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.

 

NASA Admits Habitable Mars?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown
 


It has always been maintained Mars was most likely "habitable" for a brief period billions of years ago. It was likely very brief, and life forming is certainly questionable because of that.




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by Argyll
 

I quoted Wiki on the definition of the term Habitat, from which adjective Habitable is derived

A habitat is an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by a particular species of animal, plant, or other type of organism. It is the natural environment in which an organism lives, or the physical environment that surrounds a species population.
Wiki

So, when I say habitable I mean life included.



Just because a planet was or is habitable doesn't mean that it is/was habitated (sp)

IMO if planet was/is habitable it was/is life there.


Your definition of habitable is wrong.

hab·it·a·ble/ˈhæbɪtəbəl/ Show Spelled [hab-i-tuh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
capable of being inhabited.

ABLE to be habitated ... there is no assumption of life with habitable.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




ABLE to be habitated ... there is no assumption of life with habitable.


Tricks with words, eh, magician?

For the Occam Razor (the real Occam Razor Law and not OccamsRazor n.04)
this means Mars has supported life.

Oh, and even very intelligent life...



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





It has always been maintained Mars was most likely "habitable" for a brief period billions of years ago. It was likely very brief, and life forming is certainly questionable because of that.


Please explain, in years, your... "Brief Period"... and how you assume that.
Thx.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Arken
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




ABLE to be habitated ... there is no assumption of life with habitable.


Tricks with words, eh, magician?

For the Occam Razor (the real Occam Razor Law and not OccamsRazor n.04)
this means Mars has supported life.

Oh, and even very intelligent life...




No, it doesn't.Take a nutrient rich broth that would be great for bacteria to grow in. Seal it. Kill any and all life inside it. It's habitable. No life will ever grow inside it.

Habitable means it is capable (able) of supporting life. It has absolutely no insinuation life is or ever was there. That's what the word means, it's not my fault if people don't understand what words mean.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Arken
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





It has always been maintained Mars was most likely "habitable" for a brief period billions of years ago. It was likely very brief, and life forming is certainly questionable because of that.


Please explain, in years, your... "Brief Period"... and how you assume that.
Thx.

How about you search for what "mainstream" scientists have said and post your results.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


magician....



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I think we've all seen the photos indicating subterranean areas and perhaps a cavern system. That could even run many levels deep. It's an alien world with some real mysteries in geology alone. It could run miles deep, if such a complex of natural caves and caverns exists beyond the openings glimpsed thus far.

Now, imagine, if you're a mile down in a complex cave system on Earth that may be a relatively closed system for lack of circulation ..how long might conditions remain markedly different level upon twisting level down from some small opening topside?

There is much about that planet we cannot even guess yet. I think all we've actually confirmed thus far is that nothing has really been ruled out. No obvious factors like a radically acidic air or soil content can say life couldn't have been or ..perhaps still isn't realistic on some level. Who are we to say when we've only seen small patches of the surface and then, 2nd hand by the narrow field of camera lenses?

So much to explore and so much yet to discover I think.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





So much to explore and so much yet to discover I think.


And may be so much to hide.
That's the way.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Arken
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


magician....


My wordsmithing skills are pretty magical



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Very true, nothing can be ruled out. It just does not appear very likely. Only one way to find out .. wish I could go there myself to check



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Arken
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


magician....


My wordsmithing skills are pretty magical


Exactly. Only with words' tricks, but not with logic.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Arken

OccamsRazor04

Arken
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


magician....


My wordsmithing skills are pretty magical


Exactly. Only with words' tricks, but not with logic.

I really do not want to keep repeating myself.

Habitable has a specific meaning. It in no way infers a place has, or ever had life. That's what the word means.

If it was a place that HAS life the form would change and the word would become habitated.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

NASA previously stated that Mars 'could have been habitable'...
Now they're saying that Mars 'was habitable'...

There is obviously difference in those two statements.
First one is telling about the possibility, the second with certainty.

According to you, there is no difference and these statements are of the same meaning.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

NASA previously stated that Mars 'could have been habitable'...
Now they're saying that Mars 'was habitable'...

There is obviously difference in those two statements.
First one is telling about the possibility, the second with certainty.

According to you, there is no difference and these statements are of the same meaning.

No. I did not say that. People are claiming habitable means life DID and or DOES exist on Mars.

I am clarifying habitable in no way infers life DID exist, only that Mars had conditions that would have allowed life to survive.

There is absolutely NO inference on whether life ever existed on Mars. Does that make sense?

ETA: NASA .. 1999 ... I see no change in their stance.

After Earth, Mars is the planet with the most hospitable climate in the solar system. So hospitable that it may once have harbored primitive, bacteria-like life. Outflow channels and other geologic features provide ample evidence that billions of years ago liquid water flowed on the surface of Mars. Although liquid water may still exist deep below the surface of Mars, currently the temperature is too low and the atmosphere too thin for liquid water to exist at the surface.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
edit on 18-2-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

If we are looking for 'life as we know it' on Mars, that is similar what's found on Earth...
Whenever I say, here on Earth, that one area is habitable, it means with 100% certainty that there's LIFE there in some form.
We don't look for life as we don't know it!



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

If we are looking for 'life as we know it' on Mars, that is similar what's found on Earth...
Whenever I say, here on Earth, that one area is habitable, it means with 100% certainty that there's LIFE there in some form.
We don't look for life as we don't know it!

100% false. When you say habitable it usually means life is NOT known to be there. When life IS known to be there the correct word form is habitated..

If life is KNOWN to be somewhere, it would never be checked to see if it's habitable, it being habitated proves it's habitable.

Is English your 2nd language? That might explain your difficulty.

When the word habitable is used, the inference is that life is NOT known to be there. On Earth, once a place is deemed habitable (not checked to determine habitability) then the assumption is it's habitated, as on Earth life is found everywhere that life can survive. That only applies to Earth, and only applies to Earth at SOME points in Earth's history.

There was a time period where Earth WAS habitable, and was NOT habitated. At the same time Mars was habitable ...
edit on 18-2-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   
This thread brought back memories of Quatermass and the Pit.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


I'm a fan of British TV.

Just finished Dr. Who, Torchwood, and watching Primeval now.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

If we are looking for 'life as we know it' on Mars, that is similar what's found on Earth...
Whenever I say, here on Earth, that one area is habitable, it means with 100% certainty that there's LIFE there in some form.
We don't look for life as we don't know it!


Scientist in the past have tried to create life using liquid water, organic compounds and heat.....and failed. Even though the controlled experiment where they had the stuff for life, and made sure that the container it should show up in was "habitable" as far as life that we know of.....life failed to appear.

So no: just because a place may be "habitable" does not mean that it is actually "inhabited" by life as we know it.

And yes: we are looking for "life as we know it"......simply because we have absolutely no understanding of how life might be different. We can imagine, but it's very hard to look for and find something that you do not even know what it is.

It's like if I tell you to go find something. But I do not tell you what that something is. How are you going to look for it if you do not even know where to begin?

However, if I tell you "it's round, moves on it's own, and procreates" now you have something to go on. That is why they are looking for life as we know it. Simply because if it is life like we have here on Earth, then it meets the very definition of life as we know it, and can be verified.

NASA and scientists around the world have said that Mars theoretically may have been a hospitable place billions of years ago (there you go, that word, and it simply means "conditions that are right or favorable"). The rovers are there to show that as fact (hard to study geology of the past using only telescopes here on Earth or in orbit about Mars). So you go from having theories.....to fact.

That's how the scientific method is done.

A house can be "habitable", meaning it's done being built and is ready for someone to move in. However, until someone moves in....it is "uninhabited". Once people move in, it is now "inhabited".



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join