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.

 

Why life exsisted on mars - a mars theory

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
This is a brief theory on mars having had or indeed having life. Quite alot of what i am going to say is what is believed to be how earths atmosphere was formed so starting on that:

ok so you have an atmosphere on earth 3.5 billion years ago, that had no oxygen, but in the water evolved bacteria that photosynthesized, stromatolites, this realised o2 into the water but, the iron that was in solution in the water bonded with this o2 and form good old rust. this rust sank formed layers of on the sea bed and over time form bands of iron ore. Evenually this process was able to be overcome cause there was more o2 realised than Fe in solution. hence the o2 atmosphere was born.

It is my theory therefore that Mars must have both o2 and water in plentyful supply, in the past or presently. It would also be a good presumption that the realise of o2 from water was carried on Mars as on Earth by bacteria, ergo life is or has been present on Mars. Hence the red planet!

Link to earth evolution

hope to hear what you think!

mcktj




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcktj
Hence the red planet!

Since that is apparently the only evidence presented, the theory kind of falls flat on its face: Mars is not particularly red.

Oh and the fact that Mars had water and possibly even life in the past (billions of years) is probably the most common theory today, I think most scientists accept it.

Presently, Mars has neither oxygen nor water in "plentiful supply" even though it may be bound in ice/soil.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by mcktj
Hence the red planet!

Since that is apparently the only evidence presented, the theory kind of falls flat on its face: Mars is not particularly red.


The red planet nickname come from the fact that the iron ore content is quite high on the surface, i don't think it was me that coined that nickname. As for the actual theory, it cannot be on its face as, what im trying to show is a possible process that could create the things which are observed on Mars. Im not really debating the color here.




Oh and the fact that Mars had water and possibly even life in the past (billions of years) is probably the most common theory today, I think most scientists accept it.


Again im not really trying to prove that water is present today, i use it to back up the fact that a process which created the atmosphere on earth could have occured on Mars. The color of the sediments found on Mars would suggest iron ore, the creation of iron ore as described in my OP occurs in the presence of o2. Atmospheric o2 on earth is the result of life! It may be common on ATS to be discussed but i don't think anyone has out and out stated their reputation that there is water on Mars



Presently, Mars has neither oxygen nor water in "plentiful supply" even though it may be bound in ice/soil.


ok here im not even going to try and debate with you, you are contradicting yourself.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The formation of the Earths atmosphere did not create Iron. Iron was all ready in solution in the water as well as in the soil of the planet. Just because Mars also has iron, in no way indicates that it is the result of bacteria taking it out of solution in a water rich environment. Iron is a very common element in the universe.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Let me see if I got this right.

For this to work you say that Mars needed water with iron dissolved in it and photosynthetic bacterias.

So, basically, you are saying that life on Mars existed because ... it already existed.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
The formation of the Earths atmosphere did not create Iron. Iron was all ready in solution in the water as well as in the soil of the planet. Just because Mars also has iron, in no way indicates that it is the result of bacteria taking it out of solution in a water rich environment. Iron is a very common element in the universe.


i never stated that the atmosphere created iron, read the posts properly before posting

thank you



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
But you said.

Originally posted by MCKTJ " the creation of iron ore as described in my OP occurs in the presence of o2."


Again, You stated that the creation of Iron ore was due to the atmospheric/biotic process you described in your OP.

Iron is a very abundant element. Iron is the most abundant element on Earth and it is the fourth most common element in the Earths crust. It is believed to be the sixth most common element in the universe. Iron is created in Stars (stellar nucleosynthesis) .

You Stated that primitive life on Earth began to create the O2 atmosphere. You very specifically mentioned that Fe was removed from solution in Earths water as it bound with O2. You Specifically mentioned "Hence the Red Planet, in a reference to Iron on Mars. Like Earth, Mars can have abundant surface iron without any life being present. How does this mean that iron equals life on Mars? Please explain.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Yeah, there's plenty of iron around that doesn't have anything to do with sedimentary rust. Iron meteorites that have supposedly never been exposed to either O2 or life are pretty common. Nice try, but red rust is not evidence of life.

The question of Mars life, yes or no, probably isn't going to be decided until the landing of more sophisticated probes specifically designed to test for such things.

My personal opinion is that Martian life doesn't exist (except the stuff carried by our ships) and probably never did. Why? Because the activity of life seems to have a tendency to make itself really obvious. It changes and spreads and modifies the environment if really obvious ways. And I don't see where that happened on Mars.

I could be wrong, though. Just have to wait and see.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
@Terapin




Originally posted by Terapin But you said. Originally posted by MCKTJ " the creation of iron ore as described in my OP occurs in the presence of o2." Again, You stated that the creation of Iron ore was due to the atmospheric/biotic process you described in your OP.






ok so you have an atmosphere on earth 3.5 billion years ago, that had no oxygen


i never said that atmospheric o2 was caused the creation of Iron ore, what i said was...





this realised o2 into the water but, the iron that was in solution in the water bonded with this o2 and form good old rust. this rust sank formed layers of on the sea bed and over time form bands of iron ore




the o2 was never released into the atmosphere




Evenually this process was able to be overcome cause there was more o2 realised than Fe in solution. hence the o2 atmosphere was born.


ok, NOW you've got atmospheric o2, AFTER the layers of iron ore (fe2O) have been laid down, because there is not enough Fe in the water in solution to bond with all the o2 that the bacterial life has created.



You Stated that primitive life on Earth began to create the O2 atmosphere. You very specifically mentioned that Fe was removed from solution in Earths water as it bound with O2. You Specifically mentioned "Hence the Red Planet, in a reference to Iron on Mars. Like Earth, Mars can have abundant surface iron without any life being present. How does this mean that iron equals life on Mars? Please explain.



i see why you think that i said that but iron fe in solution is different from iron ore Fe2O, which is created in the presence of o2, thats rust or the red color. Im by no means saying that this process defo occured on Mars only that the process COULD be easily replicated due to its basic nature. This process occured on earth, what i am suggesting is that it colud have occured on mars


@Nohup

meteors may contain iron cores but they are not red, what im getting at that the sediments on iron ore on earth where layed down in the process described, meteors are generally of unknown origin, ie a planet blew up space dust etc, so im not arguing that the presence of iron is the genius piece of evidence that would prove that life was on mars, only in the state that it is visably obvserable, Fe2o, is created in the presence of o2, and therefore life is either the source of that o2 or the fact that o2 is present, it may not be atmospheric o2, could sustain the possiblity of life.


[edit on 16-1-2008 by mcktj]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
So you are basically saying that, Rust could mean life. Hmmm... It could also mean a number of other things. If finding rust was all it took, then we would not be having any debate here. However as no scientist has ever proposed utilizing the presence of rust as an indicator of life, or past life, on Mars I feel that your theory needs a little more refinement. What about life that emits methane? There could be hints of that possibility on Mars.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
So you are basically saying that, Rust could mean life. Hmmm... It could also mean a number of other things. If finding rust was all it took, then we would not be having any debate here. However as no scientist has ever proposed utilizing the presence of rust as an indicator of life, or past life, on Mars I feel that your theory needs a little more refinement. What about life that emits methane? There could be hints of that possibility on Mars.


On earth rust meant life, if you read the link that i posted i think it explains it pretty well, methane is a bi product of decomposing bio matter so yes it is a gas associated with life, is it a indicator that life is present, no, of course not. Instead of me restating the same thing over and over agin, read the link, if you have a view on how the "rust" was created then please post it otherwise i think our conversation is pretty much done.

thanks



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Rust does not necessarily mean past life.

We know that Water could once be found on the surface of Mars. It may still be there in some areas. Have you ever considered the implications for the oxidation of the soil from the loss of surface water??? Remember water is two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom.


The evolution of the martian atmosphere with regard to its H2O inventory is influenced by thermal loss processes of H, H2, nonthermal atmospheric loss processes of H+, H2+, O, O+, CO2, and O2+ into space, as well as by chemical weathering of the surface soil....

The loss of H2O from Mars over the last 3.5 Gyr was estimated to be equivalent to a global martian H2O ocean with a depth of about 12 m, which is smaller than the values reported by previous studies. If ion momentum transport, a process studied in detail by Mars Express is significant on Mars, the water loss may be enhanced by a factor of about 2. In our investigation we found that the sum of thermal and nonthermal atmospheric loss rates of H and all nonthermal escape processes of O to space are not compatible with a ratio of 2:1, and is currently close to about 20:1. Escape to space cannot therefore be the only sink for oxygen on Mars. Our results suggest that the missing oxygen (needed for the validation of the 2:1 ratio between H and O) can be explained by the incorporation into the martian surface by chemical weathering processes since the onset of intense oxidation about 2 Gyr ago. Based on the evolution of the atmosphere-surface-interaction on Mars, an overall global surface sink of about 2×1042 oxygen particles in the regolith can be expected. Because of the intense oxidation of inorganic matter, this process may have led to the formation of considerable amounts of sulfates and ferric oxides on Mars. To model this effect we consider several factors: (1) the amount of incorporated oxygen, (2) the inorganic composition of the martian soil and (3) meteoritic gardening. We show that the oxygen incorporation has also implications for the oxidant extinction depth, which is an important parameter to determine required sampling depths on Mars aimed at finding putative organic material. We found that the oxidant extinction depth is expected to lie in a range between 2 and 5 m for global mean values.



There is a good deal of research into the Martian surface, it's chemical nature, and it's formation, that you might wish to consider. All one needs is the former presence of water for there to be rust. No life required.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
the real problem with the idea that the oxygen came from the water, is that it would take a denaturing process to release the o2 from the water, the main process for releasing o2, on earth anyway, is life.

i do like this alternative, but life is easiest way to release o2, only using the earth as an example of course.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Not sure if I follow you, You are saying that the simple chemical process of Ion Momentum transport (the "denaturing process" you questioned) is MORE difficult, than the spontaneous evolution of life? Life is very complicated and not easy at all, or we would be seeing it on every planet. The conditions for life are very specific and complex. Chemical reactions on the other hand, are very simple and well understood. You stated that

life is easiest way to release o2
That is simply incorrect.

As I posted above, the science behind the loss of water on Mars is well researched by numerous scientists from around the globe. The process was studied in detail by the Mars Express mission and can easily be replicated in the lab. We now know that Mars had abundant surface water in it's past. We know that much of it is gone now, with some being frozen on the poles and more perhaps to be found underground. The Vast majority of the water from Mars past, no longer exists. It broke down and drifted off into space, with much of the O from the H2O being incorporated "into the martian surface by chemical weathering processes since the onset of intense oxidation about 2 Gyr ago" That is what made the rust red planet. If there was still abundant surface water on Mars, and thus the Oxygen was still bound to the Hydrogen, then perhaps you could point to the possibility that it was life that created the necessary Oxygen to form the rust. When we know that the water has been broken down into it's base elements, an obvious source for the Oxygen is present and simply can not be ignored.

You propose that it is far more simple to create life, than a simple well understood chemical process. Perhaps you should take another look at the data, and study the chemical process involved in both the creation of life, and in ion momentum transport. Then come back and tell me which is simple, and which is highly complex. As far as I know, only one can be easily done in the lab, the other they have been trying for centuries without luck.

New theories are great, but they have to be based on solid science and background research.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Here is a link to information about Mars, which discusses a good deal of scientific data about the Martian atmosphere as well as it's past and present water. If you are not good at math and science it may be a bit much, but it is still worth looking at.
Water on Mars and Life

This is only an excerpt from a great book, but there should be enough material there to point you in the right direction.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
i think you again have miss quoted me, i did not say life is less complex than the processes you pointed out, i did however point to the fact that if life was to exsist on mars then it would be the easiest way to release o2 from the water, im again not saying that this is how the "rust" WAS formed and the information and links you provided do support other theories, they may well be established theories but theories none the less, i really don't care if my theory has any weight, and im not arguing that the process i described happened on mars, but it DID happen on earth, and im sure that the processes you describe also happen on earth, so both theories sit at level pegging in my book, there is more than one way to skin a cat metaphorically speaking, thank you for your informative info.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by mcktj]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mcktj
 


I guess you misunderstand the material I pointed you to. The scientific data is quite thorough. Earth never experienced the ion momentum transport in the manner that Mars did, as you surmised, since we have a powerful magnetosphere, a dense atmosphere, and abundant surface water. This is not the case on Mars. Mars no longer has abundant surface water as it was broken down into it's base elements of Hydrogen and Oxygen a long time ago. As you well know, oxygen is highly reactive. The oxygen reacted with the surface of Mars and the result is quite evident. You can even see it with the naked eye from Earth. The Red Planet. This is not just a theory and the process is well understood.

A good deal of data has been collected from a number of space missions to the red planet, and that data has been looked at by numerous scientists from around the globe. I worked on a project related to both the Pathfinder and current Rover missions and follow the new data quite actively. We are learning a great deal about Mars, its history and formation. Mars is not Earth and the conditions are quite different. We still hold out hope for finding evidence for life on Mars or in its past. To state that the Oxygen released when Mars lost it's water did not react with the surface, and the oxidation could ONLY be the result of life, is blatantly ignoring the evidence.

I urge you to do more research and discover the solid data that exists. It tells us a great deal about our nearest neighbor. As I stated earlier, new theories are great, but they must be backed up with solid data, as well as a good understanding of science, and they can not ignore the things we all ready know.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


Just a little nitpicking:

Mars is not our nearest neighbour, that place is occupied by Venus.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
reply to post by mcktj
 


...and the oxidation could ONLY be the result of life, is blatantly ignoring the evidence.......

....but they must be backed up with solid data, as well as a good understanding of science, and they can not ignore the things we all ready know.



ok again i did not say that oxidation is the result of life, what you keep missing is the fact that i am using the earth ACTUAL past. Im not saying that this happened on mars, so i don't think i really need to back anything up, what i am stating IS conjecture.

Im not igroning anything as im looking at the info you are talking about because it is not relevant to my point, which i will state again and for the last time... "this process occured on earth...could it have happened on mars" you say"No" i say "maybe".....FIN



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Earth is not Mars. What happened on Earth did not happen in the manner that you suggest on Mars. The Oxidation of the surface of Mars happened in a time when Mars was loosing water as it broke down into its base elements about 2 Gyr. ago. The Hydrogen bleeding off into space and much of the Oxygen reacting with the soil. The data we have supports this, and the methods are well researched. It created the soil chemistry that we see today, and the data gathered fits with that scenario. If the oxidation of the surface of Mars was from an oxygen atmosphere created by life, prior to Mars loosing it's water, then the soil chemistry would be different from what we find.

There is a great deal of information available on this subject if you care to look at it. Prior to the current rover missions, and the orbiter missions, a good deal of study was conducted on both the atmosphere, and surface of Mars, in order to determine what the missions should attempt to analyze. Since the Mars missions began, a great deal of data has been collected and studied by scientists around the globe to see how things fit together. Ion momentum transport was specifically looked at in the Mars Express mission for just this reason. The Viking landers used X-ray flourescence spectroscopy for a different set of data. The Viking biology experiments showed that the martian soil was not only oxidized, but also strongly oxidizing. The Pathfinder mission, had the Sojourner rover, that was outfitted with the Alpha Proton X-Ray Spectrometer which gave us a further look at the surface chemistry. Spirit and Opportunity, the current Rover missions, use the Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini TES) in conjunction with a rock abrasion tool (RAT). Spectral analysis of the surface by all the Rovers has given us details about the chemical makeup of the Martian soil. It has been welll established through proven instrumentation, that even today, the soil chemistry of Mars is highly oxidizing. With all this data combined, we have a great understanding of how the soil formed. The presence of Ovaline indicated that liquid water did not play a dominant role in the formation of oxydized surface dusts. The Martian surface chemical weathering process, since the onset of intense oxidation about 2 Gyr ago, led to the formation of considerable amounts of sulfates and ferric oxides. These measured levels and ratios, fit with the description of a planet that lost it's water as it broke down into its base elements.



Armap, you are correct as always. I should have stated perhaps, that Mars was our closest neighbor in terms of environment, and not distance. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Muito Obrigado amigo!

[edit on 21/1/08 by Terapin]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join