Vegetation limitations on Mars

In Ordnung, this will not be conclusive there is NO vegetation on Mars, however it suggests a severely arid condition (which like-wise suggests that the basic component of life - photosynthetic life - would not have a likely chance to exist on Mars).

Martian dust storms are global and so suggest that the near entirety of the surface of Mars is arid (below 20% vegetation).

Certainly there are no forests or this would disrupt the aeolian processes (which are well observed) on Mars.

Finding vegetation requires finding a region that is not choked by aeolian processes.

Mars could of had vegitation before its climate and atmospher became like that.

Yes..maybe there were plants...but to say that there still are is a speculation, it's not a proof.

Originally posted by Apass
Yes..maybe there were plants...but to say that there still are is a speculation, it's not a proof.

We do not have reason to think the current Methane emissions on Mars comes from anything other than a previous active biology or even ( imo ) a current activity. Methane on earth comes from those two sources are we really have to make strange untested assumptions to avoid coming to said logical conclusion.

Stellar

StellarX, sorry, but once again you seam not to have read my posts...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Apass
StellarX, sorry, but once again you seam not to have read my posts...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I read what you posted and i do not agree with much any of it. When i find the time i will attempt to set you strait but you are evidently not someone who cares much for logic and science when you have decided to believe something specific. Why on earth would you admit that there might be life but then set out the spend the dozens of hours required to attempt proving it can not? It does not logically follow and i believe your lying when you talk about the possibility of life on Mars just to hide your obvious agenda of protecting all the NASA falsehoods so regualarly fed to the general public. I currently lack the additional time ( i have spent plenty) and energy to argue with someone who avoids reality so well. I will address your claims but currently i would mostly just be repeating the information that disproves all of what you have said so far anyways.

Stellar

Since when does methane automatically equal life? I wasn't aware that the ONLY way to get methane in the atmosphere was to have life on the planet.

Zaphod58, you're wright, it's not! Check my posts form the other thread.
Now, on the topic of this thread.
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by StellarX
Why on earth would you admit that there might be life but then set out the spend the dozens of hours required to attempt proving it can not? It does not logically follow

That's what scientiests do every day. They come up with a new theory and then, to be sure they're wright, they try to prove it wrong. You can't just prove a theory looking only at the results predicted by your theory. You have to study all the possibilities and only when you ruled out all the other explanations you can say that your theory might work. Maybe I belive that there's life on Mars, but current evidence do not support this. Judging the current evidence one can not say that the only explanation for all the phenomena observed is life!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Since when does methane automatically equal life? I wasn't aware that the ONLY way to get methane in the atmosphere was to have life on the planet.

That is not what i said. What i said was that based on our understanding of the earth the only way to explain that amount of Methane on Mars is by either current volcanism ( spewing up methane produced by living material of a earlier epoch) or current biological activity. There is as far as i know no other explanation we have any logical reason to consider unless we are doing our best to try make Mars a dead world.

Stellar

Or it could be natural gas pockets that are venting into the atmosphere.

Originally posted by Apass
That's what scientiests do every day. They come up with a new theory

Nonsense. How many scientist daily try to invalidate their life's work? I can not believe you have this faith based dogmatic belief in a scientific method the scientific establishments of the world almost never employs! What a joke.

and then, to be sure they're wright, they try to prove it wrong. You can't just prove a theory looking only at the results predicted by your theory.

This is OBSERVATION, not theory. Current life on Mars is not a "THEORY" but the result of logically considering what we have observed there. Your apparently suggesting that someone just sat down a few years ago and sucked the 'life on mars' idea from his thumb. Nonsense.

You have to study all the possibilities and only when you ruled out all the other explanations you can say that your theory might work.

Once again this is a completely bunk argument which if widely practiced would invalidate most of our current scientific knowledge. Show me just ONE theory that does not contain contradictions of one form or another however small they may be and i would be quite amazed. You do not have to be 100% sure to make something work for you or be generally accurate and useful. Do we have to understand quantum mechanics perfectly to make a dishwasher work? Of course not and it's not only illogical but patently false to pretend that we have to consider each and every unlikely ( everything is possible and likely when the science establishment wants to invalidate something that contradicts their dogmatic beliefs) eventuality when we say that life has Mars considering what we know about planet Earth.

We have NO logical reason to assume different standards for Martian life than for Earthly life and that is why i am only considering earthly examples when i say that there is life on Mars. When we consider this question in those terms we understand we arrive at the logical conclusion that there is a current biological activity on Mars. Including objections based on 'other eventualities/unknowns' is just spiteful and childish and adds nothing to the scientific debate. We work with what we know till we know more and we are ALWAYS supposed to state our findings in those terms.

Maybe I belive that there's life on Mars, but current evidence do not support this.

You clearly do not want to believe or consider it as no one in their right mind would go to the trouble you have to show up other possibilities. It's very much like arguing that gravity does not really exist and that it's actually Angels who push things around manually. A scientific theory must only be consistent with observation and falsifiable for it to be of use and there is absolutely nothing inconsistent or illogical by stating that there is currently life on Mars.

Judging the current evidence one can not say that the only explanation for all the phenomena observed is life!

One can however be 99.X% sure and that is good enough for people who can afford being wrong now and again. Why is it that science demands lay people to prove their theories with 100% certainty ( not something you manage often) while the science community gets away with completely invalidated nonsense for decades on end? How long did it take them to acknowledge plate tectonics? How long did it take them to acknowledge the fact that the Earth and other planetary bodies collide? Why should i give a science establishment that never gets it right at the start any credit? Why should i dogmatically believe them when they always fail to interpret observation correctly until it becomes obvious to even the lay person? What's the point of science when it waits to make pronouncements when it's long been obvious to those who only observe and think without attacking something because it's 'new'?

Bah.

Stellar

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Or it could be natural gas pockets that are venting into the atmosphere.

Anything becomes 'possible' if one does not want to consider the obvious and logical. One would supposed that these gas pockets would have mostly vented by now considering the fact that Mars now has no plate tectonics or active volcanism ( well they seem to have changed their minds about that as well but that is another story) and were supposedly geologically rather inactive.... The scale of the Methane emissions are also not consistent with that sort of release mechanism and higher concentrations of Methane are observed above areas where they know water ice exist just below or even on the surface.

science.nasa.gov...

That's what they were considered in 2000 and you would be stunned and amazed how they have 'changed their minds' ( not by choice mind you) over the last 5 years as evidence kept piling on their self assumed denial of reality.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Nonsense. How many scientist daily try to invalidate their life's work?

All of them who take their work seriously.

This is OBSERVATION, not theory. Current life on Mars is not a "THEORY" but the result of logically considering what we have observed there.

No, it is a theory.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
dictionary.reference.com...

It doesn't matter if this is the result of observation. Also, Newton's gravity theory is the result of observation.

Show me just ONE theory that does not contain contradictions of one form or another however small they may be and i would be quite amazed.

How about feedback theory in electronics?

Well, it's OK to consider Newton's gravity when you deal with the Earth-Moon system but you have to consider general relativity when you want to talk about black holes. But life either IS or IS NOT. You can't have a theory about life on Mars and then when you are confronted with new evidence that your theory cannot predict you would come up with a more general one.

Do we have to understand quantum mechanics perfectly to make a dishwasher work? Of course not and it's not only illogical but patently false to pretend that we have to consider each and every unlikely eventuality when we say that life has Mars considering what we know about planet Earth.

We do not have to understand quantum physics to make a dishwasher work, but without the quantum world, the dishwasher won't work! With this type of argument the only source for methane on a planet is life. And that's not true. You say that we do not have to understand/know how methane can be released into the atmosphere (we do not understand quantum world) and claim that because there is methane, it must be life (the dishwasher works). Well, no, because methane can have other sources as well (like a comet...)
And Mars ╪ Earth so yes, we have to consider each and very unlikely eventuality.

We have NO logical reason to assume different standards for Martian life than for Earthly life

We DO have logical reason to assume different standards, like....H2O2 on the surface, like around 7mbars of atmospheric pressure and we can go on and on

Including objections based on 'other eventualities/unknowns' is just spiteful and childish and adds nothing to the scientific debate.

That's how quantum physics appeared in the first place. And also relativity.

We work with what we know till we know more and we are ALWAYS supposed to state our findings in those terms.

Exactly. And current evidence do not say that the only explanation for the observed phenomena is life.

You clearly do not want to believe or consider it as no one in their right mind would go to the trouble you have to show up other possibilities.

Like I said. I believe that Romania will join EU in 2007. Do I know that? NO! Why one is not allowed to believe something for which he/she doesn't have a definte proof? But if one believes something, it doesn't mean that he/she knows that thing. As for me, I rather use facts than beliefs. So I say I don't know if there's life on Mars.

A scientific theory must only be consistent with observation and falsifiable for it to be of use and there is absolutely nothing inconsistent or illogical by stating that there is currently life on Mars.

There also is nothing inconsistent or illogical by stating that Mars is not geologicaly dead. If we don't have definte proofs, we can say anything! Lets try something. Lets suppose that there is no life on Mars. Would that mean that there will be no more methane in the atmosphere? Probably not. Would that mean that the dark dune spots will not form anymore? Probably not. So...is it safe to be sure that there is life on Mars? I guess not.

One can however be 99.X% sure and that is good enough for people who can afford being wrong now and again.

Well, lets look at those 99.x% and see what those x have to be:

in our analysis of the data and our interpretation of it, we believe that we have seen evidence for the production of the top quark in these collisions...We're confident on the level that there is only a few tenths of a percent probability that we are wrong
Although [the statistical probability of error] appears very small, scientists generally require a smaller probability of a background fluctuation before a new phenomenon is firmly established
www.duke.edu...

So 99.9% it's not enough....hmmm
Edited to add another example of what 99.x% means:

The statistical significance of the new top quark measurement is (expressed in units of likelihood) about 4.7 standard deviations. Put another way, the overall possibility of the observed top quark events being purely due to some background phenomenon is less than one part in a million for both experiments.

www.aip.org...


edited to correct 99.95 to 99.x%
[edit on 11/9/06 by Apass]

[edit on 11/9/06 by Apass]

I can tell you right now, Methane is not only a by-product of life but a by-product of interactions between Carboniferous material and acids and other chemical reactions and can be a trace-volatile from Volcanoes (without the need of biologic activity).

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubbles guys, but the chances of plant life of any type being on Mars at present are zero. It wouldn't survive. For one thing, the atmosphere is too thin.....the partial pressure of CO2 in its atmosphere isn't high enough for plants to utilise. Secondly, the UV light which reaches Mars' surfaces is that intense it'd kill the plants immediately. Last, but not least, the soils on Mars are highly oxidating (they're mostly iron superoxides) and that would kill the plants by destroying their roots.

As for the methane they've detected, it could be from bacteria buried under the surface of the soils or in cracks in the rocks. Then again, it could be from the breakdown of non biogenic sources of gases such as propane, ethane and carbon dioxide that would be effected by the oxidation in the soils and the UV light.


[edit on 17-9-2006 by GhostITM]

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I can tell you right now, Methane is not only a by-product of life but a by-product of interactions between Carboniferous material and acids and other chemical reactions and can be a trace-volatile from Volcanoes (without the need of biologic activity).

On Earth almost all ( absolutely massive majority) methane releases is connected with current or past life. Volcanism does nothing but bring forth methane from past life.

Feel free to tell us where you came up with the idea that Methane and life is not very much connected to each other on Earth.

Stellar

stellarx
This is OBSERVATION, not theory. Current life on Mars is not a "THEORY" but the result of logically considering what we have observed there.

*psst* thats the definition of a theory.

Originally posted by Nygdan

*psst* thats the definition of a theory.

As far as i am concerned we could have a extended discussion on what is commonly ( or not so commonly) understood under the term 'theory' but what i wanted to indicate here is that based on observation we can tell that there is life on Mars and do not need to employ conjecture about possible explanations. It is in my mind reporting a fact ( as close as we can get anyways) and thus not a 'theory' about life on Mars.

I am however glad to see that moderators sometimes find ways to contribute in discussion i take part in as they don't often seem to actually moderate them. Glad one of you is at least present this time!

Stellar

Have been pretty busy for the last few months and it also had to take some time out to investigate a few issues before continuing to defend them as fact...

Originally posted by Apass

All of them who take their work seriously.

That then clearly does not say much about most scientist who ignore major and massive inconsistencies in their various fields by simply not talking about them in public.

No, it is a theory.
It doesn't matter if this is the result of observation. Also, Newton's gravity theory is the result of observation.

So is life on Mars as i have said and shown repeatedly. The tests originally designed worked as advertised ( the pre operation agreed on tests for life showed life ) and the arguments after the fact have only posited POSSIBLE alternative explanations for the results; non of which have ever been validated as being able to give the results achieved on Mars. What we have found out about conditions on Mars and life on Earth has only validated the original agreed logical conclusion. I should probably not use the word 'fact' as i am ( Since i think every theory or finding can be refined) and all i will add is that life on Mars is as well validated as most principles we base our everyday life on.

How about feedback theory in electronics?

Every theory in electronics ( especially 'closed circuit' - non sequitor as those are not in fact known to exist- theories) is subject to great deals of revision considering the source charge 'problem' and the numerous other contradictions in classical EM theory.

www.cheniere.org...

www.cheniere.org...

Well, it's OK to consider Newton's gravity when you deal with the Earth-Moon system but you have to consider general relativity when you want to talk about black holes. But life either IS or IS NOT.

The fact that we can observe gravity to propagate at FTL speeds should tell you something about GR.

You can't have a theory about life on Mars and then when you are confronted with new evidence that your theory cannot predict you would come up with a more general one.

Nothing has been presented that makes life on Mars less probable than it was back in the Viking days and we have since discovered that life is far far more hardy here on Earth than we once imagined. The conditions we imposed for life on Mars were thus probably too restrictive yet we still found it easily enough.

We do not have to understand quantum physics to make a dishwasher work, but without the quantum world, the dishwasher won't work! With this type of argument the only source for methane on a planet is life. And that's not true.

Well i said again and again that it's just one of the things that we should have expected to find based on our original conclusions after Viking. Viking found life and not finding Methane in those significant quantities would have raised questions. Almost all Methane emissions on Earth comes from either past or present life.

You say that we do not have to understand/know how methane can be released into the atmosphere (we do not understand quantum world) and claim that because there is methane, it must be life (the dishwasher works).

Fact is based on what we do know about Methane on Earth there is no reason to suggest that there is not any active life involved on Mars as there is on Earth. We can only go by what we know thus far and based on our understanding of Methane emissions on Earth alone we have very strong evidence for life on Mars.

Well, no, because methane can have other sources as well (like a comet...)
And Mars ╪ Earth so yes, we have to consider each and very unlikely eventuality.

Applied fairly to all sciences this principle ( known contradictions in some predictions of a useful theory) would lead to vast tracts of our understanding landing on the rubble heap so i wonder why it's so vigorously applied normally only to those things scientist are not paid to consider... We have kept pretty good astronomical records for far longer than Methane should be able to persist ( 300 odd years) in the Martian atmosphere if the release was singular and on large scale. The fact is the current density suggests concentrations in specific areas which would most certainly not fit the comet or large impact theory. Methane is in fact simply too abundant on Mars today to be explained without large volumes of biological material or active geology on relatively large scale.

We DO have logical reason to assume different standards, like....H2O2 on the surface, like around 7mbars of atmospheric pressure and we can go on and on

Only if we believe everything we get from NASA when we can and have easily proved them to take part in active programs of deception in the past. While our access to date is so restricted we should look at the photo's that are so much harder to falsify in absolute terms.

That's how quantum physics appeared in the first place. And also relativity.

These theories came about to deal with new and relatively well established/accepted problems with older models and not because a few scientist raised vapid speculative attacks on prevailing norms with no factual support. The claims as to other explanations for the reactions as observed in the LR experiments have NEVER been substantiated under laboratory conditions and can thus not be used to invalidate earlier findings.

Exactly. And current evidence do not say that the only explanation for the observed phenomena is life.

If one takes the combination of evidence tracts ( and findings of the LR experiments) we found life and there has been independent validation upon independent validation as the years passed. They changed their minds about life for political reasons, that may have had some basis while testing continued in the years after, but those objections were shown to be quite devoid of factual consistency as they were in very large part addressed in the long and extensive testing beforehand. The only test that failed to detect life on Earth were also strangely the one used as basis for throwing out the findings of the LR test; notwithstanding the fact that that test was never supposed to be the 'validation' as it was far less sensitive.

Like I said. I believe that Romania will join EU in 2007. Do I know that? NO! Why one is not allowed to believe something for which he/she doesn't have a definte proof?

That's obviously not related and since it involves politicians and the like why assume any scientific standards as to determining the reality of the possibility?

But if one believes something, it doesn't mean that he/she knows that thing. As for me, I rather use facts than beliefs.

Agreed.

So I say I don't know if there's life on Mars.

Well you may not but that's clearly a belief independent of what the sciences have so far established. Not knowing does not determine objective reality and while you may choose not to know it certainly doesn't make the knowledge disappear!

There also is nothing inconsistent or illogical by stating that Mars is not geologicaly dead.

Well most certainly not as we have pictures that indicating active geothermal activity at the very least and evidence of evidence of a geologically active planet ( Methane) at 'worse'.

If we don't have definte proofs, we can say anything! Lets try something. Lets suppose that there is no life on Mars. Would that mean that there will be no more methane in the atmosphere? Probably not. Would that mean that the dark dune spots will not form anymore? Probably not. So...is it safe to be sure that there is life on Mars? I guess not.

We can observe the geyser activity and our probes sent their found life, very probable large scale complex biology, and clearly large bodies of standing water. I am not sure what is more definite than that considering our current scientific understanding of the universe at large.

Well, lets look at those 99.x% and see what those x have to be:
So 99.9% it's not enough....hmmm
Edited to add another example of what 99.x% means:

Once again these high high standards seem almost completely absent from large tracts of the sciences only to be dragged out from the credibility shed to impose ( in the media and scientific press) on anyone who thinks they can mess with the status quo however large the volume of information or scale of the inconsistency

Stellar