A Theory on the origin of Mars

I love to watch shows on the Discovery & Science channels, especially those that deal with how the planets and stars were & are formed. I've read a number of articles about the planets as well, mainly from encyclopedias and Wikipedia. On one of these occasions, on a show about Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, I thought I noticed a couple of things that weren't addressed in the theories about how the planets were formed. I did some more research on my own, and I still didn't find anything that addressed these items I noticed. Therefore, I've decided to put my theory out there as a message in a bottle just in case it's something new. However, I have no reason to believe that this theory hasn't been considered & rejected previously. I just can't find anything. So here it goes.

I think that it's possible that the reason for Mars' current planetary characteristics and possibly the formation of the asteroid belt may be, in some way, connected to theories about Mercury's formation & the theory of how Earth's Moon was formed. I'm sorry for the long, run-on, sentence, but here's the break down.

I remember reading or watching that scientists believe that Mercury is pretty much just the inner & outer core of the planet. They speculate that the rest of Mercury's mass was blown off by the power of the Sun. This lead me to notice that Mars was very close to the size of Mercury rather than the size of Earth & Venus. I then speculated that something similar had happened to Mars. I think that Mars' current planetary state is because of a cataclysmic event, like an impact, that ripped the outer layers off the planet. This left Mars, like Mercury, with its mass being composed of the inner cores of itself. I think the huge canyon/scar on Mars' surface is either evidence of this impact or the result of the turmoil occurring on the planet as a result of the event.

Also, I think the ejected material of the Mars' event came to one of two ends. In one case I think that the Mars' ejecta, and that of the possible object that impacted Mars' became the asteroid belt. In another theory I think it's also possible that the object that caused the event on Mars' might have come from the asteroid belt. I also think that if this was the case that part of the Mars ejecta is what impacted the Earth to form our Moon.

That is pretty much my theory. I've not done any investigation to determine if any of it is possible let alone true. However, I'll continue to look into it to see what I can find to support it. If anyone else reads this & agrees, I'd enjoy your comments. I also solicit comments from those who think I'm cracked on this matter. I welcome all civil discourses in this matter. Any comments that degenerate into childish name calling will be removed.

By the way. I'm not trained as a scientist or cosmologist. I'm a computer programmer with varied interests. This theory just came to me, and I wanted to put it out while it was clear in my mind. Thanks. ;o)

A Convoluted Theory....

I had an idea about time travel possibilities, and have come to a convoluted theory on the subject. I'll try to write it down in the off-chance I'm not a loon after all. ;o) Keep in mind that I came to this while watching a "Back To The Future" marathon.

I think time travel is possible, but it's somewhat limited. Think of it as portrayed in the afore mentioned "Back To The Future" films.

In the film series, scientist, Dr. Emmett Brown, invents a time machine on November 5, 1985. He talks of going to the past to see events like Edison inventing the electric light; I believe this part is impossible, in my opinion. I don't think you can travel through time by using a device to a time when that device didn't exist. Likewise, even though the DeLorean first went forward in time earlier with the dog, Marty can never physically go back to a time before he left. This is probably wrong on several astro-physical levels, but this seems to be a logical reasoning to me. Or at least a good philosophical reasoning. I think there's a possible exception to this, but I'll expand on that later.

So in my version of the films, Marty & Doc could go to the future with no problem. However, even if set for Nov 5, 1955, the car would not go there upon reaching 88mph. However, if the DeLorean had been set to go to the future before the "Lybian terrorists" showed up at the "Twin Pines Mall", and the chase had ensued otherwise unchanged, Marty would have been transported into the future when the car reached 88mph. Now I just changed the film so that Marty made his now "forward" leap in time on Nov 5, 1985 @ 1:15:000...am exactly. I think that when he tries to come back early to "save Doc," in this new version, he won't be able do that. He can only go back to Nov 5, 1985 @ 1:15:00.000...am; the exact time that the DeLorean made its first jump through time.

Now for the explanation of my theoretical exception to my overall theory. It could be possible for Marty to go back to Nov 5, 1955, but similarly to the second movie in the series, it would be an alternate Nov 5, 1955, which would exist after time travel had been invented in that... and I'm not sure how to describe this... either an alternate Astral Plain, or alternate Physical Dimension. So, given this exception theory, Marty & Doc could go back to July 4, 1776, but that July 4, 1776 might not have the same events of our (or the time traveler's) past. Therefore, it's possible that if Marty had gone back to same date as he did in 1955, Doc Brown would've been the same as the film, with the exception that he actually invented the time machine with a '56 Chevy and first used it before Marty arrived from 1985. However, if Doc Brown of 1955 were to take Marty from 1985 to 1985 in a time machine Doc Brown built in 1955, the 1985 they travel to would be a future alien to both, because it's an alternate to Marty's 1985, and unknown to the 1955 version of Doc Brown. It starts to get kind of complicated from here, but I hope you get where I'm going with the exception. You can go to a previous date, but it won't be the same as the date you know/remember.

There's another part to this overall theory. Marty goes to a version of 1955, spends a week there and comes back to his version of 1985 just a nanosecond after he left, just as in the film. Then later in the day, after his return, he goes into the future with Doc Brown, as in the film. Marty and Doc can now return no earlier than when they first left together on *this* time-trip. Even if Marty made his second trip alone, he can return to no earlier a time than an instant after he left on the current time-trip.

I dunno. ;o)

I Don't Get This...

Here in the United States, there is a tradition of playing the National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner) at the beginning of sports events. This is especially true when the events are on television. However, I've never truly understood why this is done at all.

Now I do understand that citizens (for the most part) are proud of the USA and that they live here. I'm (mostly) proud of my country. I'm a veteran (USAF 1980-1984). I just don't see the reason for this at a sporting event. It's like mindless chest-beating for no good reason. To me it makes no sense to play the National Anthem before an event in which all participants are from the USA. I mean, I know that I live in the US.

I've never noticed God Save the Queen being played before a match at Wimbledon. I've not seen that happen before a Manchester United football (soccer) match either. Do they play Japan's National Anthem before Sumo matches? I don't know, but I did see that happen the one time I watched a TV broadcast at one.

I think events like the Olympics, Soccer World Cup, & Formula 1 Auto Racing have the better method. Have the participants come out to introductions, and save the National Anthem for afterwards, for the winners.

The only time we should hear the National Anthem at a sport event is for the winner of that event period...

...but then, that's my opinion. ;o)

Feels like home....

As some who know are already aware, I'm originally from Alabama. I was born in Huntsville in 1962. I lived there with my family until August of 1974 when we all moved to a small town called, Vina. We moved there because Vina was where my father had been born, and both he and my mother thought it would be a better place to raise children than Huntsville. Now, I didn't & still don't agree that Vina is better than Huntsvulle for raising children. As proof, I offer all the adults who've lived their entire lives in both places and are good people. It's not so much about the place as it is the parents (imho), but that's not the point of this post.

To this day, I still feel that Huntsville, Alabama is my home town. Regardless of the fact that I've not resided there since 1974. Upon graduating high school and later after leaving the military, I tried to get a job in Huntsville in order to move back. It was never successful. I do have a fondness for Vina, but I always felt like the new guy there. Even now when I go back to visit my family & friends, I'm warmly received by all of them, but I don't feel like I'm home.

In 1998 I got a job in Columbus, GA, so I moved to Phenix City, AL. It's on the Alabama side of the Chattahoochee River, just opposite Columbus, GA. I lived there for eight years, and made many great friends. However, Phenix City/Columbus never really felt like home either. I was comfortable there but didn't feel at home.

During that period of living in Phenix City, I took a vacation with my Mother to Seattle, WA. Mom was born & lived there until she was around 9. Then, her family moved to Auburn, WA, which is about 20 miles away from Seattle. At the time it was pretty rural (like Vina), and I think that's why she likes living in Vina. When I got to Seattle for the first time it was awesome. I found a 2nd place that felt like home to me. It was weird; though I'd never been here before, Seattle really felt comfortable. It felt almost like I'd always been here. I like to think that I was genetically programmed for Seattle thanks to Mom. On our second day here Mom asked what I thought about it. Remember I said, "This is awesome. If I can find a job here, I'd move here in a heartbeat."

Fast forward five years to 2006. I did get a job in Seattle, and I did move here. It's felt like home from day one. The climate, though cooler & wetter than Alabama, suits me way more than the high summer heat & humidity of Alabama. When you add in all the great stuff Seattle has, it's a no-brainer. Seattle is my home. I don't see myself ever living in Alabama again. I might've been born a Southerner, but I'll die a Pacific Northwesterner. ;o)

Chicken & Egg Debate Solved....

There's a new commercial going around that uses the old "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate as it's basis. Oddly, I've just seen the commercial again, and I'm not able to remember what the commercial was actually about. However, I do remember that John Goodman voices the chicken with Steve Bucsemi voicing the egg. Anyway, I've figured out the answer to this old conundrum (or at least I think I have).

I'll start by explaining the logic of my choice, and I'll end with the answer.

Okay, if we take the question of which was first, it's kind of easy to break down using today's scientific reasoning.

Think about the first chicken. The first bird that we would now call a chicken was more than likely a mutation of an earlier version. This is kind of like Cromagnon Man being the newer version of Neaderthal Man. They were very similar, but not the same by any stretch.

So the first "chicken" had non-chicken parents. Keep that in mind. Now these non-chicken parents; how did they reproduce? I'm guessing that since they were still birds they probably laid eggs. Even if the parents were some sort of dinosaur, they would still lay eggs.

Therefore, the first chicken came from..... an egg. It wasn't a chicken egg per se, but an egg nonetheless. So the answer to the great debate is.... The EGG came first!

Now, prove me wrong! ;o)

Rapture My Ass...

Well, today is May 21, 2011. This date is alleged, by one guy and his followers, to be the start date of the "rapture". The Rapture is a belief held by many fundamentalist Christians, that people who believe Jesus is the messiah, will be lifted bodily to Heaven. After this event, there allegedly going to be a period of tribulation period. After the tribulation, the end of the world will occur.

As for me, I'm an atheist, so this is a bunch of pure BS. However, there are many pius Christians that don't believe in the Rapture. So I have some company on this.

The part about this prediction that really bothers me, is that this same guy predicted this before; he predicted the same thing would happen in 1994. Yet we are all still here. Idiocy!!!!

The worst part it all is the people that continue to put any status to this guy's predictions. I'm fine with a person being religious, but I'm not fine when they stop using their common sense like that. I'm sure that if there were a God, he gave you your intelligence to use, not to blindly trust some soothsayer.

I'm Tired of the, so called, "Tea Party"...

When it comes to politics, I'm very liberal. It's no surprise that I have little use for hard-line conservatives like people who consider themselves members of the "Tea Party." I will also admit that I have no use for extreme liberals either. Extremism does no person any good that I've seen. My political beliefs are that the government should do things that help the citizens (like provide police, fire protection, good roads, and health care), but should allow people to make their own choices when the choices only effect the person making them. When a person tries to do something that will harm or infringe on another's rights, that shouldn't be allowed (imho).

When it comes to the Tea Party, this is my beef. Very few make statements of policy (like Sarah Palin), and even if those statements are totally untrue (death panels, Obama wasn't born in the US) the hoi poloi of the party just parrot it back as if it were true. The most recent example has been reported by Salon.com in the article linked here (http://www.salon.com/news/haley_barbour/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/17/barbour_birth_nation).

I'm fine if someone disagrees with me politically. However, I'm only fine with it if it's based on fact. I'm don't agree with ANYONE (liberal or conservative) spouting half-truths & outright lies and trying to portray that as the truth. (steps off soap box) :)