The Spiritual Significance of Mars

Posted by DrEdwardHudgins 2 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
34 comments | Share | Flag

The planet Mars is at opposition and the closest approach to Earth in over a decade. I explained back then why this is an astronomical fact of spiritual significance.
SOURCE URL: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3591-the-spiritual-significance-of-mars


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 years, 10 months ago
    Yes, pagan pre-conscious bicameral man thought many things to be "Gods" but I wouldn't describe it as "spiritual"...there is no energetic connection between us and Mars: (which is what Spirit's actually refer to...unseen energy).

    Mars already has an abundance of carbon...it's atmosphere is mostly carbon and it's cold.
    Transformers get it wrong. Mars needs a magnetic shield which requires, among other things, salt water oceans, -(creates electromagnitism). Mars also needs more hydrogen in it's atmosphere. In other words...we need to create a thicker atmosphere that will eventually rain and bring that carbon back down to the surface. Have no idea how to create a stronger ionosphere...not sure science does either.

    We must be careful about our view of Mars and any possible past civilization that may have existed. We are not decedents but the pagan bicameral, nonconscious creature that inhabit our worlds kakistocracies want us to think so...we must be forever skeptical and not fall for their crap...Mark my words...they will try, it's what they believe and they will manufacture what ever faux evidence they need to do that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 years, 10 months ago
      Read my article on "The Spiritual Significance of Mars" for a definition of "spiritual" that is not based on religion or "bicameral mind" pseudo-science. For actual info on the challenges of traveling to and terraforming Mars, see Robert Zubrin's excellent book, "The Case for Mars" and the decades of papers on the Mars Society website. http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 years, 10 months ago
        I read the article and just want to be specific...on the misunderstood "spiritual" usage and the actual terreforming of Mars...which I am in favor of...and Nasa, etc, you'll find, it has more than enough carbon...it's not a warming gas...in fact it's a coolant for our ionosphere...
        The problem with Mars is it can't hang on to it's atmosphere...even Earth looses a bit during CME events...lucky we have an abundance and a magnetic field. Thanks for the additional book link...I'll check it out.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 10 months ago
      If you are referencing carbon dioxide as carbon, then it is oxygen which makes up most of Mars' air by weight with carbon to oxygen in the CO2 molecule in ratio: 14 to 32.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 years, 10 months ago
        No, it has a high "Carbon" content. there is ox, but not enough to breath.
        I think the Movie with Arnold had some value when they melted the Ice...that's not an "answer all" but it's one of the many things that could be done...water vapor is a most efficient "Warming Gas"...same for earth, and most of that above the troposphere come from the cosmic winds reacting with our ionosphere.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 10 months ago
          Look, if you want to refer to CO2 as carbon by "...it's atmosphere is mostly carbon", you cannot imply that carbon is the most abundant element, you then you have to recognize that oxygen is the most abundant element in the air since it is 2 atoms to 1 atom of carbon.
          Vaporization of water is the best cooler of the surface by breaking the hydrogen bonds of water. The vapor is a good absorbent of IR and with other greenhouse gases transfer much energy to N2, O2, and A to cause a sufficient average kinetic energy of air at given altitude to have its temperature. The non-greenhouse gases hold the kinetic energy and temperature of the atmosphere because they radiate in microwave and radio wavelengths. They also hold most of the energy transfer by conduction from the warm surface. The greenhouse gases carry energy to higher atmospheric levels by convection where most of the energy not transmitted to non-greenhouse gases is radiated as heat energy more toward outer space.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by FelixORiley 2 years, 10 months ago
    I read a lenthy article in a special edition of LIfe Magazine years ago. It spelled out a time line of how mankind (sorry, transgender kind) planned on creating a living environment on Mars.
    Colonize
    Deliberately build factories that produced greenhouse smoke and gases. And lots of it.
    Do so until the atmosphere actually heated up
    Create moisture that then was magnified by the atmospheric heating
    * Rinse repeat until there was an oxygen/nitrogen based environment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 years, 10 months ago
    I don't know the time line, but technical plans to colonize Mars have been around a while. Let's go colonize it and claim it as a free Gultch, while people on earth complain and wonder if some bacteria exists there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 10 months ago
    The sad truth is that we are not prepared to go to Mars even though this is the best time to do so. If we really wanted to go there, we would have either been there by now, or would be ready to launch any day now. We have screwed up on our planet so badly that such dreams as spreading into space has been frozen in a milk run between the space station and the earth We have sent probes. Enough with the probes, already. Let's get our asses there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 years, 10 months ago
      Not sure about your "we." NASA has sent probes there but not humans, both for budget and political reasons. Elon Musk, as pointed out in other comments, has brought down launch costs. He'll have a heavy life vehicle ready in a few years and could have humans on Mars in a little over a decade. Also, read Robert Zubrin's excellent book, "The Case for Mars." http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 10 months ago
        I'm aware of Musk's project. The reason I'm pissed off is that I'm too old to be around when people land on Mars. If we made it to the moon in the 70s, we should have been on Mars by now. Damn politicians!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 2 years, 10 months ago
          To me this kind of "rah, rah, we can do it, therefore we should even if it means a huge government program" sentiment is statism.

          It made some sense for us to go to the moon in the '60s, because people were justifiably afraid of the Soviets building a missile base there first and owning the earth (see Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress). But the Moon has been left alone since 1980 because it isn't economically justifiable to settle there. It would be like settling Antarctica, only more so -- possible, but very expensive.

          Now I could see someone settling Antarctica if they first discovered a huge oil or gas deposit there, or some similar reason big enough to make it profitable. And there are equally good potential reasons why we might someday settle the moon. One reason would be to mine the material to ring earth with Solar Power Satellites, a scheme Keith Henson is still trying to get off the ground (but which would likely cost $2 or 3 billion before it got big enough to self-fund, and which no bank or rich person is ready to invest in yet).

          But I don't see any good reason to go to Mars; neither the missile-base threat nor the potential economic benefit seems believable when it's that far away. And even if a mother-lode of oil were discovered there, transport cost would make it not worth exploiting any time soon. I expect that man will eventually settle Mars, but not for at least two centuries yet.

          Let's let further space activities wait until it makes economic sense to do them. At which point government won't need to be involved at all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 10 months ago
            What a party-pooper you are!
            I'm from a generation that was in their teens in the '50s & '60s. They were predicting flying cars. Space exploration. Extended life. Innumerable electronic gadgets and what did we get? Computers. Computers in every size and shape. Table top computers, lap top computers, tablet computers, phone computers, wristwatch computers. Of course I'd prefer private enterprise to take us to Mars. But as of now, I'm feeling cheated and unfulfilled. As to needing a reason to go to Mars -- well, it's the same reason one climbs Mount Everest. Because it is there. Space, the Solar System, the universe is man's destiny. Without exploration we are of no more importance than a tree. Also, the desire for space travel will give mankind the incentive to find ways to overcome the speed of light barrier. Costs? Exploration has always eventually been cost effective. Should the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria waited until the invention of the steam engine? Why did Europe launch all of those exploratory ships during the 15th & 16th centuries?
            In any case, my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but by golly, you sound a lot like the 19th century guy who asserted that we'd never travel faster than a mile a minute, but if we did, what would be the point.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 10 months ago
          Same here. I was expecting to maybe living to near my grandfathers 104 but have bad heart so looks like, unless things speed up, 2030 or so is to far in future.
          Government didn't put men on the moon, businesses did using money extorted from the taxpayers to do so. You could look at it as a good thing that the extra money was not forced from the taxpayers to go to Mars, though now businesses are wealthy enough to have extra funds to mess around with fun stuff like planning on going to Mars but have to do taxpayer funded launches for the government for part of the needed money and get some grant money from taxpayers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo