Earth rocks on Mars

[najab]

I would think so too but, as steve would point out, that hasn't been tested yet. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[Leovinus]

*And* it hasn't been disproven either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">Extremophiles have never been shown to be able to survive on Mars. That being the case, my position on them is in no danger.<br /><br />The burden of proof is NOT upon me to show that life does NOT exist outside the earth. It is upon YOU to show clear, solid, living cells outside the earth. That you have not done (nor anyone else so far in history) so is a rather blatant refutation, not of my position, but of yours. </font><br /><br />You really stuck you're neck out on this one. Taking a position which everyone and their gramma knows hasn't been tested. Ha! What's shown is the conditions have been shown on earth which these extremeophiles would encounter elsewhere and survive. Quite the stretch of logic, maybe too much for you? <br /><br /><font color="blue"> My so illogical position is that these things are just as possible as not which you construe as extreme, so to speak. I make no contention either way, of which you seem to take the nay position on any such matter.</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">That's the difference between speculation (yours) and scientific substantiation (mine).</font><br /><br />I'd like to see the scientific substantiation you have there huckleberry. Oh, I see you fallen back on the old can't prove a negative cop out. Shucks, I guess you got me there. Btw, surveyor 3 was amoon probe there Copernicus.<br /><br />*edit* my internet link has been down all day so some of this may have been covered already.<br />

 

[najab]

><i>Btw, surveyor 3 was amoon probe there Copernicus.</i><p>The reason I brought up Surveyor 3 was to show that we have evidence that Earth life can survive - not thrive, please note - but survive conditions <b>much</b> harsher than would be found on Mars.<p>This doesn't <i>prove</i> that they could survive on the 'Red Planet', but it it certainly is sufficient evidence to move the idea out of the realm of conjecture, and establish it as a solid scientific hypothesis. All we need do now is test it.</p></p>

 

[chew_on_this]

I've actually used the example and provided the link to the "scientifics" before with steverino and he never responded when called on it. Shocker eh?

 

[earthseed]

Earth bacteria surviving in a dormant state for a few years on the Moon really has very little relevance to the question: can bacteria similar to that found on Earth metabolize and reproduce on Mars for millions or billions of years. It is a question of habitat. One of the key unknowns is how much geothermal heat is available near the surface. There seems to be some evidence of recent volcanic activity, but we really do not know yet.<br /><br />You cannot conduct an experiment if the experimental conditions are unknown. At this point the job is to learn more about Martian geology, which will take some time.

 

[earthseed]

Even if a micro-organism makes it to the surface of Mars intact, the biggest problem may be finding its way to the sub-surface environment where it can live. I don't think the surface of Mars can support life of any kind. I wonder what mechanisms are available on Mars to transport surface material downward?

 

[chew_on_this]

There was more than the surveyor example in the article. There was microbes living and breeding in a nuclear reactor, etc. I'm simply giving examples of scenarios which could lead one to believe Mars isn't such a bad place to live.

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">Nor do cells found on the lunar surface, which again, is an unconfirmed report,</font><br /><br />Where do you come up with this crap? This is a well known fact.

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="red">"I've used the example and provided the link..... Shocker, eh?"</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Again, false statement. the link was to an article hypthesizing that extremophiles could live on mars.</font><br /><br />Baloney, when the surveyor issue first came up, you stated "it's an urban legend". I posted the link and called you on it and you ignored it as you do on everything I've called you on. Shocker.<br /><br />

 

[mrmorris]

It's at times like this that I miss Jatslo. He could really have contributed to this discussion. All that's missing to raise this thread to even greater heights is talk of metallic hydrogen and a few theories about the speed of light and/or the fallacy of special relativity.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Do you deny a bare light bulb filament can produce light when current is passed thru it on the surface of the moon, because the surface of the moon is so nearly a vacuum?"</font><br /><br />For all I know (and I don't really know) a light bulb filament could well work in the thick atmosphere of Titan. It seems to me that the limiting factor is the presence of oxygen which would cause combustion of the filament. If that is the case, whether or not a light bulb filament works is not an indication of the tenuousness of an atmosphere, merely its lack of oxygen, or other oxidizer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

That's what I love (and hate) about this argument you keep trotting out - it's completely and totally irrelevant, but it's factually correct. Yes, you could do that, just as you could do it in deep space, or at the bottom of a pool of liquid methane on the surface of Titan. The lack of oxygen is the common factor here, not the vacuum. After all, as I keep pointing out, the inside of an incandescent lightbulb <b>IS NOT A VACUUM</b>!!!<p>It's not even close to a vacuum, if it was, the <b>very</b> soft, thin glass the bulb is made from would shatter in an instant.</p>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">After all, as I keep pointing out, the inside of an incandescent lightbulb IS NOT A VACUUM!!!<br />It's not even close to a vacuum, if it was, the very soft, thin glass the bulb is made from would shatter in an instant. <br /></font><br /><br />Typical commercial incandescent bulbs are filled with an Ar/N2 mixture at 0.8 atm pressure (at 25C). The reason is that W filaments sublime more slowly in an inert gas-filled bulb than in a vacuum.<br /><br />The bulbs are actually rather strong due to their symmetry and globular shape. They can take a full vacuum if handled carefully. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>The bulbs are actually rather strong due to their symmetry and globular shape. They can take a full vacuum if handled carefully.</i><p>Perhaps I am guilty of making an overstatement. Your statement is more accurate - if they were fully evacuated they would shatter if handled at all roughly (though I dare say it wouldn't take much of a bump at all).</p>

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">Consistently you harp on one thing, claims about life outside the earth, without any substantiation.</font><br /><br />Uhhh... ok... where did I ever <font color="red">claim</font>life off earth? Other than the surveyor probe which was life from earth brought back from the moon after being there for 3 years.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> You make many unsubstantiated claims and you do this constantly.</font><br /><br />Uhhh... ok... show me one. You've tried this one before and ran away with your tail between your legs.

 

[nexium]

Going from a typical light bulb vacuum to a perfect vacuum would only increase the stress on the bulb about 10%.<br />There likely are some Earth rocks that have landed on Mars. Our probes likely have not found any yet and likely will be unable to make an identification when and if Earth rocks are found on Mars. Neil

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">The issue that it IS an effective vacuum, is of course, why an electric light filament can be lit on the lunar surface without a bulb. That's the point, one which is constantly missed. </font><br /><br />If the naked filament were held over some of the ices which are (purported) to lie at the bottom of the perpetually dark craters at the S pole, and then the filament was lit....it would warm up and sublime the ice leading to its rapid oxidation and demise.<br /><br />~just had to point out a narrow exception~ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[najab]

Thank you for that roundabout admission that the statement "Even the inside of a light bulb has more pressure." is content-free.

 

[earthseed]

Let me try to clarify what is being discussed.<br /><br /><u>Hypothesis</u>: Extremophile bacteria similar to that on Earth can (but not necessarily do) live on Mars.<br /><br /><u>Evidence</u>: Comparing conditions believed to exist on Mars with similar conditions on Earth that support bacteria. As more becomes known about Mars and extreme environments on Earth, the closer these match the more likely this hypothesis becomes. At this point we do not know nearly enough about Mars to claim this evidence is strong.<br /><br /><u>Proof</u>: We need either to find living bacteria already on Mars, or introduce them and observe them to survive and reproduce over many years. Needless to say, we are a long way from proof.<br /><br />stevehw33 is correct to say the burden of proof is on those who hypothesize life on Mars, and the proof is not there (yet). On the other hand, it does not follow that therefore there is no life on Mars. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Life on Mars is a reasonable hypothesis, one well worth an exploration program. It is not a reasonable belief.

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">I'd point out that not a single experiment or analytical part of the Rovers was directed specifically to that point, as there were NO biological packages, unlike the Viking mission. So, it seems likely the mission planners agreed searching for "life on Mars" was not cost effective.</font><br /><br />The rovers are on Mars to look for the signs of a watery past and had no intention to look for life regardless of your opinion that looking for life was not cost effective. It simply follows that you look for the water <font color="red">then</font>look for life. Count on follow up missions specifically designed for that purpose (since the signs are glaringly obvious).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">And I appreciate your fine analytical composition on this topic. (altho I will not appreciate any tendentious and strained interpretations from others.)</font><br /><br />Is that tendentious enough? <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="red">"The Rovers are on Mars to look for signs of a watery past....."</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Hmmm. I don't recall seeing that clearly stated in the Rover mission objectives, or are you just "skewing the data", again?</font><br /><br />/* ad hominem deleted */ Look at number 1.<br />http://www.planetary.org/mars/mer.html<br /><br /><font color="yellow">and there were NO biological packages, either. The reason was, it's not cost effective because the odds of life on Mars are exceedingly low.</font><br /><br />I never said there was a biological package you ninny. The rest of that baloney is your opinion and NO one elses. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">It has to be liquid water and in enough quantities, and long lasting enough to allow that. & it has NOT been found on Mars. Lots of hostile conditions militating against living cells, but not much else.</font><br /><br />Blah, blah, blah... liquid water has been shown to exist on Mars in the past for very long periods. I've already made the case for radiation etc. to which you made the lame retort that it's not tested on Mars so it isn't relevant. <br /><br />What's glaringly obvious is you're living in a dream world.<br /><br /><br /> <br />

 

[earthseed]

I think life on the surface of Mars is unlikely, and NASA wisely did not devote any precious resources on their landers to look for it. However, the Beagle lander of the Mars Express mission was primarily intended to search for life on the surface. But perhaps the mission objective was as ill-conceived as the technical design of the craft itself - the JPL people said it would not work, and it didn't.<br /><br />Life below the surface is a more interesting possibility. If there is any, there is not much of it, because of the lack of any biochemical signature of its metabolism. The tiny amount of methane discovered only illustrates this point. So I do not expect a massive sub-surface ecosystem. Maybe tiny <i>refugia</i> clinging to life in isolated pockets.<br /><br />Or maybe no life at all. Mars is well worth exploring, life or not.

 

[centsworth_II]

A few comments:<br /><br />earthseed: Good post, I agree. Good to have at least one "voice of reason" in the thread.<br /><br />Leovinus: I can't believe chew-on-this's last image got approved. Not that I'm offended, I think his images are great fun. It's just that that last one drags the discussion a little too far into the gutter. Something I hate to see in the science forum.<br /><br />Stevehw33: As usual, although on the whole you seem intelligent and well informed, on this one point: the possibility of microbial life, now or in the past, on (in) Mars, you are inexplicably, fanatically, stubbornly, illogically, blindly, UNSCIENTIFICALLY bound to the notion that we know enough to make the declaration: "There is no life on Mars!" when a simple "I don't believe life has existed on Mars" would more accurately express the appropriate degree of certanty allowed by our present knowlege. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

I removed it. I didn't think it would be approved but thought the mods might get a kick out of it.