How do we feel about this paper, /sci/?"Evidence for Large Planetary Climate Altering Thermonuclear Explosions on Mars in the Past"https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=125770Makes a very bold claim and has an amount of evidence. More evidence than I would expect from a quack, but I still get quack vibes even from the paper.The author of this paper actually has written about this before in another paper that was somehow published, and has been supporting this theory since at least 2011. Since then, it has shifted from "a natural nuclear reactor formed on Mars" to "an advanced alien civilization nuked themselves with an 80-meter radius, 10-billion megaton nuclear device, twice, 1.4 billion years ago.""Evidence for Past, Massive, Nuclear Explosions on Mars, and its Relationship to Fermi’s Paradox and The Cydonian Hypothesis"https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-5529He also was interviewed by a strange cult about this, and 24/7 posts on Twitter about a humanoid civilization on Mars because of pareidolia faces he sees. It actually makes me a little sad how someone can fall. Pre-2010 it seems like he was an actually respectable physicist, having a PhD in plasma physics, working with NASA to map the moon and find ice there, and being the first to propose water on Mars in the ancient past.https://youtu.be/NBuN3uHnjYY [Embed]https://x.com/PhdBrandenburgFrom what I can tell, it seems like he saw the quack physics of the 2000s being so successful and tried doing that for himself. He flopped hard on saying he unified gravity and electromagnetism and then fell into ever-increasing claims about ancient Martians and present alien threats. Sad!
>>16877095>10 TERATON YIELDThis is full schizo merely from the conclusion, Mein Führer. Castle Bravo took roughly a ton of fissile material for 15 megatons. How would even an advanced alien civilization possibly refine megatons of fissile material and configure it into an operational weapon?
>>16877121>How would even an advanced alien civilization possibly refine megatons of fissile material and configure it into an operational weapon?Modules? Ignite one nuclear weapon using conventional known techniques. Position the other fissile material into modules in concentric layers around the first device, and designed such that they are triggered by the blast wave of the first device.
>>16877123If we're mostly back to Little Boy/Fat Man technology, that's ~100lbs core per ~10kt. Now the ayy lmaos need like a freakin GIGATON of fissile material to get the right boom, and there is no way they are shielding that aside from drilling huge shafts most of the way through Mars, probably obliterating it after the blasting process. Also where the fuck asteroid just had like 100 gigatons of natural uranium just lying around?
>>16877121Its not even 10 teratons, this man found scientific journals willing to accept his paper that proposes a mysterious... TEN THOUSAND TERATON NUCLEAR EXPLOSION in the Martian northern hemisphere. And he says this happened twice. This is 4.5*10^25 joules. Are you serious? Assuming that I did that conversion correctly, with a 100% mass to energy conversion, thats 500,000,000 kilograms of mass equivalent. With a perfect sphere, that's a 23 meter U-235 core if each "detonation" was only one device. Modern nukes cap out at ~25% mass to energy efficiency (solely of their fissile material). Note that in the paper, his official stance is that this is a naturally occuring event, somehow. For his alien version, though, I'll be generous and say that these aliens got to 50% mass to energy conversion with their nukes (which _have_ to be made of modern nuke materials for his isotope ratio argument to work) (This actually makes each nuke a """one megaton""" device, it's just that the one megaton descriptor is the mass of fissile material, lol). Anyway, for 2 such devices, they somehow would need to refine and collect the total U-235 contained in the entire solar system: something like 98% of which is in the sun.
>>16877130Somewhat relatedly, the 10^25 joules number is actually close to the total output of the entire sun in one second. I guess that might not sound as impressive as a 10 petaton TNT equivalent (lol) nuclear bomb, but really its ridiculous that this was suggested. Every mention of this theory/paper I could find was a layman saying "it's just so unbelievable. But there's evidence. What if..." as if this is not the most disgustingly unbelievable theory that I have ever heard, just on the basis of pure numbers.
>>16877129Perhaps it wasn't conventional nuclear weapons. We stopped making larger bombs because it wasn't practical to deliver them. We also had concerns over stuff like igniting the atmosphere. Perhaps, they had more advanced nuclear devices, which did ignite the atmosphere, or maybe they used some combination of fission and fusion to turn non nuclear material into more fissile material during detonation. Could be there was a freak comet with nuclear material which was weaponized and redirected.
>>16877133It _could_ have been something else, I guess. Some other method of getting the isotope ratios that he claims could be possible, but the isotope ratios are his evidence for the nuke theory! At that point, just toss out the theory in the first place and say a stray alien neutron beam hit Mars and fucked up the isotopes. It couldn't have been a more advanced weapon that could (still not easily) deliver that much energy, like an antimatter bomb or something, because that invalidates his main evidence that any bomb existed at all, the isotope ratios. Also, the "atmosphere igniting" fear is way overblown in the public perception of the Manhattan project; they considered it, did some quick calculations, and found that they would be nowhere near the required temperatures or pressures for self-sustaining fusion across the whole atmosphere, it just wasn't happening. >freak cometWhat, a comet a solid hundred standard deviations away from regular U-235 content? (Remember! The entire point of his theory hinges on U-235 decay products)
>>16877121>>16877129>>16877130Do you even have a better explanation?
>>16877137His paper uses data that is old as hell about the differences in isotope ratios from Earth, newer analyses have found that it's there, but not as extreme for the elements it exists for. Also, notice that the elements that are supported by actual science to be skewed from Earth are all skewed to have more of their heavy isotopes (hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, xenon, argon). In my opinion, it seems more likely that being a cold planet with a weak magnetic field makes solar stripping of less dense elements a much stronger force, preferentially removing the lighter isotopes. After literally 4 billion years of this slow erosion from ~1 bar to ~6 millibar, it left behind more of the heavy isotopes.This isn't even a good explanation, but it's definitely better than "aliens detonated two ten-petaton nukes and then vanished with no other traces
>>16877137>>16877142An alternative hypothesis is some kinda of ayy lmao nuclear reaction that wasn't a nuclear war; maybe the ayy lmaos used up a fuck-ton of nuclear fuel and eventually peaced out from Mars a billion years ago in some huge fusion-fission powered rocket ship looking for nicer planets.
>>16877095It's a classic schizo theory, not only is it silly on first principles (nukes that big just aren't practical) but any civilization that could build such devises would leave pretty clear evidence of themselves and their use in other things. The scientific question of why mars has bit strange isotopes is fun but it's definitely not aliens using nukes there.
>>16877170>any civilization that could build such devises would leave pretty clear evidence of themselves and their use in other thingsAny civilization that could build such devices would probably possess the means to obfuscate their existence.
>>16877243>let me nuke mars 4.000.000.000 times then "obfuscate" all evidence i existed or was here hehehhehehehhe
>>16877243>>16877301Nuclear explosion that big would not even leave very much of Mars around.
>>16877424this isnt true, very easily shown too. the chicxulub asteroid released ~10^24 joules. it did a lot of climate damage by knocking dust into the air, but even 100 chicxulub asteroids wouldnt significantly change earth's orbit, or come close to the gbe. for mars, the claimed 10^25 joule yield on this guys theory is still 5 orders of magnitude less than the gbe of the planet. it would undoubtedly leave a massive impact crater that would still be visible, especially without any geological activity on mars, but as a whole the planet would be broadly the same
If them aliens are so smart then why did they turn the planet into a dust bowl. And why didn't they notice the bigger much more biodiverse planet just next door?
>>16878165For surface blast, maybe. But the ayy lmaos would have to split up each core section of such a device to about 100lbs and shield it properly while maintaining a clear path for critical assembly. The amount of shielding to avoid auto-detonation (well into the gigatons, not just some truck-sized device like Ivy Mike) would necessitate drilling pretty far into Mars, and the damage from that would be *far greater* than an equivalent energy asteroid impact.
>>16877095>How do we feel about this paper, /sci/?A bit tired. How many times do you have to post this? It must be about 5 years since /sci/ cracked this particular nut. Perhaps I should write up a paper on that communal effort - and post it to viXra for added effect.
>>16878241>viXraPseudonymous entries are no longer permitted. That drops a spanner into my works.
>>16877121"sloika" or "alarm clock" design scale indefinitely
>>16877130>4.5E25 joulesThat's detonating a Tsar Bomba per hour every hour for 21,152 years.
>>16877129oh do stfuit is EASY, too easy, to make a fusion device of indeterminate sizeall you need is enough lithium 6, which is EASY to separate, as isotopic separations go
>>16879019again, for an advanced alien civilization, they probably could feasibly release 10^25 joules on mars, but theres absolutely 0 chance it would be done with u235 nuclear weapons, isotopic evidence of which is the author's only evidence that the explosion happened
>>16879041it is best to not talk about things you do not understand, but you are doing just thatonce you have built your arbitrarily large fission-fusion device, you can surround it with a tamper made of natural uranium, roughly doubling the fun because there are more than enough neutrons escaping from the fusion stage to breed spicy uranium out of the bland uranium and then assplode it
>>16877095Sounds like clout-chasing bullshit to me.
Definitely schizo bullshit. Fake looking company. Bullshit open access journal that seems to be named after a real journal.
>>16877147And they happened to miss Earth?
>>16879053no, they colonized and suffered civilization collapse pretty much immediatelya hard core of scientists and military kept the flame going for a while and uplifted some monkeys by genetic tinkering to help build some more infrastructurewe are the martians' former pets, now turned feral
>>16879044okay... and why would any civilization capable of doing that do that? if your civilization has the capability of doing this, it also has the capability of thousands of other, much simpler and more efficient ways of destroying the ecosystem of a planet, or wiping out another civilization or its own, or whatever other aim it could have.it's like if humanity decided to wipe itself out by having everyone bludgeon each other to death with rocks.
>>16879053A deeper gravitational well makes space colonization operations far more expensive making the planet far easier to control. If those nukes were made by intelligent agents there must be lots of ruins all over the solar system.Humans have being able to reach current technological levels for 100'000 years. Even if takes 20'000 years to reach current civilization levels we had 5 chances, and that is without considering far more valuable resources that speed up civilization development weren't depleted by previous iterations. Is far more probable that the so called aliens/reptilians/gods/demons are just heavily inbreed humans.
>>16877095>10-billion megaton nuclear deviceAssuming 1 MT -> 1 km crater diamteterAssuming crate scales with MT ^ (1/3) or the cubic rootThen a 1 B MT device leaves a crater 100 km in diameter.In comparisn, Hellas Planitia is 2300 km across, and Argyre Planitia is 1700 km across. It seems then that the bombs were much smaller than was achievable for an advanced civilization.
>>16879681Typo, a i billion MT device would lave a 1000 km crater, of course.
>>16878188you just assume there is only one alien specie.
A single 10 billion megaton device makes no sense when you can take the MIRV approach. Mars has a surface area of 144,400,000 km^2 which means you can dump nearly 70 MT on each and evey square km with a bomb that would carve out a crater 4 km across. The entire planet would be utterly torched, had this been a real nucler war between super advanced civilizations.
>>16877137Replication crisis
>>16877095I'm not reading all that shit but, is he really saying it was an explosion by some intelligent life? Why couldn't it be the case, but instead it could have been some sort of natural explosion?
>>16882266he doesn't say so in the paper, but everywhere else that's his position. honestly it is a pretty good paper if you take it as "mars has very weird isotope ratios (known fact). nobody has considered that these match decay products of u235. maybe a large payload of u-235 was delivered to mars at some point after it formed" instead of his insane conclusion
>>16879410Objection! Defense is asking the witness to speculate on the mental state of the defendant, your honor!and speculate I will - maybe they calculated that they can only slip one device past any defenses due to whatever circumstance and had to make it countmaybe it was a suicide pact and part of making sure everyone died was to have device redundancy while still ensuring massive overkill maybe the objects to be destroyed were just that toughany number of reasons, but I am replying to what is essentially an argument from disbelief so I should not need to reply at all, you lost this round already
>>16881358>>16883167
>>16877095seems incredibly dubious in nature, i wouldnt trust that desu
>>16883174can you bless us with your conclusions a little bit more, geniusanon?
>>16883265>>16883174what the hell are either of these replies? are you both retarded?
>>16877095>The author of this paper actually has written about this beforeSure. And /sci/ has debunked it.How often do we need this thread?
