Electricity Found on Saturn Moon--Could It Spark Life?

Recently identified electrical activity on Saturn's largest moon bolsters arguments that Titan is the kind of place that could harbor life.

At a brisk -350 degrees Fahrenheit (-180 Celsius), Titan is currently much too cold to host anything close to life as we know it, scientists say.

But a new study reports faint signs of a natural electric field in Titan's thick cloud cover that are similar to the energy radiated by lightning on Earth.

Lightning is thought to have sparked the chemical reactions that led to the origin of life on our planet.

SOURCE

The article goes on to say that Titan contains all the necessary building blocks scientists currently believe lead to life developing on Earth; hydrocarbons, lightning, and water. While the water is frozen, certain conditions could melt the water. However, Titan has no stable protection from radiation, having no magnetic field.

Im sorry but theres no proof of this. Whats that quote you like to use? Something to do with proof. I dont see a NatGeo article proving anything.

Some people come up with some really fantastic stuff. Its like a sci fi movie.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Originally posted by silver6ix
Im sorry but theres no proof of this. Whats that quote you like to use? Something to do with proof. I dont see a NatGeo article proving anything.

Some people come up with some really fantastic stuff. Its like a sci fi movie.

If you have any sincere comments or thoughts about the article, please tell us.

Otherwise, do not take swipes at me. I have asked you before, discuss the topic at hand, not me.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Im sorry, im not discussing you, im discussing the topic. I find it fantastic and science fiction based. Dont believe a word of that to be fair, it would require some real proof in order to be believeable.

Its a nice mainstream story though but lacks any credibility.

Instead of dismissing the article out of hand, perhaps you could tell us exactly why you do not believe it has any credibility.

Is there something wrong with the study?

Is Juan Morente not a credible scientist?

Do you not believe the events happened that allowed the detection of the electricity?

What is it?

[edit on 31-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Hey SC,
Interesting Article!

IMHO...
The solar system would require some drastic changes before a moon such as Titan could even be remotely possible of supporting life. To my knowledge, all life including extremophiles require water in it's liquid form, at least to a minute degree to survive, perpetuate & evolve.

I guess Titan could achieve this through a major increase in volcanism. Otherwise it will be waiting far too long for the solar changes required to heat the planet up to a viable state... like millions of years!

S&F!

IRM

[edit on 31/10/08 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Im not for accepting blindly whats written in the media. As for "credible" well who defines "credible"? Is he credible because he says what people want him to say? Because he wears a blue tie on mondays?

You would need to be clear on what makes him credible, I just see a guys name in a media article. Can I even be sure he said it? Dont the media lie?

Im confused, you dont normally ask these sorts of questions, savior? Normally you ask for "credible" people and proof, so isnt it correct that I do the same or does that only apply to certain issues?

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I guess Titan could achieve this through a major increase in volcanism. Otherwise it will be waiting far too long for the solar changes required to heat the planet up to a viable state... like millions of years!

The article does say there could be some factors that cause the ice to melt. What about tidal heating?

Originally posted by silver6ix
Im not for accepting blindly whats written in the media. As for "credible" well who defines "credible"? Is he credible because he says what people want him to say? Because he wears a blue tie on mondays?

You would need to be clear on what makes him credible, I just see a guys name in a media article. Can I even be sure he said it? Dont the media lie?

Im confused, you dont normally ask these sorts of questions, savior? Normally you ask for "credible" people and proof, so isnt it correct that I do the same or does that only apply to certain issues?

This demonstrates that you lied beforehand. You claim that the article is not credible and science fiction. When I asked why, you could not answer the question. Instead, you made it about me.

Again, I ask if you have any sincere comments or thoughts, please tell us. Do not make this about me.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
This demonstrates that you lied beforehand. You claim that the article is not credible and science fiction. When I asked why, you could not answer the question. Instead, you made it about me.

Again, I ask if you have any sincere comments or thoughts, please tell us. Do not make this about me.

Im not saying its about you, as I said before. Im simply asking a question as you seem to be dictating the rules, I thought I would clarify the disparity in them from the usual rules.

Obviously thats about the subject and its dicussion, I dont see the issue savior?

I did answer, what is credibility? Why should this scientist be credible?

Also why should I believe that article that he even said it at all. Theres absolutely no proof what so ever.

I could easily show you a link of a specialist of equal calibre saying, I dont know, lets say extra terrestrial life. Does that make it credible and true, I believe you iformed me that it doesnt right?

So im not sure what you are asking here. I dont believe it, I think its science fiction as theres no proof that its real.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by silver6ix]

A friendly reminder...

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Let's show a little civility and decorum, please. No more sniping and petty personal attacks will be tolerated from this point forth.

If in doubt, address the issue and not fellow members.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Yeah, I was going to mention gravitational effects from Saturn but it left me wondering why it hasn't happened already... at least to a scale that we can readily identify.

Again, I believe there would have to be a major change in the relationship between the planet and the moon. Who knows, there may be stuff under the ice now that exists around thermal vents - but that's just speculation at this point.

IRM

Originally posted by silver6ix
I did answer, what is credibility? Why should this scientist be credible?

No. You did not answer. You said you did not find them credible. I asked why, and you did not answer. All you did was engage in pointless babble about what makes someone credible.

As you are the one saying it is not credible, the onus is on you to demonstrate why it is not credible.

Originally posted by silver6ix
I could easily show you a link of a specialist of equal calibre saying, I dont know, lets say extra terrestrial life.

What about extraterrestrial life? Do you even know what the article is about or even bother to read it?

Originally posted by silver6ix
Does that make it credible and true, I believe you iformed me that it doesnt right?

Once again, you are making this about me. If you have a problem with the article, do not find it credible, tell us why exactly? Do not make this about me.

However, the rare times I question someone's credibility, I do not do it out of hand or without explanation. I demonstrate why I do not find someone credible. I do not call someone's credibility into question simply because I do not like the person who started the thread. Nor do I do it to derail a thread, as you are attempting to do.

Originally posted by silver6ix
I dont believe it, I think its science fiction as theres no proof that its real.

Could you tell us why exactly you believe it to be science fiction, or that these people are lying.

On topic.

I dont believe the article because I dont trust the source, I dont see the writer as credible and the facts presented are incredible, therefore to take it seriously as fact id require proof of fact.

You do realize that anyone can write anything, gleaning information from various sources, then claim anything they want about it.

Tomorrow, I could write a paper based on various claims and myths about UFOs...and it wouldn't make a lick of it true. But I guarantee people would believe it's true, just because it "corresponds."

[edit on 31-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Originally posted by silver6ix
On topic.

I dont believe the article because I dont trust the source, I dont see the writer as credible and the facts presented are incredible, therefore to take it seriously as fact id require proof of fact.

Why do you not trust the source? Why do you not find the writer credible? Why do you think the facts presented are not worthy of being taken seriously?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by silver6ix
On topic.

I dont believe the article because I dont trust the source, I dont see the writer as credible and the facts presented are incredible, therefore to take it seriously as fact id require proof of fact.

Why do you not trust the source? Why do you not find the writer credible? Why do you think the facts presented are not worthy of being taken seriously?

The National Geographic is a science propaganda magazine, like most mainstream publications its restricted by commerce and industrial pressures.

With the publication of “Feathers for T. rex?” by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.

National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological 'filter' before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories.

The ideology in question in National Geographic is a blend of philosophical naturalism and the current brand of evolutionism, known as Neo-Darwinism. In the name of defending that theory, it generally presents prejudiced views of discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For example, there was the falsehood of the Archaeoraptor fossil, which was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been 'hand made.'

The scientist works on data which comes from the ESA sat launched in partnership with NASA. NASA are not a credible source of anything.

So given that I cant trust the publication or the data source, I dont think the scientist is independant in anyway and therefore his work to me is questionable. I would nee further proof from independant science not associated with deceptive secret service dominated institutions. They lie, alot.



[edit on 31-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Could you please source those quotes about National Geographic? They seem to have come from a 1999 letter about about archeaoraptor which circulated on creationist websites. And while accusing National Geographic of having an ideological bias, you neglect to mention that accusation comes from those same creationist websites, angered that a science magazine embraces evolution.

And rather than hide from the archeaoraptor issue, National Geographic has discussed it, such as here and here. Also...

On February 3, 2000, National Geographic issued a press release stating that the fossil could be a composite, and that an internal investigation had begun. In that same month Bill Allen, National Geographic editor, told Nature that he was "furious" to learn that the fossil might have been faked. In the March issue, in the forum section, a letter from Dr. Xu Xing pointed out that the tail section probably did not match the upper body. In October of 2000 National Geographic published the results of their investigation, in an article written by investigative journalist Lewis M. Simmons. They concluded that the fossil was a composite and that virtually everyone involved in the project had made some mistakes

Here is the National Geographic article on their investigation.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Could you please source those quotes about National Geographic? They seem to have come from a 1999 letter about about archeaoraptor which circulated on creationist websites. And while accusing National Geographic of having an ideological bias, you neglect to mention that accusation comes from those same creationist websites, angered that a science magazine embraces evolution.

And rather than hide from the archeaoraptor issue, National Geographic has discussed it, such as here and here.

Yes, NatGeo lied again, its what they do. They are a propaganda mag and always have been. Tabloid Science, they will print whatever they are told to print and in between they sensationalise.

Both quotes were from different sources, the first was from the Curator of the National Museum in Washington, credible enough and the second was from an environmental website.

Google National Geographic and add, lies, propaganda or trash, and theres a whole stack of information on probably the most worthless science tabloid in existence.

Originally posted by silver6ix
Both quotes were from different sources, the first was from the Curator of the National Museum in Washington, credible enough

Yes, I know what it is. However, creationist groups have twisted the entent of the letter, using it as evidence of the beliefs.

Originally posted by silver6ix
and the second was from an environmental website.

Could you source it, please?

Originally posted by silver6ix
Google National Geographic and add, lies, propaganda or trash, and theres a whole stack of information on probably the most worthless science tabloid in existence...

I did...and my search results turned up 9/11 "truther" sites and creationist websites. And even then you had to dig pretty deep to find them.

Let's see. So far, Carl Sagan is the worst scientist ever and National Geographic is the worst science magazine. Any one else think that in Silver's world, the only person who knows anything is himself, and everyone else is an idiot?

[edit on 31-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I seemed to find it very easily so im not sure why you found 9/11 sites

www.earthworksaction.org...

In the end, I didnt need google to tell me what I already knew. All mainstream media has an agenda, they have an ideological position, corporately compromised positions and this is very well established. You will encounter University curriculum covering Journalism or Media.

Its a propaganda rag, not a reputable source.