Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

No life on Mars · 2004-03-31 06:04:47

Forget about ancient traces of water on Mars. There's a little white bunny up there.

And stone tools.

And dinosaur fossils.

Plants, art, even letters of the alphabet.
[http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli … ars08.html]Read more

No life on Mars · 2004-03-31 06:50:45

"On one Web site, an outraged writer accused NASA of intentionally running over the bunny with the rover."
I think the rover hit bunny. This is so sad.

cassioli · 2004-03-31 11:11:54

"On one Web site, an outraged writer accused NASA of intentionally running over the bunny with the rover."
I think the rover hit bunny. This is so sad.

Please.... this is the ONLY scientific forum about Mars I was able to find. Don't spoil it inviting dumb people to join dumb threads, let's continue scientifically, ok? :;):

Luca

Rxke · 2004-03-31 11:43:19

Right, cassioli.

In my opinion, wich is not necc. the best one...the most efficient thing to do is: just ignore those people, don't try to point out their errors, it doesn't help, they just want to 'see' these things.

Just ignore them, how hard it might be sometimes. After a very short while, they get dissapointed by the lack of answers and and leave to more Hoagwash friendly forums. Where they will probably complain about those narrow-minded folks around here, but who cares.

No life on Mars: while i -in a way- sympathise with your good-natured making fun of these people, believe me: after a while their claims become just tedious, and the entertainment value gets less and less really fast, to downright irritating...

No life on Mars · 2004-03-31 15:47:02

Hej Luca
Post you made citat off is at same level as your post about ancient roman road on Mars and wheel. Do you mean roman road and wheels on side of crater is scientific approach to Mars debate?
:band:

cassioli · 2004-04-01 04:04:07

Hej Luca
Post you made citat off is at same level as your post about ancient roman road on Mars and wheel. Do you mean roman road and wheels on side of crater is scientific approach to Mars debate?
:band:

I just said whot the outcrop looks like.
It could be, it could not be, nobody knows, and I am not trying to convince anybody, and I am not talking about any conspiracy.
It's just an hypothesis.

Unfortunately, your firm skepticism about "no life on mars" is very close to the firm belief of "life on mars" by those guys; you are both wrong: in science nothing is firm, all is hypothetical. IF all scientist were like you, currently we would still believe Earth is flat...

Luca

dicktice · 2004-04-01 09:02:15

Luca: What do you mean ". . . we would STILL believe Earth is flat"? Don't tell me that you're one of those Round-Earth crazies! Oh, I get it: It's April 1st. You had me fooled there for a minute.

No life on Mars · 2004-04-01 10:22:30

Hej Luca
Thank you for lesson in science especially that nothing is " firm" in science.
We can say that we have many highway on Earth, but we can't say that on Mars.
Because everything in science is hypothetical, according Luca.

cassioli · 2004-04-01 12:43:17

Luca: What do you mean ". . . we would STILL believe Earth is flat"? Don't tell me that you're one of those Round-Earth crazies! Oh, I get it: It's April 1st. You had me fooled there for a minute.

If you don't use "smilies", I can't understand if you misunderstood my poor english, or if you are kidding... ???

Luca

cassioli · 2004-04-01 12:55:12

Hej Luca
Thank you for lesson in science especially that nothing is " firm" in science.
We can say that we have many highway on Earth, but we can't say that on Mars.

??? Exactly...

Because everything in science is hypothetical, according Luca.

What's the matter in your post?!? ???

What I meant is:
If you are sure that no life evidence will be ever found on Mars, you are wrong.
If you are sure that ther IS life on Mars, you are wrong.
The point is: you CAN'T be sure of anything but present discoveries.
NOW ther is no evidence of life on Mars; tomorrow, it could, or it could not.

If all ancient people were sure of the "geocentric theory", nobody would have demonstrated that the Earth is not the centre of the universe: they were sure, what should they demonstrate?!?

Open your mind, if you want to be a scientist.

Luca

SBird · 2004-04-01 13:15:18

While it's safe to say that I'm quite skeptical anout the 'roman road' hypothesis, it can't be rules out with the data we have on hand. Good science is done with an open mind. Right now, our observations of MArs indicate that there is a good chance of life having existed there at some point, a low probability of life existing there now and a very low chance of higher life having existed there at some point. Simply making a blanket statement about Mars not having life even though there are credible lines of evidence to the contrary is really no more scientific than what Hougland does.

No life on Mars · 2004-04-01 15:00:23

Hej Luca!
I choosed my nickname on this forum because I wanted to provoke people like you and others that flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'. And you get catched on mine nick.

I can just say I didn't saw any evidence of primitive life on Mars so far and to put it mildly to start to speak of Roman like civilization on Mars is to early.

I will follow your advice to become a god scientist so I have allready bought a book with heading "Romans roads for dummies" so I am prepered in a case that opportunity sends picture of Julius Caesar.

Julius Caeser · 2004-04-01 16:23:21

Hey dude no life on mars..........watch your mouth.....there might not have been any romans on Mars,but surely they have given it its name..and take my word for it!!!

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-01 20:13:51

I agree wholeheartedly with SBird and Cassioli that science depends very much on an open mind.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, we must look at every hypothesis which is compatible with the known facts. No hypothesis should be dismissed unless its continued existence is unsustainable in the face of the evidence.
SBird, I like the way you expressed your 'probability scale' with regard to life on Mars. Although many hypotheses may remain on the list of the possible, they can be legitimately ranked in order of likelihood. (The Face on Mars still features on my list of possibles but its probability-score is extremely low ... almost, but not quite, zero! )

Cassioli, I sympathise with your difficulty in understanding the meaning behind No life on Mars' derogatory posts. It must be hard to detect hostile sarcasm in a language other than your native tongue.
No life on Mars, why don't you spend a little less time trying to ridicule other people's ideas and put forward a few original thoughts of your own? Or don't you have any?
???

No life on Mars · 2004-04-02 03:34:09

Hej Shaun!
That about humanface on Mars can read in article above. I know you are not alone.
And here is more hard evidence[http://macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8325]Apple logo on Mars :rant:

SBird · 2004-04-02 11:01:30

No Life on Mars - So? There's also a smiley face crater on Mars. It doesn't say anything about whether there is or isn't life on Mars. There plenty of face-shaped natural formations on Earth. Does that prove that there's no life on Earth?

There are strong indicators in the magnetite nanoparticles in the Martian meteorite from Antarctica, strange anamolies in the Viking life detection experiments, unusually high methane levels in the Martian atmosphere and the presence of liquid water all point towards the strong possibility of past Martian life as well as existing Martian life.

Does that mean the Martian bunny of the Face on MArs are real - probably not. Even Hougland these days doesn't seem to support the MArs face anymore.

Is cassioli's stone road likely? No. However, there is no evidence that we have that can directly prove that hypothesis wrong. Furthermore, cassioli has made it clear that he understands that the hypothesis is a long shot and is happy to listen to intelligent criticism of it. There's nothing wrong about having kooky theories as long as you realize that they are kooky and unlikely.

What you've been doing, though it really quite petty and unscientific. Either come up with some actual scientific arguments or knock it off.

No life on Mars · 2004-04-02 12:43:07

Sbird and others
I swear I will never attack idea of Roman rocky road on Mars.
Life on Mars is holly and nobody can't say anything against it.

Life live on Mars!!!
Life live on Mars for ever!!!

PB:Sbird citat "unusually high methane levels in the Martian atmosphere"
whats normal level?
:bars:

SBird · 2004-04-02 13:29:09

For a more deatiled discussion about the mathane, look for the 'Methane on Mars' thread in the Life on Mars area. Basically, the amount of methane on Mars should be 0. Thermal imaging picked up no active geothermal areas that could produce methane. Methane naturally breaks down with a halflife of a few hundred years on Mars.

There are 4 possibilites that are not exclusive of each other:

1: We missed some geothermal activity in the thermal scans and the methane is coming from these. This is unlikely since the thermal scan was pretty sensitive.

2: Some unknown chemical reaction in the rocks generates the methane. Pretty much ruled out since any such rock chemistry would have to been continuously operating over the last 3 billion years and at the levels of methane we're seeing, such a reaction would have run out billions of years ago.

3: Ancient life on Mars created oil and coal deposits like on Earth - these slowly turn into methane over very long periiods of time. This does nicely match the data we're seeing. However, the existence of such deposits might also have formed through some non-biological process. Also, we have no other proof for these deposits so their existence must still be considered highly theoretical. Hopefully the sub-surface radar on the Mars Reconaissance Orbiter in 2 years will give us a better answer.

4: Active life, most likely microbial, is generating the methane. Unlikely since, since the levels of methane we're seeing would require a fairly robust microbial ecology. Even proponetns of life on Mars think that is quite unlikely.

Or, it could be acombination of the above. For example, there could be very locallized hotsprings we didn't detect. These could be leaking methane into the atmosphere. In these hotsprings, there are surviving bacteria which also contribue their own methane. Even more methane comes from ancient oil and coal deposits laid down by various hot-spring bacterial colonies over hundreds of millions of years.

Personally, I think that there is a very high chance, about 50/50 that life once existed on Mars. I think there is a low chance of surviving microbial life now, perhaps 50:1. The probability of higher life forms on Mars in the past are very low, perhaps 1000:1. The probability of higher life forms now are pretty much 0. Of course, those are just my guesses but they fit pretty well with what lots of planetary scientists think.

No life on Mars · 2004-04-02 13:44:39

Sbird
Concetration of Methane on Mars is very very low that even relative few bacteria can produce that amount.
I agree methane on Mars is signifikant findings
but I think many has allready make this conlusion:
If methane can point to life on the Earth that means that methane in Martian atmosphere must point to life.

Rxke · 2004-04-02 14:08:40

but I think many has allready make this conlusion:
If methane can point to life on the Earth that means that methane in Martian atmosphere must point to life.

And that's just wishful thinking, not scientific, heehee...

As long that we don't find hot-spots, or lava etc. it *is* of course plausible, but not certain. (And won't be, untill we either find life or combed the planet and didn't find it... or found hotspots)

BTW, but they *did* find small hotspots, didn't they? Not so long ago? Some places thate were slightly hotter both dat AND night than the surrounings? Whatever happened to them?

atomoid · 2004-04-02 21:18:13

BTW, but they *did* find small hotspots, didn't they? Not so long ago? Some places thate were slightly hotter both dat AND night than the surrounings? Whatever happened to them?

Yep, hotspots in Hellas Basin. Here is [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/spac … 917757.htm]an old article on it.

Mars still has a [http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroo … 0306a.html]liquid core, it follows that there shoudl be a little bit of thermal heat still escaping to the surface.

I remember reading somewhere that if they are vents and there are ice towers over them, then they shoudl be visible as a white speck even to MGS.

Rxke · 2004-04-02 23:39:58

Thanks, atomoid, that was the thing i meant. They entered one of those chimneys (on earth, of course) and found that the ground itself was *very* dry despite moisture coming out of the fissures... Not ideal for life....

Now the questuin is; could these hotspots deliver enough methane (what, 160 mil ton or something) if you know methane gets broken down again...

No life on Mars · 2004-04-03 06:34:49

More on methane
[http://mainlymartian.blogs.com/]methane

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-31 06:04:47

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#2 2004-03-31 06:50:45

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#3 2004-03-31 11:11:54

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#4 2004-03-31 11:43:19

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#5 2004-03-31 15:47:02

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#6 2004-04-01 04:04:07

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#7 2004-04-01 09:02:15

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#8 2004-04-01 10:22:30

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#9 2004-04-01 12:43:17

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#10 2004-04-01 12:55:12

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#11 2004-04-01 13:15:18

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#12 2004-04-01 15:00:23

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#13 2004-04-01 16:23:21

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#14 2004-04-01 20:13:51

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#15 2004-04-02 03:34:09

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#16 2004-04-02 11:01:30

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#17 2004-04-02 12:43:07

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#18 2004-04-02 13:29:09

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#19 2004-04-02 13:44:39

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#20 2004-04-02 14:08:40

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#21 2004-04-02 21:18:13

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#22 2004-04-02 23:39:58

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

#23 2004-04-03 06:34:49

Re: Civilians flooding NASA with Mars 'discoveries'

Board footer