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.

 

Life on Mars

page: 8
46
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I would imagine if methane is stored in a porous rock formation systematic expansion or contraction of said rocks might be enough to release the gas into the atmosphere.


Perhaps Mars should sign up to the methane cap and trade agreement.

I'm serial!




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


Sorry ziggy. Missed your much more helpful reply while I was typing mine.

[Manbearpig wrote this second line.]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 

Yes, and you know what they say.. Where there is water there is life.

Combined with the earlier discovery(last year I think) of underground rivers on Mars. I'm personally convinced that there IS biological life forms on Mars; be it microbial or otherwise. If NASA want to be this conservative, then why all the fuss made with announcements and what not? And btw, this is like 4 year old information..shouldn't they have figured out the cause of the methane by now?

When people like John Lear say that NASA are hiding something or outright lying to us, I have to say..I'm inclined to believe such; far more than the contrary.

Maj


[edit on 15/1/09 by Majorion]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 

Vulcanism is not the only means of geologic production of methane.

While there is no evidence of active hydrothermal or volcanic activity on Mars' surface it is assumed that there is internal heat. Radiological decay and tidal forces both contribute to heating within a planet. The gullies that may be formed by liquid water may be caused by subsurface ice being melted by geothermal effects. It has been found that under high pressure and temperature conditions it is possible that methane can be formed.

It is also possible that methane formed long ago was trapped in hydrates may be being released. Early vulcanism or even cometary impact (as well as life) could have provided that methane.

Hydrogen released by subsurface radioactivity could combine with CO2 and produce methane.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Nirgal
 


Never say sorry for making a good post! They are always welcome.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
If only there was an emoticon that showed a face with one fist raised in abject frustration. I've been waiting for this all day. "Life on Mars Confirmed!" ran the headlines of tomorrows news. I could picture the 'motivational poster' captions that would go viral. Dumb t-shirts and coffee mugs. You Tube BS vids. TV producers racing to sensationalize and attract huge commercial revenue with breaking news. Millions of children given the spark of wonder. The sci-fi genre given a good kick up the ass...

Instead, it's more like the chat-up line from an awkward teenager at a school party. It says so little and implies much more.


Andrew Coates, from the Mullard Space Science Laboratory in Surrey, UK, said: "The observation of short-lived, seasonally varying clouds of methane from specific regions on Mars is a tantalising result. It shows there must be an underground source, past or present." Dr Coates, who is not involved with the latest research, added: "Seasonal effects may open up fissures to allow increased escape into the atmosphere. But this could be a sign of either geology or biology. "Both are exciting; we will not be sure which it is until we can analyse the methane in-situ at the surface." Nasa's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover, due to launch to the Red Planet in 2011, will carry instruments that have the potential to distinguish between carbon in gases produced by biological activity and those with a geochemical origin.


I'm buying it. I think we have 'indicative evidence' of life on Mars. It needs another mission. Have NASA ever been accused of being a tease?! They say 2011 for launch
It's like the cruelest, most unusual extended foreplay



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60

I guess the only quite certain thing is that there must be liquid water on Mars, at least under ground. It seems liquid water is necessary for both geological and biological production of methane, if I have understood this right.


For this geological model liquid water is necessary. But there is at least one other model for which it is not required.


A radiolytic source of hydrogen (H2), when biologically or abiologically reacted with dissolved CO2 in pore water, could form subsurface methane and explain the presence of trace amounts of this gas on Mars today. Radiolytic hydrogen forms when radiation from the decay of naturally occurring radioactive elements strikes water molecules, turning them into hydrogen and oxygen.

www.spaceref.com...

I'm not sure if "pore water" is necessarily liquid.

In the conference the only thing that was categorically ruled out was vulcanism. Biological and geological sources carry equal weight and probably will until some other data turns up. Short of somehow getting several meters or more below the surface, isotopic analysis would help provide some definitive answers.

This makes me wonder about the timing for this conference. The data presented is at least a few years old. This could be a bid to increase the scope of the Mars Science Laboratory. Sounds good to me!

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The way I took the article by NASA was that there are signs of life. Be them geological or biological. Now, the question lies as to why they are being measured NOW when we have no EVIDENCE of geological function. No quakes, no volcanoes.

Phage, even if the methane was pent up in "cages" as they say, wouldn't you expect quakes be necessary in order to release them? If they were simply seeping out this entire time, why would they measure in amounts comparable to our modern coal industry plants over certain areas only? (without any evidence of quakes, or volcanic activity to jar it loose) I mean, if it were a common occurence, surely it wouldn't be even as recent a discovery as 2003, as obviously we have been searching for things such as methane since we first went there.

Leave it to NASA to provide itself a way out if their funding is met. They are still trying to keep this thing under cover. I think Obama should press on and promise to cut the program... Then they'll be forced to release more.

I still think this is good news. Ground breaking. Mars IS IN FACT ALIVE. And they have NO EVIDENCE to suggest that it is anything other than biological in nature!


However, depends on whether or not the MSM and Obama trump up this issue and decide to start another "space race"... If they do, NASA is going to shut its lid on this and we'll see another prolonged period of silence, as NASA keeps what budget they have left.
Cut NASA from the federal budget. Close them down and they will give you every reason in the world not to. In this case, every reason in the world next to ours.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


There is water-ice around the poles, no?

Okay, is the internal temperature of the planet sufficient enough to melt water-ice?

Okay, is the crust of the planet porous, like Earth's?

If these conditions are met, as I'm sure they are, there is undoubtedly liquid water below the surface. Which is also why you don't see NASA talking of alternatives. The prerequisites, as we know them, for life are, in fact, met on Mars.

I love reading your posts, but you say nay to the end.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
In my opinion, this pretty much confirms the, what was it, 1976 (probably not, as I'm going off of dead recognition here and don't wish to look it up) discovery of microbes in martian rock... First they said yes, then they said no. Then they just remained silent on it and let people like Phage cover it up.

What we have here is an admission that the Planet is alive. Call back in the evidence of the fossilized microbes. Cut and dry. Life on Mars. Period. At least in my book. Of course, we are still up in the air on the "official" word.

But I trust "officials" as much as I trust I can literally KICK THEM to Mars.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Phage
 


There is water-ice around the poles, no?

Okay, is the internal temperature of the planet sufficient enough to melt water-ice?

Okay, is the crust of the planet porous, like Earth's?

If these conditions are met, as I'm sure they are, there is undoubtedly liquid water below the surface. Which is also why you don't see NASA talking of alternatives. The prerequisites, as we know them, for life are, in fact, met on Mars.

I love reading your posts, but you say nay to the end.


I'm not nay saying, I'm presenting possibilities. It's what I do.

I agree that subsurface liquid water is practically certain. It has not been verified but it is most probably there. It may only exist periodically though. If it really is there on a long term basis the possibility of life becomes much more viable. But we don't have firm evidence. The prerequisites may be there but we don't know if that means life must exist if the conditions are right.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

This makes me wonder about the timing for this conference. The data presented is at least a few years old. This could be a bid to increase the scope of the Mars Science Laboratory. Sounds good to me!

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Phage]


You are very right, Phage, the data is not excactly brand new. From SPACE.com in April 2005:


Evidence for intense local enhancements in methane on Mars has been bolstered by ground-based observations. The methane, as well as water on Mars, was detected using state-of-the-art infrared spectrometers stationed atop Mauna Kea, Hawaii and in Cerro Pachón, Chile.

Scientific teams around the globe are on the trail of methane seeping out of Mars. And for good reason: The methane could be the result of biological processes. It could also be an "abiotic" geochemical process, however, or the result of volcanic or hydrothermal activity on the red planet.

Many types of microbes here on Earth produce a signature of methane. Indeed, the tiny fraction of atmospheric carbon found as methane on our planet is churned out almost entirely biologically with only a very small contribution from abiotic processes, scientists say.

www.space.com...

Article from September 2004:

In March, scientists announced the European Space Agency's Mars Express probe had found persistent traces of methane in the atmosphere of Mars. Methane can be produced in volcanic eruptions, but since there's no apparent volcanic activity on Mars, the methane was taken by some scientists to be a tantalizing sign of possible microbial activity.

The new lab work clouds that view, revealing that atmospheric methane may not be the useful "biomarker" some scientists had hoped for in the search for life at Mars or beyond our solar system.

"It reaffirms that the presence of methane on other planets -- such as the recent findings on methane in the Martian atmosphere -- is not necessarily indicative of life," said University of Toronto geologist and chemist Barbara Sherwood Lollar, who was not involved in either study.

The lab research is also a reminder that ET could be very hard to find, thriving inside a planet rather than on the surface. Chemically produced methane far underground could act as fuel "which deep subsurface microbial communities may access for energy and growth," Sherwood Lollar said in an e-mail interview.

www.space.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What about my call to REcall the evidence of potentially fossilized microbes in the martian rock?

This is cut and dry, imo.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
In my opinion, this pretty much confirms the, what was it, 1976 (probably not, as I'm going off of dead recognition here and don't wish to look it up) discovery of microbes in martian rock... First they said yes, then they said no.


There were indeed some interesting discoveries made in 1976 by the Viking Landers. This is from a paper called "Analysis of evidence of Mars life" by Gilbert V. Levin, Ph.D:


The Viking landers carried nine courses of the Labeled Release experiment (LR) designed to detect any metabolizing microorganisms that
might be present on the martian surface. The LR was designed to drop a
nutrient solution of organic compounds labeled with radioactive carbon
atoms into a soil sample taken from the surface of Mars and placed into a
small test cell. A radiation detector then monitored over time for the evolution of radioactive gas from the sample as evidence of metabolism: namely, if microorganisms were metabolizing the nutrients they had been
given. When the experiment was conducted on both Viking landers, it gave
positive results almost immediately. The protocol called for a control in
the event of a positive response. Accordingly, duplicate soil samples were
inserted into fresh cells, heated for three hours at 160 ºC to sterilize them
(the control procedure established for all Viking biology experiments),
allowed to cool and then tested. These courses produced virtually no response, thus completing the pre-mission criteria for the detection of microbial life. All LR results support, or are consistent with, the presence of
living microorganisms. Yet between 1976 and late 2006 life on Mars remained a subject of debate.

mars.spherix.com...

By the way, the first extraterrestrial living form ever nomenclated is named Gillevinia straata:


The claim for life on Mars, in the form of Gillevinia straata, is grounded on old data reinterpreted as sufficient evidence of life, mainly by professors Gilbert Levin, Rafael Navarro-González and Ronalds Paepe.

The evidence supporting the existence of Gillevinia straata microorganisms relies on the data collected by the two Mars Viking landers that searched for biosignatures of life, but the analytical results were, officially, inconclusive.

In 2006, Mario Crocco, a neurobiologist at the Neuropsychiatric Hospital Borda in Buenos Aires, Argentina, proposed the creation of a new nomenclatural rank that classified these responses as 'metabolic' and therefore belonging to a form of life. Crocco proposed to create new biological ranking categories (taxa), in the new kingdom system of life, in order to be able to accommodate the genus of Martian microorganisms. Crocco proposed the following taxonomical entry:

Organic life system: Solaria
Biosphere: Marciana
kingdom: Jakobia (named after neurobiologist Christfried Jakob)
Genus et species: Gillevinia straata

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The indications of fossilized bacteria found in the Martian meteorite weren't discounted or dismissed. They were simply inconclusive. It couldn't be definitively shown that they originated outside of Earth. Fair enough, it can't be conclusive if there's any doubt.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Interesting. When I first saw that this was from the sun I was thinking "oh theres a trusted news source
" But after a bit of research there odes seem to be truth to the story.

Here is a link to cnn's coverage on it


CNN article

Here too is a link to Nasa's website where the have an article about it.

Nasa article

This is very interesting. It sure seems like Nasa is slowly preparing to tell us what they have known for quite some time. Really I guess I should say What I BElIEVE they have known....

EIther way this is very interesting and I cant wait to hear more....



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 



Cut and dried to you perhaps, and a few scientists. But not so to others. The evidence presented by the meteorite (ALH84001) just doesn't hold up and it wasn't for a lack of hoping it would.

The organic molecules which were found are found in asteroids and comets. They are also found in Antarctica, where the meteorite had been sitting for more than 10,000 years. It is possible that these materials came from Earth.

It has been shown that magnitite grains can form within clumps of carbonate without the aid of biological processes.

The "fossil" shapes resemble some terrestrial bacteria but such shapes can also be created by non biological processes.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That is fair enough. (Dang, what a memory, 1976 WAS the correct year)

Yes, the samples were inconclusive. However, the recent admission by NASA does shed a new light on the subject. Remember, in 76 we didn't KNOW that the prerequisites for life, as we know it, existed on the planet.

Now we do.

I think it is time to reconsider the samples. Which is really all I'm saying. I hope you can think objectively and logically enough to see where I'm coming from. Afterall, as you say, you and a few scientists.
In light of today's announcement, I'm almost certain you can tally a few more on my side.

Phage, you also didn't answer my question that I asked you in my first posting in this thread. Care to?
Namely THIS question: Phage, even if the methane was pent up in "cages" as they say, wouldn't you expect quakes be necessary in order to release them? If they were simply seeping out this entire time, why would they measure in amounts comparable to our modern coal industry plants over certain areas only? (without any evidence of quakes, or volcanic activity to jar it loose) I mean, if it were a common occurence, surely it wouldn't be even as recent a discovery as 2003, as obviously we have been searching for things such as methane since we first went there.



[edit on 15-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Well, people, Bush is making his "farewell" address to the USA tonight (01/15/09) at 7PM eastern time...totally unfounded speculation on my part, but I wonder if NASA is holding out on us so that W can make the announcement?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ezziboo
 


NASA isn't waiting for anything in regards to George Bush. Their recent admission is nothing but an appeal to Obama to NOT CUT THEIR FUNDING.

If we are serious about disclosure, and Obama is also (which I think he may be) this is a good way to go about it.
Remove NASA from the federal budget and they will have no choice to plea for their existence the best way they know how... Spill the beans.

Funny thing to all of us, in this case, our interests (those of us that would like to know about this stuff
at phage) would lie in the way of Obama REMOVING NASA from our payrolls.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join