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.

 

Organic Matter Found On Mars...

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
More confusion about what organic matter is. No one seems even able to do a simple google search on this board. Heres the definition from Wikipedia.

Organic matter (or organic material, natural organic matter, NOM) is matter composed of organic compounds that has come from the remains of organisms such as plants and animals and their waste products in the environment.[1] Basic structures are created from cellulose, tannin, cutin, and lignin, along with other various proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates.

It's not like there's even a confusing scientific definition, it is well and truly defined, scientifically and generally. Anyone trying to say there has been organic matter found on Mars is truly stupid, ignorant or both. The people I've had to reply to on here certainly are.




posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Subterranean13

Wikipedia isn't the best or most reliable source, especially when it comes to definitions. See the talk page for that Wiki article. Some relevant points mentioned there:

2) "Organic matter" here seems to be being discussed only in terms of its use as soil science jargon, not in the sense of "matter that is organic," "organic" being meant in the broadly understood scientific sense
3) This broadly understood technical/scientific sense focuses its definition on the presence of carbon (with a few caveats), not on whether something can decompose


And even in that article, there's a subheading "Vitalism" which says:

The equation of "organic" with living organisms comes from the now-abandoned idea of vitalism that attributed a special force to life that alone could create organic substances. This idea was first questioned after the artificial synthesis of urea by Friedrich Wöhler in 1828.

So there you have it, your own source stating that "organic" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with organisms.
edit on 28-12-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

I realise wikipedia can sometimes not be the most reliable, but as I have said over and over, are you not capable of doing a simple google search? Here is the definition from Collins:

"matter derived from organisms, esp decayed matter in soil"

It is an absolute definition, and Vitalism is only concerned with organic compounds. I fear you are extremely confused between these two.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Subterranean13

Ok, so the situation according to you is:

1. People aren't capable of using a simple Google search.

2. Various professional sources (including NASA) are trolling or bull***ing us, because they call organic compounds "organic matter" which, according to you (and the Wikipedia) can only refer specifically to remnants of living organisms.

~~~

Or, perhaps, it's you who's trolling and bringing out the semantics.

The discovery on Mars is obviously concerned with compounds and molecules, not with decayed remains of living organisms. Congratulation on wasting everybody's time.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
what's going on in space is a big secret from us here on planet Earth
there might be more humans living on Mars and a few moons today than there are living here
the other planets are populated as well
sometimes they arent human but more advanced sometimes less
sound familiar ?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Mars.....was
Earth .......is
Venus.......will be.

are we not moving further from the sun?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

If ever organic matter were found on Mars, it would be indicative of life, or very recent life, no question, no semantics. Organic compounds and molecules are obviously very different. Just because you've had no education in the subject does not make well sited definitions 'semantics'.

Please provide a source that describes 'organic matter' as not needing to come from life, I dare you.

I despair with the stupidity on this board.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Subterranean13

Yes, stupid, stupid people who use "organic matter" in the context of molecules and chemical compounds. We need to re-educate them all, including those who wrote that article at NASA. Apparently, this term is reserved strictly for soil science, and cannot be used in the context of simply "matter" (as in, any stuff made of atoms or molecules).




Please provide a source that describes 'organic matter' as not needing to come from life, I dare you.

There you go: journals.cambridge.org...

Organic matter is defined as chemical compounds containing carbon-hydrogen bonds of covalent character, i.e., with the carbon and hydrogen forming a true chemical bond.

The word matter is mentioned 7 times in that paper. The only mention of "bio" is to pre-biotic molecules, and there is not a single mention of the word "life".

Here's another one, about "Prebiotic Organic Matter" that was "probably originally formed in the interstellar medium and/or the solar protoplanetary disk": www.sciencemag.org...

You can probably find more of such papers on the Internet.
edit on 4-1-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I think I catch your drift..your most welcome!..we live in a far flung crazy reality as it happens..

a reply to: Dabrazzo




posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Hey Guys I'm glad this thread is generating some debate and I see there have been some clarifications on what defines "organic matter" btw the thread title was so named in accord to the link description.

My opinion still stands as to the timing and nature of this so called discovery and that is;the message that is being portrayed to the reader, which seems to be edging ever closer to disclosure..yes disclosure..there is so much for 'them' to admit..so the pace is quickening exponentially..Popcorn is drawn!




posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Your on the right tracks there Man,the fact is that the 'real' deception may be unfathomable even to the most seasoned CT researchers!

Thanks for the comment!

a reply to: blacktie




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: EndOfDays77
"Disclosure" ...

Why would scientists hide their groundbreaking findings? And how could it be possible for them to hide anything? There are hundreds or even thousands of people involved, from different countries and institutions. Don't you think the "secret" would have been leaked sooner or later? How do you tell various organisations involved with Mars missions to keep the tab on anything involving the possibility of life on Mars? Don't you think they would object? I know I would have.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Thats great and all, single papers from people from other countries that have most likely undergone translation. Almost as good as your 'source', of some guy on the internet, 8 years ago, who posted on a forum which immediately got shot down and not even included in the Wikipedia article. But what about English definitions, such as those already posted by me?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
It is tiring.

I'm 44 years old and the slowness at which politics dictate denial of the obvious gets annoying. We should work on the assumption that the same universal laws that apply to us apply most other places.

As a child no one would acknowledge that other stars surely had planets as if we are so unique for some reason we should operate as if we are out of the norm.

Now... "do other planets have life" it's truly a "no duhr" kind of issue...

Let's see, the core of Mars is less active so the crust is thicker, there is frozen ice in the crust, temperatures rise given depth so some of the ice and caverns deep enough must form rivers and lakes underground (unless physics and chemistry is different)

And Mars has been down wind from the tail of Earths debris for a few Billion years

So a planet with water and ice has been having organic material from Earth land on it for a good Billion years and it has caves to shelter from sun and we have found life on Earth from miles under the surface to lakes under Antarctica and the bottom of the ocean in hydro-thermal vents in all sorts of forms not needing sun living off all sorts of different processes and we constantly eject this crap into space and know all sorts of things can survive those rides including actual creatures like "Tardigrades"

There is almost no possible way there is nothing living on Mars lol

Enough of the bs of slooooooooowly letting the public know..



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subterranean13
a reply to: wildespace

Thats great and all, single papers from people from other countries that have most likely undergone translation. Almost as good as your 'source', of some guy on the internet, 8 years ago, who posted on a forum which immediately got shot down and not even included in the Wikipedia article. But what about English definitions, such as those already posted by me?

You dared me to provide a source, I gave you two. How do you know those papers weren't originally written in English?

Anyhoo, your incessant fighting over definitions is just littering this thread with unnecessary posts. Everybody understands that when astronomers talk about organic matter in space, they mean organic molecules rather than decaying remains of aliens. Everybody, except you...
edit on 24-1-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Because it is from the university of Hong Kong, which despite links to western counterparts, does not work in english. Also the definition is their personal definition, not backed by sources, as opposed to an actual known definition.

I can see that you have realised your mistake however, so I'll let your ignorance slip this time.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Subterranean13

Thank you so much for letting it slip, oh the lordly one.

It's incredible how even NASA (and I imagine many other official institutions) use the term "organic matter" to describe organic molecules not necessarily connected to life.
nasasearch.nasa.gov...
www.jpl.nasa.gov...
www.nasa.gov...

Someone has to contact them and correct this outrageous innacuracy!



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: EndOfDays77

Even thinking that there wouldnt be organic matter on Mars just because its not the earth is kind of stupid.

I expect it. Not even surprised in the slightest.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Subterranean13

I agree with Subterranean here.

The headline implies biology by saying 'organic matter', but the body of the article makes it clear it is just organic chemistry (which can be any chemical compount containing carbon). Misleading headline imo.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: EndOfDays77

Even thinking that there wouldnt be organic matter on Mars just because its not the earth is kind of stupid.

I expect it. Not even surprised in the slightest.


Who is saying there wouldn't be organic molecules on Mars because Mars is not the Earth?

Organic molecules have been detected in many places that are "not Earth" for several years now. Decades ago, Titan was believed (and later confirmed) to have lakes of methane and ethane -- organic compounds. Over the past few years, organic molecules have been found directly in samples of comet dust and also in the water-ice geysers spraying up into space from the sub-surface seas of Saturn's moon Enceladus.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join