Mars Express uncovers depths of Mars

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chew_on_this

Guest
Well put. Steve flip flops more than a landed fish. If I had the time and compunction, I'd put a thread together of steves' mistaken posts. I think the majority already knows his gig. Probably wouldn't last long anyway with the pc kick sdc is experiencing.
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Frozen surface down kilometers does NOT bode well for life of any kind. That's an obivous biological fact, which you, of course, blatantly ignore. <br /></font><br /><br />stevie, inasmuch as i often agree with your harsh and sobering assessments, i will extend an offer to reconsider your position. you, as well as us all <i><b>have no frikkin idea what the hell is really possible up there. we barely understand our own planet, let alone an alien planet.</b></i> the rule of the cosmos is truth is stranger than fiction, and we are not privy to this truth. look at Enceladus. it "shouldn't be happening." but it is. such a list is endless.
 
C

cosmictalk

Guest
(The importance of finding liquid water on Mars today would be in the possibility that if life ever did occur on Mars, it may survive to this day in deep martian aquifers. The hope is not to find conditions on Mars in which life could arise, but to find conditions allowing life , if it ever did exist on Mars, to hang on. )<br /><br />Ohhh! Thanks for clearing that up.<br /><br />What happened to considering life vastly different from ourselves? or the possibility of watching it take place. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br />
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"What happened to considering life vastly different from ourselves? or the possibility of watching it take place."</font><br /><br />That's what Europa, Titan, and Enceladus are for... the list is getting longer.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

brellis

Guest
thanks to all for an excellent thread.<br /><br />there is something delightfully human about chew_ and stevehw jawing at each other in the course of these truly exciting and informative threads. if i were god, or a moderator, i wouldn't change a thing!<br /><br />btw, i had asked a question in another thread, and i'd be curious to hear anyone's thoughts: Drake's Equation doesn't differentiate between the odds of life emerging on ONE planet in a solar system, and the odds of life emerging on MULTIPLE planets. i'm curious what our beliefs might be if it were abundantly clear that life is common in the universe. we might be an aberration simply by virtue of a 100-year delay in finding E.T. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
One of my pet peeves is the use of "life" to mean specifically intelligent life. The most common form of life on earth is single-celled and I would be surprised if that were not the case across the universe. There may well be multiple planets in our solar system harboring life. <br /><br />Obviously (to me!) any discussion of finding life in our solar system excludes intelligent or even very complex, life. I think most people assume, given the numbers, that there must be life - even intelligent life - throughout the universe. But also, given the numbers, it is very unlikely that we will ever need to worry about a face to face meeting. Whether solar systems exist with more than one intelligence is interesting to speculate about, but has nothing to do with this solar system or the search for life in it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
Right now, I think it is pure speculation and conjecture as to wether there is life (even in its most simple form) elsewhere in the Universe, much less the solar system. However, finding life on another cellestial body other than earth would make it pure, scientific fact. Then, and only then, can we give credence to things such as Drake's Equation or even aliens having visited this planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
Your posts complaining about chew-on-this' lack of scientific input are equally lacking. Why don't you respond to MY post?<br /><br /><font color="orange">To refresh your memory:</font><br /><i>"Frozen surface, but the laws of physics virtually REQUIRE Mars to also have a HOT interior. You constantly refuse to address the following simple fact: cold exterior and hot interior REQUIRES that there be a temperate zone between the two. The chance that there is water in this temperate zone looks better with each new discovery."</i><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
So I take it that you agree that it is reasonable to think that there is a significant chance that at some depth at some places aquifers of liquid water exist on Mars and that the only disagreement is on the chance that life might be found in them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"How a planet from 5-10 times the size of the earth, with a surface so hot, no life could possibly survive as it'd be ionized plasma..."</font><br /><br />You seem to have difficulty understanding that the surface conditions of a planet are not the be all and tell all of that planet's geology. Just as moltem magma (or melted ice) can lie beneath a frozen surface with a temperate zone between the two extremes, a temperate sub-surface zone protected from the harsh surface environment can exist. There are many variables: is the heat of the surface due to external or internal sources? Does the surface see alternating night and day or are there permanent night and day sides? And the biggie: How much water is there below the surface? <br /><br />It is definately not as simple as looking at a planet and saying, "the surface is frozen, so there is no life" or, "the surface is seared, so there is no life." And again, for those who forget, when I say "life" I mean "MICROSCOPIC life".<br /><br />But I am not talking the possibility of life here, only the possibility of liquid water. It seems to me simple physics that there are places in our solar system where liquid water exists despite what the surface conditions tell us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

chew_on_this

Guest
I'm all a twitter at how this coming response doesn't flip flop his previous stance. Good luck!
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
On the contrary, cosmology today is chiefly concerned with theoretical physics of multiversal theories, such as M Theory, etc.<br /><br />In physics there are really two types of physicists: theoretical and experimental physicists. By your argument, only experimental physicists are really scientists.<br /><br />By your logic, mathematics itself is not a science, unless it is applied to real world problems.<br /><br />No, your definition is false. Just because our instruments and probes are not yet sophisticated enough to find conclusive evidence does not mean it is evidence of absence. Besides, I suppose you are one of those who dismiss the Mars meteorite fossils?
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />As so often written before, exobiology/astrobiology is little more than a false, quasi science. There is NOT a single bona fide science, which does not possess the characteristics, chiefly, of the sciences, that such real sciences have events and objects which they can study. <br /></font><br /><br />astrobiology is yet still in it's nascent stages, barely begun as a science. it must begin somewhere --to endure the centuries to come when exobiology becomes tenable. mere disbelief in any other biological systems but our own is not enough to damn an entire premise for such studies to hell. all innovation or pioneering, then, that embarks upon uncharted territory is then invalid? and worthy of scorn and mockery? <br /><br />how is anything pioneered, then? we should all sit home and not endeavor to discover <i>anything?</i> but only which is already known? what kind of scientific spirit is that? how do we know what is or what is not beyond or perception? <br /><br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts