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.

 

Astronomy & Cosmology - - Bad News RE Life On Mars. Nein!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
In August, 1996, NASA proudly announced a rock found in Antarctica identified and labeled as ALH84001, under close electron microscopic examination, had showed traces of what could be fossilized bacteria. There was LIFE on Mars! Percival Lowell were vindicated! (ALH = Antarctica’s Allen Hills; 84 = 1984, and 001 = equals the first rock collected that year.)

G. Schiaparelli was an Italian astronomer who first reported seeing “channels” on Mars in 1877. The Italian word for “channels” was mistranslated into English as “canals.” Later, Mr. Lowell, looking through his much superior telescope compared to that of Schiaparelli's, drew many maps of such lines or canals as he believed he was seeing on Mars. H.G. Wells wrote “War of the Worlds” in 1897, which Orson Wells later frightened the country with on the Mercury Radio Theater in the mid 1930s.

The rock proved to be a meteorite formed on Mars around 4.5 billion years ago, about the same time the Earth was formed. About 500 million years ago, Mars was struck by a rock from space large enough to send ALH84001 into orbit around the Sun. About 13,000 years ago, Earth’s gravity captured it and brought it to rest in the deep snow of Allen Hills in Antarctica.

ALH84001 was mis-classified at first and languished in the lab’s stockpile of rocks. In 1993, it was re-examined and discovered to be a Martian rock. It turns out this rock is the oldest of the 30 odd rocks from Mars we have identified. None of the others is old enough to have been around when Mars is thought to have had flowing water.

Now 10 years have passed. Unfortunately - perhaps - the claim of Life on Mars has not been verified or confirmed. Only the few scientists at NASA who first made the discovery remain convinced. Their peers have rejected their conclusions and have moved on. For now, it must be concluded, scientifically peaking, there is no proof of life on Mars, now or anytime in the past.

David McKay, NASA scientist leading the investigation into the issue, is still convinced. Ironically his brother, Gordon McKay, was one of his strongest critics. The NASA scientists proffered four reasons to support their view that the answer to that question is "Yes."

1) First, chemical analysis showed that the meteorite contained organic molecules known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. PAHs can be produced by biological processes, and that's what McKay and his colleagues argued.

Against. PAHs are also commonly found in asteroids, comets and meteorites, not to mention the Antarctic ice where ALH84001 is estimated to have lain for 13,000 years. Skeptics immediately dismissed the importance of PAHs in the Martian meteorite.

2) A second line of evidence that the elongated blobs in the electron microscope images could be fossils of ancient Martian bacteria was also rejected pretty quickly by most scientists. The problem was, those blobs were much smaller than any bacteria that have ever been observed on Earth.

A National Research Council panel concluded in 1998 that the blobs were 100 to 1,000 times too small to be free-living organisms because they couldn't hold all the proteins, DNA and other molecules necessary for even the simplest metabolic processes.

The two other lines of positive evidence survived longer. Both revolved around minerals sprinkled through the meteorite that could have been produced by microbes.

3) The mineral, carbonate, is typically formed on earth by the remains of living organisms that make shells and other skeletal parts out of minerals extracted from seawater. Some of those organisms can be quite tiny. So finding carbonate in ALH84001 could indicate the presence of ancient microbes in the rock.

The story is similar for magnetite, the other mineral of interest in ALH84001. Some bacteria produce extraordinarily small and pure magnetite crystals, then align the magnetic grains to make a microscopic compass needle that helps them navigate. Some of the most ancient bacteria on Earth produce magnetite. Perhaps ancient Martian microbes did as well; at least some of the magnetite grains in ALH84001 share the shape, small size and remarkable purity of those produced by bacteria on Earth.

For years McKay and his detractors argued about how distinctive the magnetite grains in ALH84001 are, and whether a non-biological process could have produced them. Certainly nobody had ever produced similar magnetite grains in the laboratory.

4) Then somebody did. In 2001 a second team of NASA scientists, including McKay's brother Gordon and a consultant to the space agency named D.C. Golden, managed to cook up a batch of magnetite grains very similar to the ones in ALH84001. Golden and Gordon McKay were also able to incorporate the magnetite grains into balls of carbonate like the ones David McKay and his colleagues described in 1996.

And so, scientifically speaking, it seems clear there is no proof of life on Mars. Yet. Data from a NASA public release.



[edit on 8/5/2006 by donwhite]



apc

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Way to go, champ...

www.physorg.com...


First, chemical analysis showed that the meteorite contained a variety of organic molecules known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. PAHs can be produced by biological processes, and that's what McKay and his colleagues argued. But they are also commonly found in asteroids, comets and meteorites, not to mention the Antarctic ice where ALH84001 is estimated to have lain for 13,000 years. For that reason, skeptics immediately dismissed the importance of PAHs in the Martian meteorite.


[edit on 6-8-2006 by apc]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Well according to the best interpretation of what we know we found life on Mars 25 years ago.


"I found that the gas release was indeed rhythmic, with a period of precisely 24.66 hours, a Martian day," Miller said. This finding, along with other painstaking assessments about LR operations, the scientist feels that a Martian circadian rhythm in the experiment may constitute a biosignature - a sign of life.

"In conjunction with a great deal of other data from this experiment, such as the very large increase in gas immediately following nutrient injection, as well as a slow rise over the course of the entire experiment, suggest that the LR experiment was seeing biology," Miller said.

Miller said, however, that chemical interpretations of some of these data are possible, perhaps accounting for part of the LR rhythm.

"On the whole, a biological explanation seems more plausible. In all probability, Viking discovered life on Mars 25 years ago. The presence of a strong circadian rhythm in the LR experiment further suggests that circadian rhythmicity may be an excellent 'biosignature' of extraterrestrial life," Miller said.

www.space.com...


Stellar



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   


posted by StellarX

“ . . according to the best interpretation we found life on Mars 25 years ago . . “ [Edited by Don W]


I visited your link S10, and have posted exerts from it. Please excuse the redundants.



A Viking a gas chromatograph mass-spectrometer (GCMS), experiment built to identify organic molecules on Mars, found none to analyze . . that verdict has been touted by many as the most likely rationale for the [contrary] Labeled Release (LR) results. This tidy explanation has served well to derail talk that the Viking Landers detected Martian life.

Gilbert Levin, NASA Viking scientist, remembered the L R experiment he developed and told SPACE.com, “It worked like a charm and gave notice that life was observed. The Viking LR experiment detected living microorganisms in the soil of Mars."

Levin said the likelihood is high that life, from Earth and elsewhere, exists on Mars today. The transfer of microorganisms from one planet to another by meteoric impact is gaining increasing support. Levin said, "it is now more difficult to propose a sterile Mars than a live one.” Levin now believes that Earth life forms have infected Mars. All links in the vital chain connecting Mars and Earth can be clearly identified.

Yet even Levin admits, additional proof is required before many scientists will accept such a major change in paradigm. To this end, Levin is busy working on a miniaturized version of the original LR experiment. Hoping to find it a home on a future Mars lander, he said that the modified experiment can distinguish between chemical and biological reactions.

Joe Miller, associate professor at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California has reviewed the Viking LR data in great detail. Periodic oscillations were observed in Martian soil injected with a nutrient solution. The oscillations appeared to be one Martian day. “Being a circadian biologist, I became very excited," Miller said. “Chemical interpretations of some of these data are possible, perhaps accounting for part of the LR rhythm,” Miller admitted. [Edited by Don W]



S10, I don’t know what to think. I’d like to see life on Mars established as a definite fact. It would be somewhat of a disappointment to find Martian life was originally from Earth. That would lay to rest the old panspermia theology. It must surely be true if life can migrate one way, it can go the other way.

I suppose if there is life on Mars and we can get our hands on it, DNA testing will give a good idea of its source. I subscribe to the proposition that if the ingredients are present and the conditions are right, then life is inevitable. Despite the large number of stars - maybe 1,000 X 10 to the 18th - the number of planets suitable to life as we know it must be a much smaller number by several orders of magnitude. In our own solar system only 3, Venus, Earth and Mars, are remotely possible as life supporting types. IMO. Saturn’s Titan is out as is also the moons of Jupiter. Too far from the Sun.

I don’t think either Venus or Mars have a protective magnetic shield which life as we know it would require. So not only is distance from the parent star important, and size of the planet, another must is a magnetic field which implies a comparatively large molten iron core. I’m not sure Carl Sagan factored that into his estimations of suitable planets. In any case, I do believe there is life out there. Whether we can ever make contact is highly problematical.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
S10, I don’t know what to think. I’d like to see life on Mars established as a definite fact.


Should not be about what you 'like' as in this instance our best information indicates current life on Mars


It would be somewhat of a disappointment to find Martian life was originally from Earth. That would lay to rest the old panspermia theology. It must surely be true if life can migrate one way, it can go the other way.


I mean it's all well and good but why bring it up when we have no reason to suspect that being the case?


I suppose if there is life on Mars and we can get our hands on it, DNA testing will give a good idea of its source. I subscribe to the proposition that if the ingredients are present and the conditions are right, then life is inevitable.


I don't but once again it's kinda off topic....


Despite the large number of stars - maybe 1,000 X 10 to the 18th - the number of planets suitable to life as we know it must be a much smaller number by several orders of magnitude.


Why and says who ?


In our own solar system only 3, Venus, Earth and Mars, are remotely possible as life supporting types.


Based on what?


IMO. Saturn’s Titan is out as is also the moons of Jupiter. Too far from the Sun.


We have found life on earth where sunlight never shines.


I don’t think either Venus or Mars have a protective magnetic shield which life as we know it would require.


We have found 'life' in nuclear reactors; they were having a ball. Why do life need 'magnetic shields' for survival? Do we know that the earth's magnetic field was all that strong when life started out here ( if it did?).


So not only is distance from the parent star important, and size of the planet, another must is a magnetic field which implies a comparatively large molten iron core.


All assumptions based on our experience on this little rock which really can not be taken as any kind of standard just yet.


I’m not sure Carl Sagan factored that into his estimations of suitable planets. In any case, I do believe there is life out there. Whether we can ever make contact is highly problematical.


Who the hell do you think you are to even bother trying to speculate about what Carl thought or did not? Go research and come back with what he considered or did not. Why should we not be able to make contact? Speculation is fine but you really need to do some actual research before sharing many more of your opinions ( in my opinion).

Stellar



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   


posted by StellarX

Who the hell do you think you are to even bother trying to speculate about what Carl [Sagan] thought? Why should we not be able to make contact? Speculation is fine but you really need to do some research before sharing many more of your opinions in my opinion.” Stellar [Edited by Don W]



Gulp! At the risk of agitating you further, S10, if you will send me your mailing address, I’ll forward you a 30 day supply of Pepsid AC. Take only as directed.

I’ve been reviewing the problems associated with a trip to Mars by humans. I’ve posted the problem carrying 100 days of food and water, but the larger problem is enough oxygen for months in space and a shield from the solar wind and especially a unexpected solar flare of humongous proportions.

Without meaning to be silly, it looks like a nuclear powered anti gravity machine - a spaceship size Tokamak type machine - is the only way to cover long distances in a humans very short lifetime, relatively speaking, and I’m not referring to Einstein.

The Saturn 5 was the ultimate in liquid fueled rocket powered machines. And we threw away the plans for it. We cannot start a trip to Mars sitting on the ground on Earth. We must either go into a low Earth orbit, assemble a space ship, re-fuel it, stock it, and start the Mars voyage from there, or go to the Moon and do the same thing. I prefer the Moon because it is said a sufficiently powerful rock crusher can produce both water and oxygen from Moon rocks. That would greatly reduce the weight otherwise needed to be put into the low orbit.

As for contacting other life forms either in our Galaxy or trans-galactic, the speed of light imposes a limit we cannot avoid. 300 million meters per second. A drop in the bucket of space. Ignoring the 2 galaxies in collision with the Milky Way, it is 4+ light years to Andromeda. Communications with space aliens ain’t gonna happen. Not now, not never. Whether we are alone in the Universe or not will never be subject to proof. Sorry about that, Mr S10.

www.space.com...
www.astro.princeton.edu...
www.astro.princeton.edu...



[edit on 8/11/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
The best information does not indicate life on mars. The unproven findings of one man does not prove anything. I will admit that if these rhythms are proven to be shown by the LR data, it does strengthen the arguement that there may be life on mars. However, even when/if the findings are shown to be accurate the failure of the GCMS to detect life is strong evidence that the LR was fooled no matter what he says. Also the inability of any subsequent experiments to reproduce the viking's data has to be looked at, although it does not by any means indicate that the data is incorrect. The answer will probably not be reached until there is another mars lander that can prove or disprove the Viking LR experiment.

As for "who" says that there must be a small number of planets suitable for life, the Rare Earth Theory and the Fermi Paradox do (this one doesn't neccesarily say that there is, but it supports the rare earth theory). The rare earth theory cannot be said to be fact and there are opposing theories, but it does give some compelling evidence as to why the earth may be a rare occurence in the universe. If I was to guess on what planets/moons in our solar system have the best chance of life I would probably say the moons Europa and Titan due to the speculated enviroments they possess. These enviroments appear to possibly be able to support the forms of life which inhabit some of the extreme enviroments on earth. If it is found that either of these moons have life on them, it could be evidence against the rare earth theory.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
The best information does not indicate life on mars.


It does and unless you have something more than an uninformed opinion....


The unproven findings of one man does not prove anything.


Unproven in what regard? One man ? Did you even read the article?


WASHINGTON -- There is new life in old data…and it's likely Martian life.

Several scientists have found compelling evidence that Viking Mars landers did indeed discover life on the red planet in 1976. A re-examination of findings relayed to Earth by the probes some 25 years ago, claim the experts, show the tell-tale signs of microbes lurking within the Martian soil.

The researchers will unveil their views Sunday, July 29, at a session on astrobiology, held during the SPIE's 46th annual International Society for Optical Engineering meeting in San Diego, California.

www.space.com...



I will admit that if these rhythms are proven to be shown by the LR data, it does strengthen the arguement that there may be life on mars.


Strengthen? Like apple's falling from trees strengthen the argument for 'gravity'? Pfftttt.


However, even when/if the findings are shown to be accurate the failure of the GCMS to detect life is strong evidence that the LR was fooled no matter what he says.


The GCMS is far less sensitive and as i said earlier it could not detect life in Antarctica. Why do you think this is 'one guy' and if so why do you think one guy can't be right like they have been troughout history?


NASA worked with Miller, providing him the 1976 LR data sets, as well as converting the information to an electronic format. That allowed the circadian biologist to study the data using modern computer-based analytical tools.

www.space.com...


So the data comes from NASA and there has been no denial of his findings from their side.


Also the inability of any subsequent experiments to reproduce the viking's data has to be looked at, although it does not by any means indicate that the data is incorrect.


They never sent anything that reached Mars again that could check for life. THAT is another very interesting thing. If they did not find life why not try again with better equipment? They obviously found life so no reason to try again.


The answer will probably not be reached until there is another mars lander that can prove or disprove the Viking LR experiment.


The type of nonsense logic NASA employs has been running for decades now trying to convince us 'just to wait a little longer' while they throw wads of cash to the wind for kicks.


As for "who" says that there must be a small number of planets suitable for life, the Rare Earth Theory and the Fermi Paradox do (this one doesn't neccesarily say that there is, but it supports the rare earth theory).


Fermi paradox is complete nonsense anyways and the rare earth theory suggest pretty clearly what sort of thinking was involved in coming up with it.


The rare earth theory cannot be said to be fact and there are opposing theories, but it does give some compelling evidence as to why the earth may be a rare occurence in the universe.


May? We can not even detect or observe moons around other planets so it's just completely ignorant to argue that the theory has any merit. What we SHOULD do is reevaluate solar system evolution and mabye that clears it up. Check out Tom Van Flanderns Meta research for a alternative ( and better imo ) theory.

metaresearch.org...


If I was to guess on what planets/moons in our solar system have the best chance of life I would probably say the moons Europa and Titan due to the speculated enviroments they possess.


So as long as things are based on speculation you have a open mind; hard data seemingly making things too hard for you to understand?


These enviroments appear to possibly be able to support the forms of life which inhabit some of the extreme enviroments on earth.


But Mars do not?


If it is found that either of these moons have life on them, it could be evidence against the rare earth theory.


Mars has current life and it's probably so for Venus and a dozen or so moons as well.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Gulp! At the risk of agitating you further, S10, if you will send me your mailing address, I’ll forward you a 30 day supply of Pepsid AC. Take only as directed.


Too late! At least i have a rag for the foaming at the mouth....


I’ve been reviewing the problems associated with a trip to Mars by humans. I’ve posted the problem carrying 100 days of food and water, but the larger problem is enough oxygen for months in space and a shield from the solar wind and especially a unexpected solar flare of humongous proportions.


The trip could be done in days with the known anti-grav technology probably being deployed by at least 3-4 nations in their active military forces...


Without meaning to be silly, it looks like a nuclear powered anti gravity machine - a spaceship size Tokamak type machine - is the only way to cover long distances in a humans very short lifetime, relatively speaking, and I’m not referring to Einstein.


Well there is nothing silly about that at all beside, possibly, the assumption that it needs be nuclear power instead of direct 'energy from the vacuum'. What sort of power output would it take in your knowledge/research?


To power the laser system the satellite received two turbine generators, and the laser gun itself was placed in the fairing moved to the fuselage. This fairing was located between the trailing edge of the wing and the fin.

Since late 1960s, the Soviet Union was working on development of ground laser systems for anti-satellite defense and pumping from nuclear explosions. Unlike the Roentgen laser of Teller, such lasers were reusable. One of such lasers was probably built near Dushanbe. In different periods Yu. Babaev and Yu. Ablekov supervised the work on such laser, but due to the unilateral moratorium announced by the USSR, and the followed mysterious deaths of both engineers the work on such lasers was suspended in the mid-1980s.

In 1994-1995, The High Temperatures Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences sold the Pamir-3U mobile electric generator to the United States. The Pamir-3U had an output of 15 megawatt, dimensions of 2.5 x 2.65 x 10 meters, and weighed about 20 tons. The generator could be used in Russia (USSR) on the ground or in outer space for power supply to long-range laser and super high frequency weapon systems.

The Soviet Union also worked on designing of an "orbital fortress" based on a space station of the Mir type. Modules of the aiming system served as the side blocks of the station. The side blocks were attached to the basic module. The blocks were to be delivered to the station in cargo compartments of the Buran shuttle orbiter. The station was intended for killing of warheads of ballistic missiles from outer space when the crew was on board.

www.fas.org...


If we can get above the atmosphere do you think we can go somewhere with 15 megawatts?


The Saturn 5 was the ultimate in liquid fueled rocket powered machines. And we threw away the plans for it.


The US is apparently not being allowed to go anywhere or do anything important by the powers that be...


We cannot start a trip to Mars sitting on the ground on Earth. We must either go into a low Earth orbit, assemble a space ship, re-fuel it, stock it, and start the Mars voyage from there, or go to the Moon and do the same thing. I prefer the Moon because it is said a sufficiently powerful rock crusher can produce both water and oxygen from Moon rocks. That would greatly reduce the weight otherwise needed to be put into the low orbit.


With anti-grav non of that is probably required... Remember how the mars rover power output levels fell as the solar panels got cluttered up and how it then later somehow got back to very near 100%? 'Windex' ( Hoagland joked about it) anyone?


As for contacting other life forms either in our Galaxy or trans-galactic, the speed of light imposes a limit we cannot avoid. 300 million meters per second. A drop in the bucket of space. Ignoring the 2 galaxies in collision with the Milky Way, it is 4+ light years to Andromeda.


Wesley Clark doesn't seem to consider the speed of light to be any kind of barrier and Tesla would have certainly agreed with him.


Communications with space aliens ain’t gonna happen. Not now, not never. Whether we are alone in the Universe or not will never be subject to proof. Sorry about that, Mr S10.]


If you want to antagonize me some more just keep using the word 'never' for certain success.


You really need to explain the 'S10' thing to me ASAP as it's really starting to bother me....

Stellar



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   


posted by StellarX
You really need to explain the 'S10' thing to me ASAP as it's really starting to bother me....Stellar


It's sort of a (bad?) habit of mine. It's shorthand for me. Of course, the "S" is from your name, Stellar, and the ten or 10 is from the Roman numeral behind your name, "X" which I replace with the arabic numerals, "1" and zero, “0" to equal ten.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
t's sort of a (bad?) habit of mine. It's shorthand for me. Of course, the "S" is from your name, Stellar, and the ten or 10 is from the Roman numeral behind your name, "X" which I replace with the arabic numerals, "1" and zero, “0" to equal ten.


Assuming intelligence , and general awareness, should not be considered a bad habit as i am the one looking the fool for not being able to figure it out.


Stellar



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
You make numerous assumptions about what i believe in your post. I never said that the LR data was unproven i said that his findings on them were, and until they can be 100% verified I cannot assume they are true and even if they are verified it does not give irrefutable evidence that there is life on mars. I never once said that there is no way life could not exist on mars. I simply said that it is not the best assumption to make based on what we do know. You however do seem to think that there must be life on mars and that there is no other wa. Oh and your right NASA not sending another instrument to check for life MUST mean that they earlier discovered life on mars. despite what you may think there is NO way to 100% prove that there is life on mars without another trip with more sophisticated equipment.

If you would do some research on the rare earth theory you would find that it does offer some good evidence that the earth may be a rare occurence, if you want to you could just look for it on wikipedia. Yes, I used the word MAY because I usually do not like to imply that there are other possibilities, especially when there is no irrefutable evidence either way.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   


posted by StellarX

Assuming intelligence , and general awareness, should not be considered a bad habit as I am the one looking the fool for not being able to figure it out.
Stellar



No, I don’t think so. Some people have taken much longer monikers than you have and so I feel some justification in those cases. Your’s is neither too long nor without some relevance, especially on this thread.




[edit on 8/15/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
You make numerous assumptions about what i believe in your post. I never said that the LR data was unproven i said that his findings on them were, and until they can be 100% verified I cannot assume they are true and even if they are verified it does not give irrefutable evidence that there is life on mars.


So basically you will not believe there is life on Mars untill it crawls up your leg and bites you? Since i now understand your standards i will better be able to ' help' you.


I never once said that there is no way life could not exist on mars. I simply said that it is not the best assumption to make based on what we do know.


The test was designed to see if there is life on Mars and thus according to our best knowledge there is as it was positive. They even said there was and then ( for illogical reasons) decided to change their mind. How bad could the data have been when it at first was enough to convince them?


You however do seem to think that there must be life on mars and that there is no other wa.


Well there very likely was a great deal of life long ago and at least some of if still remains. It's just a fact you will at some stage have to deal with.

1

But Dr. Gilbert Levin of Spherix, Inc., and his son, Dr. Ron Levin of MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, believe differently. They say that liquid water in limited amounts and for limited times can exist on the surface of present-day Mars. They have based their theory on data collected from the Viking landers and on the 1998 Mars Pathfinder mission.
This father-son team has suggested a diurnal water cycle on Mars: water vapor in the air freezes out by night, then during the day the ice melts. As the day progresses, the heat of the Sun causes this liquid water to evaporate back into the air.

It has already been established from Viking photographs that a thin frost does form overnight on certain areas of the martian surface. Unlike many scientists, the Levins believe that this frosty layer does not instantly revert back into water vapor when the Sun rises. They suggest that, in the early hours of the martian morning, the atmosphere more than one meter above the martian surface remains too cold to hold water vapor. So the moisture stays on the ground.

Data from the Mars Pathfinder support this theory, as the Pathfinder temperature readings noted that temperatures one meter above the surface were often dozens of degrees colder than the temperatures closer to the ground.

www.astrobio.net...


3.

Maybe Mars even has life today. The evidence sent back from Mars by two Viking Landers in 1976 and 1977 was not clearcut (6). In fact, NASA's first press release about the Viking tests announced that the results were positive. The "Labelled Release" (LR) experiments had given positive results. But after lengthy discussions in which Carl Sagan participated, NASA reversed its position, mainly because another experiment detected no organics in the soil. Yet Gilbert V. Levin, the principal designer of the LR experiment, still believes the tests pointed to life on Mars (7). When the same two experiments were run on soil from Antarctica, the same conflicting results were obtained (LR - positive; organics - negative.) Soil from Antarctica definitely contains life. The test for organics was negative because it is far less sensitive than the LR experiment. The same problem could have caused the organics test on Mars to give a false negative.

www.panspermia.org...


4.

"Since Viking, relevant discoveries have been made of organisms living under extreme environments. Many terrestrial microbial forms are now known that populate environmental extremes until recently though inimical to life," Levin said.

The envelope of temperature, pressure, atmospheric composition, and salinity has been pushed to unanticipated regions, including the environment of Mars, Levin said. "These findings make it likely that Martian organisms could be well adapted to the current Martian conditions."

The team provided both experimental evidence and mathematical work showing, in their view, how water can exist in liquid phase under Martian surface conditions. It occurs when and where the surface temperature exceeds zero-degrees Celsius. Surface temperatures above freezing were found at the Viking 1 landing site, and snow or frost was seen at the second Viking location.

www.space.com...



The underground iceberg is just 2 million to 5 million years old -- recent in geologic terms. It formed when early hominids were roaming Earth.

The feature suggests that "vast flooding events, which are known to have occurred from beneath Mars’ surface throughout its geological history, still happen," the Muller, Murray and their colleagues write. "The presence of liquid water for thousands of millions of years, even beneath the surface, is a possible habitat in which primitive life may have developed, and might still be surviving now. Clearly this must now be considered as a prime site for future missions looking for life."

The researchers propose that the ice has been protected from sublimation by an overlying layer of volcanic ash.

www.space.com...



Furthermore, he says winds should spread water vapour through the atmosphere too quickly for it to be concentrated in certain spots. "It would take a tremendous source of water in the surface to pump water into the atmosphere faster than it would be redistributed," he says.

Krasnopolsky, standing by his methane detection, says winds should spread the trace amounts of methane around too. He believes the methane he detected is produced by bacteria that live in "oases" where liquid water can exist - however briefly - on the Martian surface, due to heating by sunlight or by a hydrothermal source.

He argues that a non-biological source of methane is unlikely because crater-counting methods suggest no surface lava on Mars is younger than 10 million years old.

But he will not rule out the possibility that underground bubbles of methane from ancient volcanism might somehow be brought to the surface to replenish the atmosphere.

www.newscientist.com...



Adding to the intrigue are new calculations by Atreya showing that dust devils and storms on Mars - known to be frequent and intense - must be producing vast quantities of hydrogen peroxide. This highly reactive oxidant was inferred to exist on Mars after the 1976 Viking experiments, but not actually detected until 2003.

All this oxidant must be destroying the methane at a very high rate, Atreya said on Friday. That could explain Mars’s uneven distribution of methane - observed by Mumma’s team and others - as the storms are local and temporary.

But it also implies that methane is being produced at a much higher rate than its present concentration would suggest. If so, cometary or volcanic sources become even more unlikely, and the prospect of a living source becomes slightly more plausible.

www.newscientist.com...



Data obtained by the Mars Express probe that is currently orbiting the red planet show that water vapor and methane gas are concentrated in the same regions of the Martian atmosphere, the European Space Agency recently announced.

The finding may have important implications for the possibility that microbial life could exist on Mars. If microbes are making methane in the Martian atmosphere as part of their living process, they would rely on water.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



Mumma and his research colleagues have used ground-based spectrometers to carry out a simultaneous search for methane and water vapor. "Pronounced enhancements" of methane have been detected over several equatorial regions on Mars, consistent with "enhanced local release," Mumma reported.

In scientific terms, the methane line detected is "very strong indeed," Mumma noted. Using the high-tech infrared spectrometers, spectra of six narrow longitudinal bands across the face of Mars were taken. Such spectra involve analyses of light broken into its rainbow of colors.

"Every one of these longitudes shows a very substantial enhancement in the equatorial zone," Mumma explained. "So this is a very intense source of methane on Mars in this region. It also requires a very rapid decay of methane … more rapid than photochemistry would allow."

On Mars, the photochemical lifetime of methane is very short — roughly 300 years. Therefore, any methane now lingering within the Martian atmosphere must have been released recently.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



Oh and your right NASA not sending another instrument to check for life MUST mean that they earlier discovered life on mars.


Any other reason why they failed to get another test on the surface?


despite what you may think there is NO way to 100% prove that there is life on mars without another trip with more sophisticated equipment.


Nonsense. You just refuse to deal with the question NOW and will do whatever it takes to move your defense to some date in the future.


If you would do some research on the rare earth theory you would find that it does offer some good evidence that the earth may be a rare occurence, if you want to you could just look for it on wikipedia.


And long ago there was convincing evidence that the sun revolved around the earth and that the stars were 'very close'


Yes, I used the word MAY because I usually do not like to imply that there are other possibilities, especially when there is no irrefutable evidence either way.


You should talk about 'evidence'. Bah!

Stellar



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
interesting information, but thats all it is. It doesn't prove anything, there are alternative explanations for every single piece of evidence for life on mars. As of now the most likely way mars will proven to have or to not have life is by another rover, which is likely to occur in the near future thanks to the new Vision for Space Exploration. The mars pathfinder that you talk about was really nothing more than a showcase of NASA's so called "new commitment" to the development of faster and cheaper space crafts/missions. At the time of launch there wasn't much interest in life on mars.

Your comparsion of the Rare earth theory and the old belief that the sun rotated around the earth is unfounded. At the time of this belief astronomy was based on speculation and religion, today it is based on scientific evidence and the interpretations of this evidence. What evidence that the sun rotates around the earth would help it gain any supporters in today's world? The evidence for the rare earth theory is the same/very similar evidence to the evidence for its opposing theories.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
interesting information, but thats all it is. It doesn't prove anything, there are alternative explanations for every single piece of evidence for life on mars.


Not when you do research instead of just sharing your uninformed opinion. If you will not argue what is in evidence you are wasting my time


As of now the most likely way mars will proven to have or to not have life is by another rover, which is likely to occur in the near future thanks to the new Vision for Space Exploration.


Wasting our time when it could have been done again promptly had their been any need to keep checking for life. They found life and all we have seen since reinforced that first tests.


The mars pathfinder that you talk about was really nothing more than a showcase of NASA's so called "new commitment" to the development of faster and cheaper space crafts/missions. At the time of launch there wasn't much interest in life on mars.


Complete nonsense as people are very much interested in what is going on around our solar system.


Your comparsion of the Rare earth theory and the old belief that the sun rotated around the earth is unfounded.


It really is not but i see you have no interest in every substansiating your vapid opinions either way.


At the time of this belief astronomy was based on speculation and religion, today it is based on scientific evidence and the interpretations of this evidence.


They used the same general method then but they lacked certain methods of investigation and generally discarded information that did not fit current theories ; exactly what is happening today. Nothing has changed beside the scale of the mass media by which lies can be spread very efficiently.


What evidence that the sun rotates around the earth would help it gain any supporters in today's world?


With the governments backing a scientific program to 'prove' such a theory would probably be able to provide enough ' proof' to convince most of the worlds population . Considering the scale of other scientific breaktroughts they have managed to hide from the world this will not present a unique problem.


The evidence for the rare earth theory is the same/very similar evidence to the evidence for its opposing theories.


A few twisted bits of information can make all the difference in the world as has been repeatedly proved by our science establishments.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Not an opinion, it's the truth. Their are valid alternative explanations to pretty much every evidence of life on mars that has been proposed. Even most of the articles you used for evidence offer alternative explanations, but you seem to rule these out entirely. I however am not saying that mars definitely does or definitely does not have life on it. Also, saying that the world was not interested in life on mars was a mistake on my part, what i meant to say was that NASA was mostly convinced that their wasn't life on mars. Of the small number of actual missions and equipment on the pathfinder, none of it had to do with finding life on mars and throwing equipment on it to investigate this would be out of place. Not every mission to mars should be based on finding life on the red planet. The US government's backing of a project to prove that the sun rotated around the earth would NOT be enough proof convince most of the world's population. You're trying to say that people in China, France, Russia, Japan, ect. would be convinced by the United States trying to prove this theory? I sincerely doubt that this would happen, in fact I think it would have the opposite effect. It would only further prove the backwardness of the current US governemnt. Which method is it that they used back in when this belief was wide spread? At that time the common person did not have a telescope and there were no universities that constantly were examining the skies and coming up with new ideas. Instead they looked to their political leaders for this information and these leaders based their ideas on religion and philosophy.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Not an opinion, it's the truth. Their are valid alternative explanations to pretty much every evidence of life on mars that has been proposed.


That is what they claim but when one tracks down these alternatives it turns out that they contradict other known facts. It's a run-around to fool those who will rather take NASA's press word than do their own research from NASA source material.


Even most of the articles you used for evidence offer alternative explanations, but you seem to rule these out entirely.


I have run those alternatives down and that is why i have come to the conclusions i have been insisting on. You are not contributing anything but general assumptions and vague statements alluring to the fact that you 'must be right' because that's 'what NASA says'.


I however am not saying that mars definitely does or definitely does not have life on it.


You do not know near enough to even bother having a opinion around me. If you want me to consider why you think there really is no life start siting sources that do not contradict known facts.


Also, saying that the world was not interested in life on mars was a mistake on my part, what i meant to say was that NASA was mostly convinced that their wasn't life on mars.


NASA pretends not be interested cause that is what the NASA administration demands of it's scientist. Since we see all these evidence for life leaking out of the NASA establishment there are clearly people working there who believe that we should know the truth.


Of the small number of actual missions and equipment on the pathfinder, none of it had to do with finding life on mars and throwing equipment on it to investigate this would be out of place.


Only if you set your mind to not include such equipment. It really does not have anything to do with what is possible or not.


Not every mission to mars should be based on finding life on the red planet.


What is more important that making sure if you were not? The fact that they are not bothering indicates they KNOW for sure but do not want to bother staging another cover up.


The US government's backing of a project to prove that the sun rotated around the earth would NOT be enough proof convince most of the world's population.


Not now maybe as it is so widely accepted already. Key is to make sure something does not become so before you act.


You're trying to say that people in China, France, Russia, Japan, ect. would be convinced by the United States trying to prove this theory?


It was not the best example really and i do not really believe they have the power to change that fact when they have done so much to reinforce it...


I sincerely doubt that this would happen, in fact I think it would have the opposite effect. It would only further prove the backwardness of the current US governemnt. Which method is it that they used back in when this belief was wide spread?


The used the general ignorance of the population against them; same as their doing now.


At that time the common person did not have a telescope and there were no universities that constantly were examining the skies and coming up with new ideas.


Just like most people do not understand electro chemistry well enough to make much sense of cold fusion... And even back then it was the science community that really resisted the new idea.


Instead they looked to their political leaders for this information and these leaders based their ideas on religion and philosophy.


Not true as they had 'scientist' to use their credibility towards deception and government suppression.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I don't know what links you want me to post when it is your own sources that also support alternatives. If you have "run down these alternatives" as you say then it should be YOU who posts the sources which disprove these alternatives. Much of this possible evidence for life was not uncovered until well after NASA had already launched the pathfinder let alone decided on what equipment to include on it. As earlier stated the pathfinder was mainly used as to show NASA's new "commitment" to producing faster and cheaper space missions and crafts, adding equipment to test for life would have delayed the mission and increased it's cost. How do you know that NASA isn't bothering with investigating life on mars, perhaps their next mission will be to further investigate the possibilty? Even if the US did back EVER support the idea that the sun rotates around the earth in modern times they would have to change their minds or again it would further prove the government's ignorance. The rest of the world and those in the US who did not work for the government would investigate and find the theory false.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
I don't know what links you want me to post when it is your own sources that also support alternatives.


They 'suggest' alternatives but i have run those down and it's why i use the material in question. Trying to use my own sources 'against' me only indicates that you consider me stupid enough not to have tracked down the alternatives suggested.


If you have "run down these alternatives" as you say then it should be YOU who posts the sources which disprove these alternatives.


Actually i provide material suggesting what i believe and then another scientist suggest a alternative which you should defend if you want to. Do not expect me to do YOUR work when i have made clear which alternative i support and will defend.


Much of this possible evidence for life was not uncovered until well after NASA had already launched the pathfinder let alone decided on what equipment to include on it.


Nonsense and whatever truth there is stems from the fact that they refuse to look at at any information suggesting life. Why do you think NASA have not sent another test for life in any of their other landers and does not even have one scheduled in the next 3 missions to mars up to 2009? Why did they basically 'lost' the LR test data that according to their best knowledge at the time was proof of life?


In a scientific paper published in 1981, Levin and Straat demonstrated that in pre-flight-to-Mars testing of an Antarctic soil sample (#726), that their Viking Labeled Release experiment found microbial activity in the same sample of soil that was tested by the Viking GCMS.

The tests showed that the pre-flight Viking GCMS test model could not detect organic molecules in Antarctic soil sample that contained life. Yet this would be the instrument used to render the final verdict against any positive evidence of life on Mars that might have been found by the Viking biology instruments.

Strangely enough, one of the other Viking biology instruments known as the Pyrolytic Release experiment found traces of organic matter forming inside its test chamber. This occurred in seven out of nine PR tests.

Oddly enough the NASA scientific community at the time did not consider the matter seriously enough to warrant a full review, and Levin and Straat as a result became labeled as eccentric scientists for pursuing it.

www.spacedaily.com...


It was simply a devious ploy to make sure they could veto the discoveries they probably knew the other two tests would make. A control test that does not work can not be considered evidence of much else imo.


As earlier stated the pathfinder was mainly used as to show NASA's new "commitment" to producing faster and cheaper space missions and crafts, adding equipment to test for life would have delayed the mission and increased it's cost.


It would have been far cheaper than producing a rover that does absolutely nothing near as important as searching for life. Your taking part in a shell game here and your motives are becoming more suspect by the minute.


How do you know that NASA isn't bothering with investigating life on mars, perhaps their next mission will be to further investigate the possibilty?


Maybe after 2009 but they are doing their best to avoid it and it's the British ( Beagle 2; aptly named) who seem to be interested enough to spend the money.


Even if the US did back EVER support the idea that the sun rotates around the earth in modern times they would have to change their minds or again it would further prove the government's ignorance.


Not very many people trust the government anyways as polls quite clearly shows; why else would they support and fund the deception that we call 'big science'?


The rest of the world and those in the US who did not work for the government would investigate and find the theory false.


And it still would get no press in the USA as is quite evident from world events over the last few decades. Truth CAN be hidden from the American public and it has been every day of the year for a long time. I am not suggesting that the US government is somehow worse than most others but that it to a large extent set the pace for much of the world.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join