It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mars , Warmer and Wetter in First Two Billion years than Previously Thought

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Gonna be awesome in a couple of hundred years [if we last that long] and we start discovering our ancestors ancient cities on Mars.




posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




See, you're more concerned with being right or wrong, like it's an ego kind of thing.


Actually...I know I'm "probably" wrong, but the point is not right or wrong, the point which I get, and perhaps you don't...is...that WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

You seem to think that science people are some kind of androids, devoid of human deficiencies. That they can't go wrong. The minute somebody posts something that contradicts the general concensus, "science" comes with the "DATA" to claim you stupid and gullible.

Now I don't mind data...what I mind is your religious belief in it, and hence...a human interpretation of it...which in the end...so often turns out wrong.

Science like humans...lacks humility.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I think you're generalising too much. We _do_ know quite a few things, otherwise the modern society and technology wouldn't be able to function. I never said that humans can't go wrong. But the fact that they can (and do) doesn't mean that data and science based on it are worthless. That's the impression I get from the anti-mainstreamers: that because scientists have been wrong in the past, means that the whole thing is a charade and we should just believe in any fancy "alternative" theories that pop up on the Internet. No, thank you. Like I said previously, I trust the people who sucessfully predict motion of celestial bodies and send rockets to them, people who made modern life-saving medical technologies possible, and people who generally know what they're talking about.

I don't see any religious belief in data and its interpretation in science, perhaps it's just an illusion in your mind. If you think scientists are wrong in their interpretation, you're welcome to bring your own interpretation forward for analysis, get it published on arxiv or something. As one physicist said "show me the maths, and then we can talk."

P.S. I hope we can stop with this ridiculing of science and get back on topic of Mar's past climate and environment.
edit on 11-12-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




That's the impression I get from the anti-mainstreamers: that because scientists have been wrong in the past, means that the whole thing is a charade and we should just believe in any fancy "alternative" theories that pop up on the Internet.


Some of the fancy "alternatives" are quite believable...only not proven. But I guess their level of "believability" depends on the beholder.



I don't see any religious belief in data and its interpretation in science


you don't ? How about AGW subject. Isn't that based off of a models of data that is unsupported by observation ? Not to even mention the skewing of the same data by the analysts themselves in order to fit the preconcieved theories ?




P.S. I hope we can stop with this ridiculing of science and get back on topic of Mar's past climate and environment.


I added the AGW bit to stay loosely in touch with the OP


btw. I'm not ridiculing science...as I stated earlier...Science is just fine....data is neutral.....it's the people that aren't.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: wildespace




See, you're more concerned with being right or wrong, like it's an ego kind of thing.

...You seem to think that science people are some kind of androids, devoid of human deficiencies. That they can't go wrong. The minute somebody posts something that contradicts the general concensus, "science" comes with the "DATA" to claim you stupid and gullible.

Now I don't mind data...what I mind is your religious belief in it, and hence...a human interpretation of it...which in the end...so often turns out wrong.

Mainstream science knows that scientists can be wrong. In fact, for every scientist who postulates a hypothesis or theory, there are a multitude of other scientists out there who try to poke holes in that hypothesis or theory, or try to find problems with the data or data collection methods.

That's why I said science is perpetually self-correcting (or at the very least it is self-scrutinizing). The scientific method encourages scientists to scrutinize the theories put forth by another scientist.

Science also understands that the available data on a given subject may be incomplete. However, they do try to gain an understanding of a system based on the data that the DO have. For example, they may not have all of the data regarding the possibilities of life on mars, but they can make the statement that "There is no evidence of life on Mars" based on the fact that they do not have any definitive evidence of life on Mars...

...But please be aware that the statement "There is no evidence of life on Mars" is not the same as saying "There is no life on Mars". Those are two statements with different specific meanings.

Mainstream science well understands that it does not have all of the data to make a definitive statment about life on Mars. Therefore, mainstream science would not say "there is no possibility of life on Mars". In fact, it is mainstream science that is coming up with hypotheses for possible life on mars that is yet undetected. Mainstream science has hypotheses about life that may live beneath the surface of Mars.
Scientists find evidence Mars subsurface could hold life

According to the research authors, discovery of minerals formed through interaction with water in rocks excavated by meteorite impact at the McLaughlin site provides "strongest evidence yet" that the subsurface of the planet may have supported simple micro-organisms in the past and that the Martian subsurface could still contain life.


Here is an example of a group of mainstream scientists from the University of Hawaii working under the NASA Astrobiology Institute who have proposed a hypothesis that their could be a biosphere related to lava tubes, and it wants to investigate the possibility that Mars' lava tubes may be a place where microbial life could exist (by studying the microbiology of analogous lave tubes on Earth).
Lava Tube Microbiology

The extreme nature of the surface environments on Mars appear to exclude extant biological habitation. However, the recent discovery of a subsurface biosphere on Earth has focused attention on the possibility that life on Mars may have retreated to subsurface “oases” when surface conditions became unfavorable..,

... Lava tubes form during differential cooling of flow during volcanic activity. Clear photographic evidence exists of lava tubes on Mars, e.g. on Ceraunius Tholus. Analogues are common on earth and in particular in Hawaii, where over 20 lava tubes exist. ...



So mainstream science is fully aware that they do not have a complete enough amount of data from Mars to say for a certainty that there is no life. Mainstream science has a lot of hypotheses about finding places where life does in fact exist (or at the very least, once existed) on Mars. Heck, it's mainstream science (NASA researchers included) that is pushing the idea of potential life on Europa, Titan, and Enceladus. Most of the the commonly known ideas about the potential for life on those moons comes from mainstream science, many from NASA-funded research.

However, the data that they do have so far for Mars does not support the idea that life definitely does exist on Mars. They have hypotheses, but beyond presenting hypotheses, science is NOT in the business of unsupported speculation.

Hypotheses are the scientific process' version of speculation. however, a hypotheses will go no further without being able to be tested. And to be able to support those hypotheses by testing them, data is required, and much of that data is incomplete. So do we need better and more complete data to help us find life on Mars and elsewhere? Sure we do. But science should not state that life on Mars is a fact, just because some circumstantial data may suggest the possibility. Any mainstream scientist who tries to prove a theory with circumstantial evidence may not hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific process...

...And that's a good thing that the process is so rigorous. Grand speculation (through hypotheses) is still being done by mainstream science, so the scientific process can be progressive in thought through the process of speculative hypotheses, but the theories that get published need to hold up under scrutiny.



edit on 12/11/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join