So what do we know about MARS so far?

[Tom]

"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "


Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

 

[XZeroII]

Fact: In another 1000 years, Mars will have more mass than earth because we keep sending all of our mass over there in the form of disposable cameras.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "

Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

We won't find aliens on Mars that sh!t dark matter, trust me. (futurama)

Big atoms are unstable because as the electrons rings fill up the rings are increasingly farther from the nucleus and the hold is weaker and the atoms are more likely to decay this is very BASIC chemistry. Odds are > 99.999999999% we won't find a stable element with > 115 occuring on Mars. We are making assumptions based on VERY well founded results in chemistry.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "

Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

We won't find aliens on Mars that sh!t dark matter, trust me. (futurama)

Big atoms are unstable because as the electrons rings fill up the rings are increasingly farther from the nucleus and the hold is weaker and the atoms are more likely to decay this is very BASIC chemistry. Odds are > 99.999999999% we won't find a stable element with > 115 occuring on Mars. We are making assumptions based on VERY well founded results in chemistry.

You won't find anything if you start with an attitude that you already know everything there is to know. The fact is that anyone who studies chemistry or physics or any other branch of science with an open mind, soon discovers that the amount of stuff that we don't know is almost infinite.

The Periodic table for instance is part of an elaborate model we've created to help us understand the universe we've observed or think exists. It's completely possible that it is fundamentally wrong at some level we haven't figured out yet. In fact there is growing evidence that there are forms of matter that it does not explain at all.

I just hate to see science twisted into another form of religion, is my main point I guess.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Hmm, if the Moon had He3 on it, would not Mars as well?

If they can ever get a friggin fusion reactor to work, and it is retrievable on Mars, I would think a permanent colony could pretty much be set up right away. Doing so is just a matter of raw power. You could make anything once you had that.

yes but keep in mind that Mars would recieve much less as it is farther away, and wind would mix it around in the volcanicly dead parts of Mars the south up are in much less volume quantities then the moon. In the active north parts of Mars the first few billion years of accumulation are buried under 100's of meters of lava flows.

He3 took billions of years to accumulate to the levels it is at on the moon on Mars the early accumulation is buried DEEP and spread out not as much as the Earth but you get the picure, you need a dead absolutley static world for reasonable accumulation.

The moon is the best place or Mercury but it's a little hot there and I bet on Mercury the He3 got heated up and escaped.

On Mars we could ship the He3 from the moon, it packs quite a lot of energy for it's weight, or fission fuel rods or maybe there are some geothermaly viable parts of Mars or maybe solar.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "

Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

We won't find aliens on Mars that sh!t dark matter, trust me. (futurama)

Big atoms are unstable because as the electrons rings fill up the rings are increasingly farther from the nucleus and the hold is weaker and the atoms are more likely to decay this is very BASIC chemistry. Odds are > 99.999999999% we won't find a stable element with > 115 occuring on Mars. We are making assumptions based on VERY well founded results in chemistry.

You won't find anything if you start with an attitude that you already know everything there is to know. The fact is that anyone who studies chemistry or physics or any other branch of science with an open mind, soon discovers that the amount of stuff that we don't know is almost infinite.

The Periodic table for instance is part of an elaborate structure we've created to help us understand the universe we've observed or think exists. It's completely possible that it is completely wrong at some level we haven't figured out yet.

I just hate to see science twisted into another form of religion, is my main point I guess.

"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman

I agree but mars must have formed from about the same stuff as Earth right? The rules of chemisty are pretty solid within their own context at least. The Subatomic building blocks and the "big picture" aren't. I'm keeping an open mind about the the early universe, super-string, quantum gravity, dark matter, cosmology.

But we can't climb up without having a foot hold in something, you know. We have to make compromises between open minds and established facts.

 

[matt426malm]

A Travler's Guide to Mars. Great book on what we know or the current theories about Mars, Geology, atmosphere, ect. With TONS of orbiter and rover pictures and graphics.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "


Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter. The periodic table classifies chemical elements which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons only. Dark matter is NOT made of these things, hence it would not show up on the periodic table. The most likely contituent of dark matter is a particle called a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle). WIMPS do not interact with normal matter (or even themselves it seems) and would therefore not be found sitting on the surface of mars.

The periodic table is mostly relevant to chemists, but there are other tables that list the subatomic particles and the particles resulting from their combinations (quarks/bosons, leptons etc).

To be sure though: Dark matter won't show up on the periodic table.

 

[Tom]

""Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman

I agree but mars must have formed from about the same stuff as Earth right? The rules of chemisty are pretty solid within their own context at least. The Subatomic building blocks and the "big picture" aren't. I'm keeping an open mind about the the early universe, super-string, quantum gravity, dark matter, cosmology.

But we can't climb up without having a foot hold in something, you know. We have to make compromises between open minds and established facts. "

I'm not sure what you are arguing with me about with regard to Mars. My post was about the attitude of someone belittling someone else, based on the acceptance of the current state of our understanding of the Universe as an absolute fact.

But as far as Mars being like Earth, I don't know what basis you have for concluding it's just like Earth ?

For instance if we have a theory of how the solar system formed, why would the stuff that formed Mars be in an orbit farther from the Sun than the stuff that formed the Earth, if its the same stuff ?

Also, even if some of the stuff is the same, it's fairly obvious that there are differences in the processes that have affected the Earth and Mars for several billion years, meaning we could possibly learn different facts about the history of the Solar system on Mars than we would learn on Earth.

Also do you think we know everything there is to know about the Earth's magnetic field ? If not, then perhaps expanding our knowledge about the magnetic fields of other planets would help us understand the Earth's magnetic field. Something which could be of very practical value, not just some far out science with no applicability to everyday life.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "

Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

We won't find aliens on Mars that sh!t dark matter, trust me. (futurama)

Big atoms are unstable because as the electrons rings fill up the rings are increasingly farther from the nucleus and the hold is weaker and the atoms are more likely to decay this is very BASIC chemistry. Odds are > 99.999999999% we won't find a stable element with > 115 occuring on Mars. We are making assumptions based on VERY well founded results in chemistry.

Uh, you might want to go re-read your chem text. Atomic decay is NOT at all related to the electron configuration. It's an entirely nuclear process.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "

Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

We won't find aliens on Mars that sh!t dark matter, trust me. (futurama)

Big atoms are unstable because as the electrons rings fill up the rings are increasingly farther from the nucleus and the hold is weaker and the atoms are more likely to decay this is very BASIC chemistry. Odds are > 99.999999999% we won't find a stable element with > 115 occuring on Mars. We are making assumptions based on VERY well founded results in chemistry.

Uh, you might want to go re-read your chem text. Atomic decay is NOT at all related to the electron configuration. It's an entirely nuclear process.

Oh yeah that's right the electro-static force overpowers the strong nuclear, my mistake. But over 115 is not stable still. Chemistry was about 3 years ago.

 

[Tom]

"Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter."


LOL, How do you know ? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, you are so sure the Periodic Table is correct that in order to preserve it you are willing to invent a whole new kind of matter, when for all you know it's the model the Periodic Table is based on that is fundamentally inadequate to explain the universe.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter."


LOL, How do you know ? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, you are so sure the Periodic Table is correct that in order to preserve it you are willing to invent a whole new kind of matter, when for all you know it's the model the Periodic Table is based on that is fundamentally inadequate to explain the universe.

Dark Matter is more a fix for the inflationary big bang theory isn't it? Not really related to chemisry, dark matter is a synonom for no freaking idea. One idea is big heavy unreacting particles, but there a dime a dozen. I'd rather see something that cleans it up a bit without this hodge-podge of particles.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter."


LOL, How do you know ? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, you are so sure the Periodic Table is correct that in order to preserve it you are willing to invent a whole new kind of matter, when for all you know it's the model the Periodic Table is based on that is fundamentally inadequate to explain the universe.

Dark Matter is more a fix for the inflationary big bang theory isn't it? Not really related to chemisry, dark matter is a synonom for no freaking idea. One idea is big heavy unreacting particles, but there a dime a dozen. I'd rather see something that cleans it up a bit without this hodge-podge of particles.

Yea, it's a shame when real observable FACTS show up and rip apart our cleverly designed constructions !

So chemistry exists outside the universe ? An interesting concept.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter."


LOL, How do you know ? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, you are so sure the Periodic Table is correct that in order to preserve it you are willing to invent a whole new kind of matter, when for all you know it's the model the Periodic Table is based on that is fundamentally inadequate to explain the universe.

Because you can tell that it doesn't interact with normal matter the way normal matter does. You can map out the dark matter density profiles of galaxies using rotation curves and you find that the density drop off leads to a mass distribution that drops evenly with radius (r^-2 I believe it actually is). Normal matter clumps together in the form of planets and stars, dark matter does not. It must be something different.

The periodic table describes atomic matter made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. There are many many many more particles out there and with very few exceptions, they are all extremely short lived, and do not play major roles in day to day life. None of these particles show up on the periodic table though.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter."


LOL, How do you know ? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, you are so sure the Periodic Table is correct that in order to preserve it you are willing to invent a whole new kind of matter, when for all you know it's the model the Periodic Table is based on that is fundamentally inadequate to explain the universe.

Dark Matter is more a fix for the inflationary big bang theory isn't it? Not really related to chemisry, dark matter is a synonom for no freaking idea. One idea is big heavy unreacting particles, but there a dime a dozen. I'd rather see something that cleans it up a bit without this hodge-podge of particles.

Dark matter is a fix for rotation curves of galaxies which do not at all fit what would be expected should all the mass be luminous (stars). Dark energy (cosmological constant) is the "fix" for the expanding universe.

There are other theories, mostly modifying gravity on large distances or small accelerations, but the current data more strongly supports the dark matter proposal. As for the hodge-podge of particles, well there are dozens of subatomic particles, it really is quite a mess. What's a few more?

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter."


LOL, How do you know ? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, you are so sure the Periodic Table is correct that in order to preserve it you are willing to invent a whole new kind of matter, when for all you know it's the model the Periodic Table is based on that is fundamentally inadequate to explain the universe.

Dark Matter is more a fix for the inflationary big bang theory isn't it? Not really related to chemisry, dark matter is a synonom for no freaking idea. One idea is big heavy unreacting particles, but there a dime a dozen. I'd rather see something that cleans it up a bit without this hodge-podge of particles.

Yea, it's a shame when real observable FACTS show up and rip apart our cleverly designed constructions !

So chemistry exists outside the universe ? An interesting concept.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the whole idea of dark matter is that it doesn't interact with the "normal" such as protons neutrons electrons ect except by gravity. Dark Matter, Dark Energy are the missing pieces things that need to exist for current COSMOLOGY to work. Are you expecting expecting to go to Mars and mine dark matter? Dark Matter if it exists would permeate the universe and wouldn't just be on Mars.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter."


LOL, How do you know ? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, you are so sure the Periodic Table is correct that in order to preserve it you are willing to invent a whole new kind of matter, when for all you know it's the model the Periodic Table is based on that is fundamentally inadequate to explain the universe.

Dark Matter is more a fix for the inflationary big bang theory isn't it? Not really related to chemisry, dark matter is a synonom for no freaking idea. One idea is big heavy unreacting particles, but there a dime a dozen. I'd rather see something that cleans it up a bit without this hodge-podge of particles.

Dark matter is a fix for rotation curves of galaxies which do not at all fit what would be expected should all the mass be luminous (stars). Dark energy (cosmological constant) is the "fix" for the expanding universe.

There are other theories, mostly modifying gravity on large distances or small accelerations, but the current data more strongly supports the dark matter proposal. As for the hodge-podge of particles, well there are dozens of subatomic particles, it really is quite a mess. What's a few more?

I just don't like the idea of adding all these new add-ons, kind of a mess. There's got to be something simpler more "elegant."

But in short this has nothing to do with Mars inparticular, no?

 

[Tom]

"I'm not disagreeing with you, but the whole idea of dark matter is that it doesn't interact with the "normal" such as protons neutrons electrons ect except by gravity. Dark Matter, Dark Energy are the missing pieces things that need to exist for current COSMOLOGY to work. Are you expecting expecting to go to Mars and mine dark matter? Dark Matter if it exists would permeate the universe and wouldn't just be on Mars. "


The guys who discovered the phenomena that led to the current discussion about "dark matter" weren't looking for it.

That's one of the beauties of exploration, and one of the reasons for exploring Mars.


As far as the "normal matter", it's just a construction we've created. It might turn out that "dark matter" is actually something different, but it also might turn out that our construction is inadequate at some level and that "dark matter" and "normal matter" just appear to be different because we are trying to fit them into an inadequate model.

I just think it's important to remember that.


I'm not arguing about the usefullness of the Periodic table for some purposes. To me it might be like Newtonian physics, very useful for understanding some properties of gravity, but incomplete.

 

[silverpig]

Enter string theory. All the particles are just different vibrational modes of the same little strings

 

[Jfrag Teh Foul]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "


Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter. The periodic table classifies chemical elements which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons only. Dark matter is NOT made of these things, hence it would not show up on the periodic table. The most likely contituent of dark matter is a particle called a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle). WIMPS do not interact with normal matter (or even themselves it seems) and would therefore not be found sitting on the surface of mars.

The periodic table is mostly relevant to chemists, but there are other tables that list the subatomic particles and the particles resulting from their combinations (quarks/bosons, leptons etc).

To be sure though: Dark matter won't show up on the periodic table.

Damn... you watch too much Star Trek.

jk

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Jfrag

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "


Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter. The periodic table classifies chemical elements which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons only. Dark matter is NOT made of these things, hence it would not show up on the periodic table. The most likely contituent of dark matter is a particle called a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle). WIMPS do not interact with normal matter (or even themselves it seems) and would therefore not be found sitting on the surface of mars.

The periodic table is mostly relevant to chemists, but there are other tables that list the subatomic particles and the particles resulting from their combinations (quarks/bosons, leptons etc).

To be sure though: Dark matter won't show up on the periodic table.

Damn... you watch too much Star Trek.

Heh, I guess I do, but I'm an astrophysics major

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Enter string theory. All the particles are just different vibrational modes of the same little strings

String theory (the higher dimensional stuff is mind blowing) or quantum gravity(the one with quanta(pieces) of space and time) I like both of those two.

 

[Jfrag Teh Foul]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Jfrag

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"No, let the high schooler think what he wants to think. Anyone with a one-semester knowledge of general chemistry would know that anything that hasn't been found wouldn't be stable enough to have survived billions of years. This is obvious and intuitive. "


Really ? I guess you know what dark matter is made out of then ?

Dark matter is not made of the same material as normal matter. The periodic table classifies chemical elements which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons only. Dark matter is NOT made of these things, hence it would not show up on the periodic table. The most likely contituent of dark matter is a particle called a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle). WIMPS do not interact with normal matter (or even themselves it seems) and would therefore not be found sitting on the surface of mars.

The periodic table is mostly relevant to chemists, but there are other tables that list the subatomic particles and the particles resulting from their combinations (quarks/bosons, leptons etc).

To be sure though: Dark matter won't show up on the periodic table.

Damn... you watch too much Star Trek.

Heh, I guess I do, but I'm an astrophysics major'

As a confession... TNG rules!

 

[RossGr]

Originally posted by: ChrisIsBored
Two thumbs up for the idiots on this thread who claimed the Periodic Table would never change and it is what it is.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001848536_chemical01.html

I guess you cannot understand what the article is saying. Looks to me like they have simply found something in some areas which were thought to unstable. It does not change the periodic table it adds to it.

The Periodic Table is defined by basic Quantum Mechanic, the structure, the fill order and a basic understanding of why it has the form it does, is all there. It is not an arbitrary assembly of elements it is very structured according to Quantum Mechanical Properties.