Jet Propulsion Laboratory Honored By Scientific American

"pol haut" wrote in message ...
dont plonk! The Good Times are here - he proclaimed it. The
Second Coming .... or Going? Im always intersted when someone
says the Glory Days have arrived, so dont go plonk!. Join the
celebration. Get On Board. Come on in for the "big win". The
unification of Science and Religion are just at hand.

plonk

Fat chance!

Joann Evans wrote:

jonathan wrote:

I think the rovers will be remembered as the
greatest space mission of all time. Even Apollo 11
or Voyager pales in comparison to the effects
finding life elsewhere will have on religion, science
and philosophy. This is perhaps the greatest
turning-point in all of human history.

This discovery will bring a new appreciation of
the universal strength of evolution...creation...and
allow science and religion, at last, to converge.
Which will bring an end to the eternal conflict that
is the source of most human misery and
ignorance.

And we get to watch!

Jonathan



Come, now. I don't want to understate their importance, but don't
hype yourself beyond credibility...

They're probes that are giving us a lot of good and useful data, not
the Second Coming(tm).

I suggest he read a dissertation by the famous Martiologist Ray
Bradbury, entitled 'The Man'. He'd come closer to the Second Coming from
the Stars, than by reading JPL and NASA news reports.

Eric Chomko wrote:

SETI has been around a very very short period of time in the grand
scheme of things. It may take decades, centuries or even longer.

Of course. In much the same way that you can never absolutely conclusively
prove, no matter how many rocks you turn, no matter how deep you drill, that
there is no life on Mars. Of course, we need to get people up there to check
it out, before we can say anything.

Statistically speaking, the chance of life is much greater that you
give credit.

Well, what is the chance of life, statistically speaking? You don't know it,
and I don't know it, and nobody knows it. That single parameter in Drakes
Equation which quantifies the number of planets on which life arises is pure
guesswork, until we know exactly how life arises. Currently, we haven't the
slightest clue as to how life arises. Therefore, putting a number on the
chance of finding life elsewhere - statistically speaking - is nonsense.

Just because we haven't discovered life yet doesn't mean
it isn't out there.

Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence. I am very well aware
of that. I'm just saying that I think we should start paying a little more
attention to the overwhelming absence of proof by now.

Think outside the Solar System.

Of course. But think about it: first, we believed that there was other
people, people like us, living on the Moon. (Some even thought there'd be
life on the Sun!) When we found out that wasn't possible, we started
dreaming of life on Venus. When the first measurements showed that Venus was
way too hot to support life, we turned to Mars. Literally everybody thought
there'd be intelligent beings on Mars. Until Mariner 4. Then we said: "but
maybe there's microbes". Until Viking. Now we're saying: "but maybe it's
just below the surface! Maybe there's fossils! Maybe its..."

Seems we're guided by wishful thinking rather than scientific rationale to
me.

/steen

jonathan wrote:

I have no doubt there's life on Mars, and that
a steady drumbeat of papers building the case
will soon begin.

Why is this, when there's no evidence?

So you choose to believe only in that which is tangible, testable
and real? That which is 'unreal' has a far greater
effect on us and our planet. An idea, a concept, an
emotion or a belief. Imagining the future.

Ideas, concepts, emotions and beliefs are certainly not unreal. It would be
very unwise to claim so, since most people experience these phenomena daily.

All these things are unreal. Yet we live and die
by them. Until you can build a science that can
deal with these properties of unreality, your
understanding of ...reality... will remain incomplete
and empty.

They are not unreal. I believe science is currently able to deal with these
things. But we're talking space science here, not psychology...

When a person reads a poem, and is moved to
suicide, the world has lost a variable. How
does 'science' quantify that? Where's the math
that defines that poem and it's effect on
'reality'?

What has this got to do with life on Mars?

There is no objective reality. There is no such
thing as a fact. Nothing in the universe can
be quantified and nothing in the universe
ever repeats.

Ok. Let's all give up and go home. What nonsense!

We rely today on a science built on completely
incorrect assumptions.

Newton's laws? Maxwell's equations? The theory of relativity? Quantum
mechanics? "Completely incorrect"? Scientific theories can never be proven -
only disproven. Can you disprove all of the above?

The concept of objectivity
is erroneous and the source of most human
suffering and ignorance.

How exactly is that?

The universe is teeming with life and Gods.

Erm, can I ask what education you have?

It takes no more
faith to believe this than simply observing the patterns
of creation displayed all around us.

Again, let me remind you that we are in sci.space.policy, not
alt.religion.christianity.fundamentalism

The two great methods of understanding, science
and religion, are in fact two opposite extremes.

Religion is not a method of understanding, it is most certainly a great
method of misunderstanding.

Both
equally flawed and equally empty without the other.
Until a single view consistent with both sweeps this
planet, we will continue to fail to understand
our reality and each other.

Which means never. How about waking up?

Extrapolating the creativity of evolution far
into the future produces a concept of God
that is a mathematical limit and certainty.

There is nothing mystical or irrational about
believing in God. One must simply accept the
fact that God comes at the end of the evolutionary
ladder, not the beginning. The incompatibility between
science and religion is the result of a simple
frame of reference mistake.

Projecting into the future is the path to understanding
reality and God. Objective science and religion foolishly
attempts to unravel the past as a means to
understanding.

That's the wrong way.

I give up.

/steen

Steen ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: SETI has been around a very very short period of time in the grand
: scheme of things. It may take decades, centuries or even longer.

: Of course. In much the same way that you can never absolutely conclusively
: prove, no matter how many rocks you turn, no matter how deep you drill, that
: there is no life on Mars. Of course, we need to get people up there to check
: it out, before we can say anything.

No, we can say life doesn't exist on Mars with relative certainty as we
have found none. Viking found none, Sojourner found none, and Spirit and
Oppurtunity found none. Now, had we sent the same probes to the earth to
find life, each and everyone of the landers and rovers would have found
life.

Right now, the burden of proof is on those that claim life on Mars exists.

I am all for sending a human to Mars, but don't claim that doing so is for
finding life.

: Statistically speaking, the chance of life is much greater that you
: give credit.

: Well, what is the chance of life, statistically speaking? You don't know it,
: and I don't know it, and nobody knows it.

No one knows does for sure, but every single star similar to our
sun is a candidate for hosting life on one of its planets. Asimov wrote a
book based upon which stars coupled with which planets, based upon a
generic earth, would best qualify. The idea was to pare (pair?) down the
search for somthing earth-like based upon the earth and the sun as we know
it. Makes sense!

: That single parameter in Drakes
: Equation which quantifies the number of planets on which life arises is pure
: guesswork, until we know exactly how life arises. Currently, we haven't the
: slightest clue as to how life arises. Therefore, putting a number on the
: chance of finding life elsewhere - statistically speaking - is nonsense.

We have a clued based upon the earth and sun. Your claim for a zero is
false as we have one. One is a far cry from many, but one is not zero
either. The sun is a G-2 star. Do other G-2 stars exist? Yes. Does at
least one G-2 star support life on one of its planets? Yes!!

WRT life, what are the chances that a single organism of a single species
exists? None. If you see one, then *by definition* others of that species
exist, barring extinction of course. By even with extinction, life
existed. The point is that the nature of life is not singular.

: Just because we haven't discovered life yet doesn't mean
: it isn't out there.

: Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence. I am very well aware
: of that. I'm just saying that I think we should start paying a little more
: attention to the overwhelming absence of proof by now.

What is absent is our ability to probe the Universe, not to mention our
own galaxy. Heck outside our portion of the Orion arm, we really don't
know much about our stellar neighbors.

: Think outside the Solar System.

: Of course. But think about it: first, we believed that there was other
: people, people like us, living on the Moon. (Some even thought there'd be
: life on the Sun!) When we found out that wasn't possible, we started
: dreaming of life on Venus. When the first measurements showed that Venus was
: way too hot to support life, we turned to Mars. Literally everybody thought
: there'd be intelligent beings on Mars. Until Mariner 4. Then we said: "but
: maybe there's microbes". Until Viking. Now we're saying: "but maybe it's
: just below the surface! Maybe there's fossils! Maybe its..."

Okay, no life in the Solar System. No big deal. I can believe that with no
problems. Me must look at another star.

: Seems we're guided by wishful thinking rather than scientific rationale to
: me.

Or, you're frustrated that you live in the wrong century. Heck, the Romans
had no clue about a New World. It took another 1000 years to find out that
another land mass on the earth even existed.

You're a Roman yearning for another land that is convinced Columbus
doesn't exist.

Eric

: /steen

"Steen" wrote in message
k...
jonathan wrote:

I have no doubt there's life on Mars, and that
a steady drumbeat of papers building the case
will soon begin.

Why is this, when there's no evidence?


Excuse me! There's been no release of reviewed
evidence yet. But it's on the way. For instance.......


"Observation of Methane, Formaldehyde and HS (hydrogen sulfide):
Extant Life On Mars?"

"A symbiosis of methanogenic bacteria with methanothrophic bacteria
in the Martian underground can be an alternative interpretation (to geothermal)
and looks more likely."

"Vittorio Formisano, Ph.D., Principal Investigator of Planetary Fourier
Spectrometer (PFS), Dr. Formisano designed the Planetary Fourier
Spectrometer (PFS) for placement on the European Space
Agency's Mars Express Orbiter."
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news....tegory=Science


"Back on May 6, 2004, when I interviewed him for Earthfiles and radio, he
said his PFS data indicated molecules of formaldehyde in the Martian
atmosphere and told me, "Formaldehyde is destroyed in the Martian
atmosphere within 7.5 hours. There is no way that formaldehyde
can exist and remain for a long time in the Martian atmosphere.
If (formaldehyde) confirmed, possibly life on Mars today, yes."
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news....tegory=Science


Three gasses, two are biomarkers and the third evidence
of current geothermal activity. Which means active hydrothermal
systems which on earth are known to have among the highest
biological potential of all. Ala Yellowstone.
Given the evidence the mystery would be if bacterial life
is /not/ there.

We can see water has flowed from the outcrops fairly recently.
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5L7L7.jpg.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2271R1M1.HTML



We see the laminated rocks everywhere.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2443L2M1.HTML

Conclusion:
"Lamination often indicates the presence of microbial or microbially
dominated biosystems. Furthermore, laminated structures are an
important borderline to distinguish micro and macroorganisms, although
such a distinction is relative. Both the presence and absence of
lamination are lawful phenomena based on the fundamental physical and
biological/biogeochemical principles."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/scholz.pdf


We find iron deposits (hematite) everywhere at Meridiani

"It is this common association of microbes and iron
deposition on earth that has spurred hopes that robot
crafts exploring the hematite anomaly of Mars' Meridiani
Planum might find evidence for ancient life. The
hematite deposits of Meridiani Planum [7], regardless of
their exact origin, are considered to be a favorable host
for microorganisms that might have been associated
with their formation [8]."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1369.pdf



And we see these mysterious highly uniform spheres everywhere
many with a single indentation. We see them in a couple of distinct sizes.
The larger ones that coat everything, and the smaller ones
coating all of the sand ripples


BIOGENIC STRUCTURES FROM A HYPERSALINE LAKE
IN THE BAHAMAS.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1068.pdf

"Results and Discussion: Our FE-SEM analy-sis
indicates a range of microbial life forms on the frac-tured
stromatolite surfaces. Spheroidal features are the
most common, with four distinct populations, charac-terized
by their highly uniform intrapopulation sizes:
The large spheres (Fig. 1) and medium spheres' populations (Fig. 2)
are isolated from each other and the other two smaller populations.
Most of the large spheres have uniform surface indentations.
Most of the medium spheres are clustered together in
aggregates of three or four."
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...nity_m182.html


"The small and tiny spheres
are closely associated with each other."
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5L6L6.jpg.html

"...chemical analysis may provide additional insights
into the origin of the tiny spheres. Water on the Martian
surface may have formed subtidal pools formed that are
similar to Storr's Lake. Stromatolites, which are essentially
bacterial colonies on an enormous scale, could be the first step
in life's mass aggregation in any environment where
bacteria-like organisms live."



Stromatolites! I wonder if Meridiani has anything
resembling stromatolites?

The Stromatolites of Stella Maris, Bahamas
http://www.theflyingcircus.com/stella_maris.html

Endurance Crater. Can we even see where the waves
washed up against the outside of the crater rim? And how
the water formed the oddly shaped rock margins?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...9P1987R0M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P1986R0M1.HTML



Compare the delicate erosion pattern seen in the ...shadow.. skyline of
each picture. Similar processes and both appear recent.

Yellowstone mudpot
http://www.nps.gov/yell/slidefile/th...ages/05402.jpg
Endurance mudpot
http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/opp...1P2397R1M1.JPG


We should know what life looks like. Geology or erosion cannot
explain this level of order seen at Meridiani. Only life does these things.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...8P2956M2M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...nity_m182.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...nity_m014.html



I'll respond in more detail to some of your other
questions later.


Jonathan

s





/steen

"pol haut" wrote in message ...

whoever you are you should talking to the FBI vs posting crap like
this here, if what you say is true? Just a small comment on logic?
Amelia


FBI? I wish I had a nickel for....oh never mind.
What happened is one of my newsgroup posts
was mistaken for a Nasa press release by
Space.com and spaceref.com. And they went
ahead and published it.

I was unhappy with the quality of the Nasa press
releases at the time and decided to write one
of my own that I thought was more informative.

You have no idea how flattered I am it was believable
enough to get published. They didn't even click
the Nasa site first to check it, must have been
rather embarrassed. Every time I think about it
I break out laughing....I'm laughing right now
in fact.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction eh?


Jonathan

And if anyone wishes to complain to the FBI, here's
the link. https://tips.fbi.gov/



s

"jonathan" wrote in message ...

"pol haut" wrote in message ...

whoever you are you should talking to the FBI vs posting crap like
this here, if what you say is true? Just a small comment on logic?
Amelia


FBI? I wish I had a nickel for....oh never mind.
What happened is one of my newsgroup posts
was mistaken for a Nasa press release by
Space.com and spaceref.com. And they went
ahead and published it.

That is a bull**** story. If you think anyone beleives that bunch of hosrehit,
you are sadly mistaken.

I was unhappy with the quality of the Nasa press
releases at the time and decided to write one
of my own that I thought was more informative.

In other words, you committed fraud. I hope you like busting up rocks.

jonathan wrote:

Excuse me! There's been no release of reviewed
evidence yet. But it's on the way. For instance.......

[snip]

I'll respond in more detail to some of your other
questions later.

Please, for your own and everybody else's sake: don't bother. You seem to be
beyond reach.

/steen

Eric Chomko wrote:

Right now, the burden of proof is on those that claim life on Mars
exists.

We seem to be in agreement here.

I am all for sending a human to Mars, but don't claim that doing so
is for finding life.

I don't think the reason for going to Mars should be searching for life,
either. But I think we need to stress exactly that reason to the public, if
we want public backing for a manned mission to Mars.

Okay, no life in the Solar System. No big deal. I can believe that
with no problems. Me must look at another star.

Certainly! Of course, the SETI must go on.

Seems we're guided by wishful thinking rather than scientific
rationale to me.

Or, you're frustrated that you live in the wrong century. Heck, the
Romans had no clue about a New World. It took another 1000 years to
find out that another land mass on the earth even existed.

You're a Roman yearning for another land that is convinced Columbus
doesn't exist.

Hm, that last sentence was cryptic, but interesting! Can you elaborate a bit
more?

/steen