VIDEO

The Martian "Worms"


There are some people who claim that the mysterious EDM formations in these photos are giant worms, digging through the soil. Now most of you can probably tell that the idea is rather preposterous, and you wouldn't be wrong.

We can say with absolute certainty that they are not worms, because of their immense size.

The largest officially recognized land animal on Earth right now is the African Bush Elephant. This creature is massive, 6000 to 9000 kilograms. On Earth, its weight is about 13,000 to 20,000 lbs. This is already a heavy animal, approaching the limit for a land dwelling creature in Earth's present gravity. Scaling of muscle tissue and bone strength provides strong evidence for this.

The largest known land animal on Earth ever was Amphicoelias, a sauropod dinosaur approaching 200 feet long. Now mainstream weight estimates place it over 100 tons, but that weight estimate is based off of a discredited assumption about gravity as well as the ignorance of how much weight muscles and bones can support. In reality, Amphicoelias probably wasn't much heavier than an elephant due to the lesser force of gravity, which is estimated by some to be around a third or a fourth of what it is today. But if that's large for a creature on Earth, that's still nothing compared to the mysterious form you see on Mars.

Another problem with the worm theory is that the creature would simply be too big to dig through dirt, especially at that depth. One of the best ways to move, as a worm, is to propel yourself forward through compression and expansion, like an accordion, with a sharp tip on the front end, pushing dirt to the sides. This is fine for small worms, but when you get big, you evolve to be longer, as you are at a disadvantage if you're large and wide.

The greater your width, the deeper you would need to go. The increasing weight of the dirt on top of you, coupled with the great amount of pressure and the more tightly packed dirt, makes this a disadvantageous trait.

Also, there is no explanation given as to what the worms are supposed to be living off of. This is a serious problem.

So you came here to tell us that pictures of Mars don't have worms in them.



Do tell more.

It's more of an example. It's not what I'll be doing, but it's basically what it looks like. The subject is not the subject I will be talking about in the videos - it's just to see how well the format in which I am presenting goes.

It was directed at a conspiracy theorist, anyway. The rest of them, if they come about, won't be.

Good video , did you draw the photos? Not really convincing though, here's why:

You just made an entire argument that the size of the "worms" in the photos made them "impractical" for living under ground... However, while your argument is logical, it is kinda beside the point, the most practical, upfront argument would have been:

When worms dig you can't see a burrow mark on the surface that looks like a worm, and, hey, that photo looks more like a geological formation than a worm, the guy you're debating is acting like he's in a sci-fi movie, hoping that they're worms. Instead of taking a logical open minded look at the evidence. If he did that he'd probably realize that it's just wind marks or something, I dunno...

Anyways, good voice acting, sounded very "fitting", you should really do it in several small peices though, not just one straight shot of recording. Then your mistakes wouldn't stand out so much.

I agreed with all but a few things. The earth's mass has not changed all the much in 150 million years so how could the gravity have changed so much?

The earth now weighs about 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 Tonnes (or Metric Tons), now, lets say that 5,000,000 Tonnes of material is added to the earth every year in meteors, comets, and "space dust". In 150 Million years that would only be 750,000,000,000,000 Tonnes. Even if you rounded up to the nearest Quadrillion, it would still only be 1/5972000th of the earth's mass. That wouldn't really be that much of a gravity difference.

In truth, the largest dinosaurs probably did weigh that much, but about 80 tonnes max, not 100. So wherever you are getting your information, its wrong.

I happen to be a level 69 Astrophysics geek and a level 54 Paleontology geek.

I'm a physics geek too. I'm borrowing research from the Electric Universe model and some independent researchers as well as mainstream science. So some things I state may not be what you are used to hearing, but I feel I have decent evidence to support those statements.

About the argument being beside the point:
I knew that would be the first thing someone said, but that's because of the context of the argument. I was arguing with someone who was certain they were looking at worms, and I decided to explain why worms cannot get that big. Them being a conspiracy theorist, they wouldn't believe me if I just said it was a rock formation. So I came up with an argument relying on the photo as little as possible.

About the voice acting:
Are you just trying to make me feel better? All I hear is the flaws. Then again, I'm always like that. I look for errors. But that isn't really...acting. It's my voice up close to a microphone constricting my neck.

Being someone who makes videos all the time, and constantly is recording my friends voice acting and narrations just like you, you did a good job, especially considering it was 1 continuous take, rather than done in segments like Mike suggested.

The Electric Universe model hasn't really impressed me, But, as any good scientist should, I am open to it, and I believe anything is possible until proven it isn't. I still believe that my argument about the Earths gravity stands. I also ask you avoid saying things like "You may not used to hearing things like this", as it can come across insulting, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, by I would like to think I know a thing or two about this kind of thing, even though I am only 18(17 really, bday is on the 27th so I am rounding up 8 days).

Trying to disprove that the rock formations were not created by giant worms is not hard, and anyone who believes that they were made by giant worms, is, I am sorry to say, an idiot.

When you factor in everything, the chances of life existing on Mars today are in the 0.0001% range in my opinion. I feel it is very possible that perhaps 1-2 billion years ago Mars did have life, before Mars's core cooled and it lost most of its atmosphere. But My guess the largest life was probably no where close to the size of giant worms. There is just no way I could see a worm evolving to that size, how would it have been better than smaller worms?

But in another view, Mars does indeed have less gravity than Earth(or Terra, I prefer to call it), I think if I remember right it is 0.6 Earth gravity, so larger animals would have been possible. However, my above argument stands, while there was less gravity, so it was possible that there may have been large life forms, I dont ever see the possibility of a creature which its advantage is being small, evolve into such a large being. The larger a worm gets, the more vulnerable it becomes. So I dont see a worm ever getting bigger than a Burmese python, and even then I doubt its ability to survive at that size.

I support your wishes to explore making videos like this, and if you need technical help, I will try my best to give a hand, I make videos like this all the time.

Thank you, and I didn't mean to be insulting. If anything, I would like to avoid such behavior where unnecessary.

I personally doubt, just from what is easily observable, that Mars had life anywhere in the recent past. The largest known living earthworm on Earth is known as Microchaetus rappi, which reaches lengths of up to 22 feet. And although it's very long, it's also very thin.

Eaol wrote:The largest known living earthworm on Earth is known as Microchaetus rappi, which reaches lengths of up to 22 feet.

Holy Macaroni!!! That's incredible!

Eaol wrote:About the voice acting:
Are you just trying to make me feel better? All I hear is the flaws. Then again, I'm always like that. I look for errors. But that isn't really...acting. It's my voice up close to a microphone constricting my neck.

No I was serious, I liked the sound of your voice *insert wierd silence as people feel awkward about Mike's odd comment*, Okay, I mean, it was fitting in a science/documentary type video, seriously I thought it sounded informative and "pressing"...? Persuasive? no... more... I dunno, help me out people... In the sense that it didn't bore or annoy me. *people all step away from Mike while giving him a funny look*

the best voicing generally comes from someone who is standing, not sitting or leaning over a desk, also don't be afraid to do several "practice" takes, believe me, they help... alot. As for your "constricted neck", get a good microphone if your going to do alot of recording, they aren't too expensive ( $30 for a good one ) and can add a lot to your video quality.

I find my voice...weird.

I actually unconsciously started standing. I do that a lot when I'm on a subject that I find very important (such as the irrational and cruel treatment by the scientific community of Halton Arp after he provided conclusive evidence of physical connections between galaxies with drastically different redshifts). But usually I'll be taking quietly and slowly get louder and louder and be practically yelling at people in many cases.

Eaol wrote:I find my voice...weird.

Then your normal. Everyone, and I mean everyone thinks their voice is weird, they just get used to it. I hate my voice on playback, I go, "thats what I sound like? I would strangle myself if I had to listen to that moron speak all day".

The difference of speaking and hearing yourself talk is very different from listening to a recording of your own voice.

@wulf, you're %100 right, It took me a long time to get used to hearing my recorded voice, of course, you can always modify the sound to sound more like you want it to.

My Overall View
This video has no pictures, sorry. It's just me talking a bit about myself. Can you critique that, too?

I did a poor job of fending off my first YouTube troll, though. Won't happen again.

Eaol wrote:My Overall View
This video has no pictures, sorry. It's just me talking a bit about myself. Can you critique that, too?

I did a poor job of fending off my first YouTube troll, though. Won't happen again.

I am not quite done debating the whole worm/gravity thing, so I will make a brief assessment of your new video, plus, if we start talking about the new video, I kinda think that would be offtopic, although, I guess now that I am going to try to talk about the Electric Universe theory, that will be kinda offtopic as well.
It is ok, I think the quality of the recording would be improved by moving your mouth about 1.5 inches away from the mic.


I have not had the time to really go over the Electric Universe theory, so before I start debating what is and is not the most sensible argument, I am going to go over the whole electric universe theory, and when I am done, I will return fully informed and ready to debate. I am only 18(sorta), so I am not really a college level student. So bear with me if you can.

I hope you notice the difference between me, and that troll, I hope you see that I want to discuss things properly.

The theory really isn't that complicated. Pretty easy to understand, just a lot of stuff to learn.

Okay, first if I get banned after making this post then it's YOUR fault NOT mine :p

I think your main point was that the scientific community is a very un-accepting, very proud, very elitist group of people who would, as you say: "hold on to ideas as stupid as the earth being flat". I totally agree, that's the way it always has been and sadly that's the way it probably will always be. Now that doesn't mean that means all scientists are idiots... ( Isaac Newton *hint hint* ) but most people are just that way when they have the authority to say: "THIS IS RIGHT BECAUSE I'M AN INTELLIGENT SCIENTIST AND YOU'RE A DUMB PERSON WHO WORKS AT WAL-MART". And who wouldn't be tempted to be like that? It's only humanly natural to want to have power.

Finally the only thing I must really take you apart on is your comparison of the scientific community to the religious community.

I guess your end point was to say: "science people! look at yourselves! you're acting like religious people!"
If that was your end point I can't agree, there are so many types of religions that you can't even begin to compare one religion ( the technically "religion of science" ) to all other religions.

If this is your overall view, it is flawed and biased, but at the same time correct in many senses, because the video is as you said, mostly just you thinking aloud, there's not much to critique except for what you think. I can't go too much into detail, because I just don't want to get banned right now, if you want to full on debate, We can PM each other. But at this point I don't really care to unless you really want to.

Anyways, your point being to say that scientists are "rude" made sense in most ways, however you comparing it with religion in alot of ways does NOTHING to promote your end point, just to throw off what you're trying to say. In the future try to stick with one arguement, not three, as you made in the video.

I admit with having a religion forced onto me, it's somewhat of a tendency for me to not really like religion in general, but my point was, really, that they are acting like the Church did hundreds of years ago. I'm not intending to say religion is bad, I just think that scientists are not being rational and are believing in their unsupported theories with the passion of a religious person - relying more on faith than science.

Church did hundreds of years ago

Do you mean the roman catholic church during the dark ages?

Yes.

Ah ok, well, will be waiting for your next videos...