., and Turner, G.(2001) “Martian Volatiles: Isotopic Composition, Origin, and Evolution”, Chronology and Evolution of Mars 96, 425-458,
    2. Brandenburg, John E. (1987), "The Paleo-Ocean of Mars", MECA Symposium on Mars: Evolution of its Climate and Atmosphere, Lunar and Planetary Institute, pp. 20–22,
    3. Nimmo, F. & Kleine, T. How rapidly did Mars accrete? Uncertainties in the Hf-W timing of core formation. Icarus 191, 497–504 (2007)


    As for the Astromomical Electric Arc theory of Mars radiation patterns:

    Being a plasma physicist, I have big soft spot in my heart for the electric universe people, and agree with their fundamental thesis that EM phenomenon ,along with gravity, helps shape the universe. Now let us get down to the peculiar case of Mars.

    I have seen no evidence of big electric arcs in space except at the moon Io orbiting Jupiter. I have however seen video and data from big nuclear weapon tests and went to grad school at a national lab where they did fusion research at one end and designed nuclear weapons at the other.

    So I tend to offer explanations based on known and well characterized phenomenon. Mars has a very weak magnetic field and thus is a poor prospect for any big electro-dynamic phenomena leading to planet-rending electric arcs, in my opinion. So as outlandish as my hypothesis is, it at least invokes known phenomenon. For that reason i think it is more likely to explain what is seen on Mars.

    That said I would love to see some cool videos of outer space arcs.


    cheers

    JB
     
  2. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,558
    Dr. John Brandenburg responds to Electric Universe:
    As for the Astromomical Electric Arc theory of Mars radiation patterns:

    Being a plasma physicist, I have big soft spot in my heart for the electric universe people, and agree with their fundamental thesis that EM phenomenon ,along with gravity, helps shape the universe. Now let us get down to the peculiar case of Mars.

    I have seen no evidence of big electric arcs in space except at the moon Io orbiting Jupiter. I have however seen video and data from big nuclear weapon tests and went to grad school at a national lab where they did fusion research at one end and designed nuclear weapons at the other.

    So I tend to offer explanations based on known and well characterized phenomenon. Mars has a very weak magnetic field and thus is a poor prospect for any big electro-dynamic phenomena leading to planet-rending electric arcs, in my opinion. So as outlandish as my hypothesis is, it at least invokes known phenomenon. For that reason i think it is more likely to explain what is seen on Mars.

    That said I would love to see some cool videos of outer space arcs.
     
  3. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,558
    (hear's what I love about Skeptiko forum members: Ian keeps pushing)
    Dr. John Brandenburg give a more detailed reply:
    Dear interested party,
    My goal is not to persuade you but to present evidence.

    Without rewriting my scientific article about this, here are the basic facts as we know them , I will use a lot of graphs because the convey information more compactly.

    The basic problem is that the atmosphere on Earth before 1945 had a R =Xe129/Xe132 =1 and a ratio at present of R ~1.1 This is due to the addition of a component to the Earth’s atmosphere with a ratio

    Xe129/ Xe132 = 4.99 , this can be seen from the table below, copied from the Book “Mars” edited by Kieffer published in 1992, on p125.

    It can be shown that mixing 3/8 portion of this component with 5/8 of an earthlike component with R =1 and one will obtain the Mars ratio R =2.5

    Now, first of all, where does the new Xe 129/ Xe 132 component in the Earth’s atmosphere come from? Iodine 129 decay, has played no role in this, that has a half life of 16.7 million years, hardly any of that has decayed since 1945. The obvious answer is the nuclear weapons program directly makes it, both in nuclear weapons tests and plutonium production in special fast neutron spectrum reactors designed for this process. I urge you to read up on how plutonium is made. A normal moderated neutron reactor has a xenon spectrum like this (see below) upload_2016-9-5_10-0-26.png

    1. Moderated Nuclear Reactor Xenon isotope spectrum and that due to natural fission decay of Uranium. Note absence of Xenon 129 “spike” for these instances.
    Wetherill G. (1953) Phys. Rev. 92,4, p. 907-911.

    It produces little or no xenon 129 , that is because the neutrons are slow,~ .01 eV and do not create ‘spallation’ reactions. When you do fission with fast neutrons the physics changes and the distribution of fission products changes dramtically. ( see figure below)

    upload_2016-9-5_10-0-26.jpeg


















    Data from
    Spence R. W. Brookhaven National Laboratory AEC-BNL ( C-9) 1949.

    Mass distribution of fission fragments formed by neutron induced fission of 235U when neutrons have been moderated (solid curve) and fission by 14 MeV fusion neutrons ( broken curve) [7,8] showing increase in middle range isotopes for fusion neutrons.

    In a hydrogen bomb, the yield is boosted by wrapping it in raw uranium , which fissions due to 14MeV fusion neutrons as can be found on Wikipedia.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon


    Thus the change in earth’s atmosphere is not due to ordinary moderated nuclear reactors but due to fast neutron fission of uranium either in a plutonium production reactor or nuclear bomb tests.

    So the change in R in Earth’s atmosphere is due to weapons testing and production not moderated nuclear reactors used for power.

    Now, why does Mars have this high R =Xe129/ Xe132 ratio R=2.5 ?

    First the standard R for all solar system reservoirs , Earth, Jupiter , the Solar Wind, carbonaceous chondrites ( the most primitive and oldest meteorites) and for comets ( recently measured by the Rosetta probe on a comet it landed on) is approximately R=1

    upload_2016-9-5_10-0-26.png

    http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/06/14/krypton-and-xenon-added-to-rosettas-noble-gas-inventory/

    Not only that but the basement rocks on Mars represented by Mars Meteorite Chassigny have xenon that is R=1 , see figures below from my Bogard reference.

    upload_2016-9-5_10-0-26.png

    Bogard, D.D.,R.N. Clayton, R.N. , Marti, K., Owen, T., and Turner, G.(2001) “Martian Volatiles: Isotopic Composition, Origin, and Evolution”,Chronology and Evolution ofMars 96, 425-458,

    upload_2016-9-5_10-0-26.jpeg





















    Xenon data from mars meteorites E.A ( Early Mars atmosphere) M.A. (Mars present atmosphere)


    Mathew, K.J., Kim , J.S. ,and Marti, K., (1997) “Xenon components in Martian Meteorites: Evidence for atmospheric evolution?” Lunar and Planetary Science

    Conf. XXVIII paper 1310.

    So all the reservoirs in the solar system that have been measured so far have R=1 including Mars basement rocks.

    Therefore, if Mars lost it original atmosphere and it was replaced by a rain of comets , or carbonaceous chondrites , or simply outgassed new atmosphere the result would be an atmosphere of R~1 not R= 2.5 , based on the data we have available.

    If any planet should display a xenon anomaly it should be Earth since we have good evidence it lost its early atmosphere in the collision that formed the Moon ~ 30million years after acretion. But R=1 on Earth just like the rest of the solar system reservoirs.

    Even an apparent example of I 129 sequesterment and subsequent decay to give an enhancement of Xe 129 in the Harding County well gases ( suspiciously close to rich uranium deposits in New Mexico) and also the Mid Ocean Ridge Basalts (MORB) exhibit only 10% enhancements of Xe 129 over atmospheric (see below), whereas Mars is 250%

    upload_2016-9-5_10-0-26.png
    Figure from page 315

    upload_2016-9-5_10-0-26.jpeg





















    So , as far as I am concerned, given present data, the Mars xenon anomaly cannot be explained by any plausible model involving known natural phenomena.

    But both nature and science abhor a vacuum, so any model will be put forth, even if no plausible model is available, especially on this particular subject.
     
  4. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,558
    1. [​IMG]
      KeithANew
      Joined:
      Nov 17, 2013
      Messages:
      143
      (go to post)
      Well let's be a bit more careful about that. The LHC runs electromagnetically accelerating particles to an energy that most certainly do transmute elements. The question is whether something vaguely analogous to that can happen in deep space by presumably natural processes.

      You might also find this interesting :)

      http://www.life-enthusiast.com/biological-transmutations-a-1271.html

      Rupert Sheldrake pointed out Louis Kervran to me some years ago.

      David
      Click to expand...
      Are we talking about how Xe-129 can be produced in electrical events not from I-129 decay? Interesting link, thanks.

      I've been challenging recently Brandenburg and his "thermonuclear bomb on Mars" idea how, he says, Xe-129 is produced from the "bomb".

      KeithA, Wednesday at 2:22 AM
      #21


    2. [​IMG]
      KeithANew
      Joined:
      Nov 17, 2013
      Messages:
      143
      (go to post)
      P.S. This is not to mention the other cogent reasons why a Mars civilization couldn't have existed at the time Brandenburg claims, like e.g. lack of liquid water or oxygen (both of which facts he admits in the above reply). And the silly "face on Mars" thing. Stuff and nonsense.
      Exactly. The "face" idea should be called out for the rubbish it is and we should move on from this "civilisation" idea. ergo, no need to nuke Mars.

      KeithA, Wednesday at 4:15 AM
      #22

      Ian and malf like this.
    3. [​IMG]
      KamarlingMember
      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2013
      Messages:
      511
      (go to post)
      P.S. This is not to mention the other cogent reasons why a Mars civilization couldn't have existed at the time Brandenburg claims, like e.g. lack of liquid water or oxygen (both of which facts he admits in the above reply). And the silly "face on Mars" thing. Stuff and nonsense.
      Yeah, I was banging on about the lack of that Earth-like climate in the other thread to no avail. On his website he says ...

      Kamarling, Wednesday at 5:00 AM
      #23

      KeithA and Ian like this.
    4. [​IMG]
      KamarlingMember
      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2013
      Messages:
      511
      A little further digging on the subject of the past climate on Mars. In the quote I used in my previous post, Brandenburg cites his ownCydonia Hypothesis indicated by [4]:

      4. E. Brandenburg, Vincent DiPietro, and Gregory Molenaar, (1991) “The Cydonian Hypothesis” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 5. , 1, p 1-25.

      As you can see, this is 25 years old now. As I mentioned, all the recent evidence seems to point to a time gap of 3.5 billion years since any Earth-like climate might have existed. I scanned down the paper looking for the section on the climate and found that the hypothesis is based on a "young" Mars surface which maintained Earth-like conditions until 0.5 billion years ago. However, the paper carries the following proviso (my bold):

      Kamarling, Wednesday at 5:56 AM
      #24

      KeithA and Ian like this.
    5. [​IMG]
      IanNew
      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2014
      Messages:
      18
      (go to post)
      Yeah, I was banging on about the lack of that Earth-like climate in the other thread to no avail.
      Yes, I noticed that. It seems to be far too easy to get caught up in the minutiae of trace gases and the like, and ignore this glaring problem.

      Re: Brandenburg's paper in JSE and past Martian climate, Brandenburg cites Masursky, Boyce, Dial, Selaber, & Strobell (1977) andToulmin III et al. (1977). I don't have access to these papers, but in the case of the first it seems evident from secondary sources that the authors are not claiming liquid water existed on Mars at the time Brandenburg claims, merely that volcanoes could have brought water to the surface at some point in the past:
      http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1981LPI....12..157C/0000159.000.html

      In the case of the second paper, the abstract also refers to volcanoes and subsurface ice, and I have little doubt that the paper itself would offer no support to Brandenburg's theory. The consensus is very much against Brandenburg on this, and nothing in the past 25 years has arisen which might give rise to a view that the Martian climate was habitable in the recent past.

      Ian, Wednesday at 6:05 AM
      #25

      KeithA likes this.
    6. [​IMG]
      David BaileyAdministrator
      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2013
      Messages:
      2,438
      (go to post)
      Are we talking about how Xe-129 can be produced in electrical events not from I-129 decay? Interesting link, thanks.
      I was primarily responding to this rather general statement:

      http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/

      I think my general point is that if there really are (bio)chemical ways of performing nuclear reactions, statements about which way certain isotopes can be generated, should be treated with caution.

      David

      David Bailey, Wednesday at 6:07 AM
      #26

      Bucky, Radish and Michael Larkin like this.
    7. [​IMG]
      KamarlingMember
      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2013
      Messages:
      511
      (go to post)
      In the case of the second paper, the abstract also refers to volcanoes and subsurface ice, and I have little doubt that the paper itself would offer no support to Brandenburg's theory. The consensus is very much against Brandenburg on this, and nothing in the past 25 years has arisen which might give rise to a view that the Martian climate was habitable in the recent past.
      There is a more recent paper (2015) from Brandenburg which reaffirms his contention that the ocean lasted until relatively recent times. Towards the end of the paper he states:

      Kamarling, Wednesday at 6:27 AM
      #27

      Ian likes this.
    8. [​IMG]
      KeithANew
      Joined:
      Nov 17, 2013
      Messages:
      143
      (go to post)
      I was primarily responding to this rather general statement:


      This issue also links in to the whole issue of 'cold fusion'. Just in case you think that subject is all settled, I suggest you listen to the lecture by Peter Hagelstein
      Professor Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to be found here:

      http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/

      I think my general point is that if there really are (bio)chemical ways of performing nuclear reactions, statements about which way certain isotopes can be generated, should be treated with caution.

      David
      Click to expand...
      Ok, I'll have a look. I'm sympathetic to LENR studies but haven't looked at for a while.

      KeithA, Wednesday at 6:31 AM
      #28


    9. [​IMG]
      IanNew
      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2014
      Messages:
      18
      (go to post)
      Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm mere minutes into this research topic), but the formation date is when the rock solidifies locking in its mineral composition which can then be dated by K-Ar or some other technique. If the rock is not exposed to atmosphere and is otherwise impervious to ingress from the atmosphere (or liquid water if it existed there), the Xe ratio would reflect that of the rock at time of formation and not that of the atmosphere? And that is why we find ratios of Xe varying from near 1 which agrees with other solar system compositions at formation to near 2.5 from the martian atmosphere. When a meteorite impacts the martian surface, portions of the new meteorites launched get melted into glass which traps some of the atmosphere within it. So exterior glass from a martian meteorite is likely to show atmospheric composition at launch date; not at formation date of the core rock from which it originated.... right?
      I don't disagree with any of this. It would appear that these meteorites can be composed of different rocks formed at different times, including layers of melted glass. I suppose the central point is that samples from Martian meteorites are taken to be indicative of environmental conditions at the time of formation of that particular part of the meteorite.

      (go to post)
      And 1.21 is a lot closer to earth's .97 than to Mars' 2.5, is it not?
      Different types of rock exhibit different ratios, which is covered in the following paper:

      K. D. Ocker and J. D. Gilmour, "Martian xenon components in Shergotty mineral separates: Locations, sources, and trapping mechanisms" in Meteoritics & Planetary Science 39:12 (2004), 1967–1981.

      Overall, "[r]eports (Drake et al. 1994; Musselwhite and Swindle 2001) suggest that the shergottites define an array that is broadly consistent with mixing between a martian atmosphere-like component and a martian mantle-like component."

      I should note that Brandenburg, in citing earthlike 129Xe/132Xe ratios (again, which is totally untrue), is saying that these show what the atmosphere was like before the event he proposes happened some 50M years ago or thereabouts. I doubt he will want to claim that they indicate the Martian atmosphere as it existed 20M years ago. ;)

      Ian, Wednesday at 6:34 AM
      #29


    10. [​IMG]
      KeithANew
      Joined:
      Nov 17, 2013
      Messages:
      143
      Reply to Kamarling above ...

      I thought that was an honest statement by Brandenberg about being cautious. But, as you say, 25 years ago.

      KeithA, Wednesday at 6:36 AM
      #30


    11. [​IMG]
      IanNew
      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2014
      Messages:
      18
      (go to post)
      There is a more recent paper (2015) from Brandenburg which reaffirms his contention that the ocean lasted until relatively recent times.
      Yes. But I couldn't find anything of substance in the paper to support the recent water on Mars theory though. Incidentally, I might add that if there had been a huge series of nuclear blasts on Mars which caused the destruction of the atmosphere and resulted in all the water turning to ice or leaving the planet then where is all the ash from the biological organisms like fish and plankton, etc., that would have to have been present at the time? There is still a lot of salt there, and I can't imagine any way that could have survived on the surface when ash didn't. These belligerent aliens must have swept up afterwards ;) (and yes, I am just getting sarcy now).

      Ian, Wednesday at 6:47 AM
      #31


    12. [​IMG]
      KamarlingMember
      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2013
      Messages:
      511
      Another thought occurs to me. Even if we accept Brandenburg's 0.5 billion years, instead of the mainstream 3.5 billion since the end of the ocean/Earth-like climate, we still have to look at the probabilities for the evolution of humanoids and civilisation. We should remember that, on Earth, we were only just emerging from the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago. We were still several hundred million years from the appearance of the first humanoids. That's assuming that evolution would have taken such a strikingly similar course to that on Earth, eventually resulting in human kind.

      Kamarling, Wednesday at 6:51 AM
      #32


    13. [​IMG]
      Michael LarkinMember
      Joined:
      Oct 30, 2013
      Messages:
      1,651
      (go to post)
      I think my general point is that if there really are (bio)chemical ways of performing nuclear reactions, statements about which way certain isotopes can be generated, should be treated with caution.

      David
      Well put, David!:)

      Michael Larkin, Wednesday at 6:55 AM
      #33


    14. [​IMG]
      IanNew
      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2014
      Messages:
      18
      (go to post)
      Another thought occurs to me. Even if we accept Brandenburg's 0.5 billion years, instead of the mainstream 3.5 billion since the end of the ocean/Earth-like climate, we still have to look at the probabilities for the evolution of humanoids and civilisation. We should remember that, on Earth, we were only just emerging from the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago. We were still several hundred million years from the appearance of the first humanoids. That's assuming that evolution would have taken such a strikingly similar course to that on Earth, eventually resulting in human kind.
      Yes. Brandenburg recognizes this, and in the early JSE paper he suggests the civilization that built the "[non]-face" was not indigenous, but had evolved elsewhere and colonized the planet. Of course he has since modified his theory, suggesting instead an indigenous "bronze age" type civilization, and (I think) suggesting a speeded-up evolution process. To be fair to Brandenburg, I don't think it's implausible that a civilization could have existed in that timeframe (leaving out the lack of air, lack of artifacts, etc.), as he's only suggesting it was wiped out 50 million years ago (not 500Mya).

      On the whole it seems to me that Brandenburg's theories are largely just out of date -- he proposed something a long time ago (relative to the science in this area) which hasn't been borne out, but he's simply unwilling to let go of his pet theory. But he's so confident in his claims. Reminds me of that Cromwell quote:

      Ian, Wednesday at 7:05 AM
      #34


    15. [​IMG]
      KamarlingMember
      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2013
      Messages:
      511
      (go to post)
      he's only suggesting it was wiped out 50 million years ago (not 500Mya).
      But surely there's a discrepancy then? If he says that the earth-like climate was present until 0.5 billion years ago, how did a civilisation evolve/survive during the following 450 million years?

      Kamarling, Wednesday at 7:10 AM
      #35


    16. [​IMG]
      IanNew
      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2014
      Messages:
      18
      (go to post)
      But surely there's a discrepancy then? If he says that the earth-like climate was present until 0.5 billion years ago, how did a civilisation evolve/survive during the following 450 million years?
      Erm... you've got me there :D

      Ian, Wednesday at 7:13 AM
      #36


    17. [​IMG]
      lhlMember
      Joined:
      Nov 1, 2013
      Messages:
      134
      (go to post)
      With all due respect, Alex, I'm afraid Dr. Brandenburg hasn't addressed Musselwhite et al. and the mechanism being proposed by that group to account for the 129Xe/132Xe ratio on Mars.
      Interesting! I thought the EAL model he talks about was the same mechanism as in the Musselwhite paper. But I admit I only read the abstract of that paper. Clearly I got it wrong. Would you mind explaining to me why the two are different?

      lhl, Wednesday at 4:45 PM
      #37


    18. [​IMG]
      AlexNew
      Joined:
      Oct 25, 2013
      Messages:
      1,599
      (go to post)
      With all due respect, Alex, I'm afraid Dr. Brandenburg hasn't addressed Musselwhite et al. and the mechanism being proposed by that group to account for the 129Xe/132Xe ratio on Mars.

      In addition, he claims that Martian meteorites have earth-like 129Xe/132Xe ratios. This is not true. In fact, the ratios in ALH84001 and EETA79001 are similar to that observed today on Mars, and these meteorites are much older than the event hypothesized by Brandenburg. Two sources:
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JE001255/pdf
      http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/sci/fifthconf99/6066.pdf

      The Chassigny meteorite does have an earth-like 129Xe/132Xe ratio, but this is thought to be due to its origin in the mantle of Mars:
      http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/mmc/Chassig.pdf

      He must be aware of the meteorites that have Mars-like 129Xe/132Xe ratios, but fails to mention them. Sound familiar?

      The meteorites seem to completely kill his theory. Perhaps he'd like to address this (and Musselwhite et al.)?
      Click to expand...
      I get your point... have passed it along to Brandenburg. hoping he replies.

      Alex, Wednesday at 5:01 PM
      #38

      lhl, Ian and Ian Gordon like this.
    19. [​IMG]
      IanNew
      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2014
      Messages:
      18
      Thanks Alex, and no need for apologies... it's all in the cut & thrust of good debate.

      Ian, Thursday at 4:07 AM
      #39


    20. [​IMG]
      AlexNew
      Joined:
      Oct 25, 2013
      Messages:
      1,599
      (go to post)
      I also met Ian McCormack whom you interviewed, and whilst I don't find him impressive personally, and whilst I'm not much into Christianity either, I think you were very, very unfair to him in the interview, and in fact I stopped listening to Skeptiko for a while after that because I was so upset by it
      BTW... how was I unfair to McCormack? Would you say I was unfair if he was insisting that all genuine NDE experiences are primarily Muslim? Why is it unfair to point out that his theory is not supported by NDE research?

     
  5. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    359
    Alex, thanks for linking me to this thread.

    I'm fixated on seeing if there is a scientific explanation for the Xe ratio component of Brandeburg's theory. A few aspects that remain unresolved from my vantage point, but may have been addressed in the condescend comment post in this thread (a bit difficult to follow as the formatting was lost):

    Is Xe-129 produced directly from a nuclear explosion?

    Stuart Robbins, the skeptical geophysicist I referenced here, had this to say on the matter:

    Brandenburg seems to only address this with his following comment earlier in this thread:

    This would seem simple enough to resolve if Brandenburg or anyone else for that matter can produce a legitimate scientific paper/study confirming (or refuting) this "fact".

    Is the Musselwhite study a dead end for Brandenburg's theory?
    Presuming there is reliable scientific evidence to support the creation of Xe-129 via a nuclear explosion, we'd need to move on to the resolution of the Musselwhite paper. He does provide a pretty robust (and well beyond my technical ability to evaluate) response via his Early Atmosphere Loss (EAL) discussion. Again, this would seem to be something that the scientific community could evaluate further to see if the Musselwhite hypothesis is a satisfactory explanation.

    What about other data points?
    Lastly, the reconciliation of the various meteorite measurements would be next (referenced previously in this thread; specifically meteorites ALH84001 and EETA79001). These would seem to show a similar Xe ratio as today's Martian atmosphere while being much older than the timeline required by Brandenburg.
     
  6. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,558
    my takeaway is that Dr. Brandenburg is exactly who he says he is... i.e. Lawrence Livermore trained PhD in plasma physics as opposed to the person portrayed by debunkers (who in this case we have strong reason to suspect are disinformation agents).
     
    Stephen Wright likes this.
  7. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    359
    Understood but that's a quasi appeal to (his) authority in support of his own work.

    The seemingly open question as to whether a nuclear explosion directly creates Xe-129 is notable. I mean either the scientific community accepts this as fact, denies it, or it remains an open question/theory. Seems pretty straight forward for this to not be a vague element of Brandenburg's overall Mars explosion stuff. Yet, it appears to be. I can't find anything using Google searches that suggests Xe-129 is, indeed, generated as a byproduct of a nuclear explosion.

    Frustrating.
     
  8. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,558
    I doubt he messed the point up... folks would have crucified him
     
  9. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    359
    I'll try to drop my dogged approach to "the answer" here. That leads to the conspiratorial angle then: If Brandenburg has successfully defended his position against all comers (Xe127 IS created via nuclear explosion, Musselwhite isn't a satisfying explanation (refuted via Brandenburg's EAL rebuttal), and he can account for the seemingly contradictory meteorites); then why isn't the scientific community at large saying:

    "Weird. While we may not support the notion of an intelligence using nuclear technology on Mars, we can not explain he Xe127 ratio in any other way".

    My problem there is that I just don't buy conspiracies as a rule (dangerous I know). Who knows.
     
  10. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,558
    yeah, dangerous :)

    what did you make of the "Junior College professor" who turned out to be a DIA agent?
     
  11. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    359
    Not familiar with that one. Easy link to point me to?
     
  12. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,558
    it was in the interview.
     
    Silence likes this.
  13. In the video Sheldrake says the electric universe proposes a different mechanism for how the sun works other than the hydrogen bomb model.

    But we know hydrogen bombs work because they have been exploded on earth. So how does the electric universe theory explain that?
     
  14. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    662
    I don't think Plasma Cosmology says that hydrogen bombs can't work.
     

Share This Page