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.

 

Mysterious Red Cells - Anyone have a clue?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...

Explanation? Anyone? This seems creepy to me...but interesting all the same.




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Interesting...let's hope the story will be continued



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Keep tabs on this story, if you would. It's interesting, yes... I'd like to see some confirmation of this by other scientists.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I'm a little intrigued that this story has resurfaced after 5 years.

Here's some real data on it. This is from the Indian National Science Academy, which, on about page 31, talks about the initial incident.

www.iugg.org...

This is the first paper that everyone is talking about.

www.geocities.com...

Here is the webpage of the astrobiologists that are looking into it at Cardiff.

www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk...

Here's the recent paper that New Scientist is talking about.

arxiv.org...

Godfrey Louis's webpage (co-author of the above paper)

education.vsnl.com...

Here's a nice video from satellite news.

www.bsn.org.uk...


Initially, it was attributed to dust in the air. Then it seems, they found spores, and even grew them from cultures. Godfrey Louis and A. Santhosh Kumar wrote a paper claiming that the red particles in the water looked like cells.

From what I can read however, it seems a little confusing. If initially they found spores, why didn't the Louid and Kumar team? And also, why didn't they find DNA? And, I am reading that this 'rain' has occured before. If so, doesn't that discount the 'it came from outer space' scenerio?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Yeah, I read about this in a magazine, either Scientific American or Popular Science.

The most interesting part of these things is that they can reproduce, yet they dont have any DNA. And as far as I know this is the first case of anything without DNA budding

EDIT: Its popsci, Heres the article online www.popsci.com...





[edit on 5-6-2006 by Vegemite]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
These things can not reproduce. They are competely inanimate. They do nothing. They look like cells. When scanned with an electron microscope, their outer edges have a 'complex' structure, that is to say, concentric rings (not perfect though).

But they have no attributes that are life like. They are large, for cells. They have no DNA. They have no internal structures, like organelles, etc. They're a neat little mystery.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
These things can not reproduce.


One of the links above seems to tell otherwise! There is a cell that contains two daughter cells.

Seriously, this is some scary sh!~t. I mean for real.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
i want to see a video of these things reproducing since the guy who foudn them said they do. and some extreme high res pictures to see what they have inside of them



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
These things can not reproduce. They are competely inanimate. They do nothing. They look like cells. When scanned with an electron microscope, their outer edges have a 'complex' structure, that is to say, concentric rings (not perfect though).

But they have no attributes that are life like. They are large, for cells. They have no DNA. They have no internal structures, like organelles, etc. They're a neat little mystery.


CNN article says " Stranger still, dozens of his experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit ."



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
From the CNN article:


The next significant step, explains University of Sheffield microbiologist Milton Wainwright, who is part of another British team now studying Louis's samples, is to confirm whether the cells truly lack DNA. So far, one preliminary DNA test has come back positive.


They haven't proven that those cells have DNA yet, but if the preliminary test says that they do, then it seems likely that DNA will be found. This is an interesting story; I hope those things really did come from outer space, that would be so cool!

Do these cells exhibit any of the characteristics of life? For example, all life forms have to find energy from their environment somehow, like eating, photosynthesis, and the like. Wikipedia lists one set of the definitions for the conditions of life as:

1) organization (having cells) The red things definitely fit this one.
2) metabolism (energy production) No word on whether the red cells do this, but I don't see how they can reproduce or grow if they don't metabolise
3) Growth - not sure if they do this, either, but if the cells are dividing, then they are probably growing as well, or else they are shrinking with each generation
4) adaptation - not sure if they do this
5) response to stimuli - not sure of they do this
6) reproduction - they definitely do this; the cells have been observed dividing



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
quite intriguing indeed, i wonder what the hell is that!??
The ADN chain it's not related to all forms of life?, i mean if something have not DNA, it is not a living thing.how can it reproduce with out DNA?,if it reproduces with out DNA how can the original cell "remember" how will be the new one?(it must be a perfect copy of his prime cell)!
can it be a kind of mineral in any way? or any other material from the periodic quemical table?
Weird indeed!



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Sounds like Dean Koontz - The taking.
kind of Dean Koontz version of War of the Worlds..

With Red(?) rain containing spores of all kinds of alien life forms..

Hopefully its not a promotional thing for a book or anything like the Sony giant campains.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSurfer

Hopefully its not a promotional thing for a book or anything like the Sony giant campains.


hehe, i really hope not!



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Nygdan
These things can not reproduce.


One of the links above seems to tell otherwise! There is a cell that contains two daughter cells.

Interesting. However, this is different than them being observed to reproduce. Remeber, this things are inanimate, and they are also extremely sturdy, they haven't decayed or degraded one iota since first being recovered years ago. It hasn't been ruled out that they are simply minerals.


Stranger still, dozens of his experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit

Fascinating.


dragonsdemesne
organization (having cells) The red things definitely fit this one.

Organization means compartmentalization or organelles. The only structure that these things have appears to be that they have a laminated outer-layer.

metabolism (energy production) No word on whether the red cells do this, but I don't see how they can reproduce or grow if they don't metabolise

I very much doubt that they have been verified to reproduce. It seems that its been suggested that they can reproduce, in so far as having some that are fused doubles.

Growth - not sure if they do this, either, but if the cells are dividing, then they are probably growing as well, or else they are shrinking with each generation

They are inanimate. Others who have studied them have basically had them in a jar for a few years and periodically examine them, they don't 'do' anything.

adaptation - not sure if they do this

If they reproduce imperfectly but pass on characteristics then they adapt.


reproduction - they definitely do this; the cells have been observed dividing

?
Where?


umbra sideralis
i mean if something have not DNA, it is not a living thing

DNA is merely a characteristic of all known living things, but it is just a chemical, the genetic chemical. Other chemicals could, possibly, serve the genetic purpose, and its also conceivable that there is non-genetic life. Heck, its also possible that there are forms of life that aren't restricted to cells, and are just repeating and adaptable cycles of chemical reactions.


how can it reproduce with out DNA?,

A mineral reproduces itself without DNA. Replication/Reproduction doesn't require DNA.

if it reproduces with out DNA how can the original cell "remember" how will be the new one?(

I recall reading of experiments in which a cell had a section of its cell membrade cut out, inverted, and then reattached (so a section is upside down). Upon reproduction, the daughter cells both have this upside down segement. IOW, some characteristics are more 'mechanical' than coded, perhaps.


silversurfer

Hopefully its not a promotional thing for a book or anything like the Sony giant campains



Then it'd be COLOSSI Red Cells!


But the phenomena is well established.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   


me:
organization (having cells) The red things definitely fit this one.

Nygdan:
Organization means compartmentalization or organelles. The only structure that these things have appears to be that they have a laminated outer-layer.


Oh ok, I misunderstood the wiki article then. I thought the sole requirement of 'organization' was to be comprised of one or more cells. Following your explanation, then it would be true that these things do not exhibit organization. (unless scientists find they do have organelles or other components within them, but they probably would have found them already if they existed)



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
That's how I've allways understood organization to mean, though I see where you are comming from with something having "Cellular Organization", being made up of cells, but that would preclude single-celled organisms. The red rain things lack organelles, but have boundaries, AND, importantly, have these external 'layers' that are 'complex', in so far as that are laminar, ie, made up of many smaller layers. THATS intriguing, along the lines you are saying, becuase thats roughly similar to a living cell (the cell layer is made up of a lipid bi-layer, with many components embeded in it). This at least is a complex outer layer.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
...my mind working outside the box again, but why is it science can not reach outside of what it knows for explanations.

Define a set of factors for life outside of what is considered reality and see if the models that are created eventually share an adjacent subset of factors with what we currently define as life.

Let me reiterate - if we are to accept that we are NOT the only life existent in the universe, the we may have to reevaluate all of our models (on a case by case basis, granted) of what life is.

A trip down a crazy path...perhaps. But this particular example in this thread...maybe it requires that people set aside vain notions about our cognitive link with what is known. Science is founded on logic. What happens when we are faced with first hand experience with something that doesn't fit within that model? And methods are exhausted in explaining what it is?

Not slinging any mud, just want to offer a path to the truth and frankly, I'm clueless here.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
why is it science can not reach outside of what it knows for explanations.

That is what science does all the time.


we may have to reevaluate all of our models (on a case by case basis, granted) of what life is.

Ok. That doesn't help us here though, unless we just want to say that these things are living cells and thats it.


What happens when we are faced with first hand experience with something that doesn't fit within that model?

We apply a logical consideration to the evidence at hand, and re-work the model whereever necessary.


And methods are exhausted in explaining what it is?

We use a rational application of logic and sense to the evidence that we have and try to come up with new ways to investigate the phenomenon.


just want to offer a path to the truth and frankly, I'm clueless here.

There's nothing here that indicates a need to rework anything. These things are strange, to be sure, but they're just as likely an anamalous dust as they are ETs.
No one has demonstrated that they are animate or reproduce. They just sit there, unmoving, for years, without performing any functions, in a vial on a shelf.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
They just sit there, unmoving, for years, without performing any functions, in a vial on a shelf.


You know, viruses do exact same thing.... Right? Just sit there, do nothing, no metabolism of any sort. Until the right host is near...



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I don't think that a virus is going to survive for a few years while sitting in a vial on someone's desk though.

I mean, I'll agree, this thing could be extraordinary, BUT, we haven't seen anything demonstrating that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join