Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt

"captain." wrote in message
news:PY90h.72920$E67.71256@clgrps13...
bacteria was just dicovered 3 kms beneath earth's suface. they feed on the
energy given off by radioactive decay. although i personally do not
believe that life will be found on mars, this could be one of the possible
types that could live there.



Are you sure it wasn't a pair of MTRP's old gym socks?

"captain." wrote in message
news:PY90h.72920$E67.71256@clgrps13

bacteria was just dicovered 3 kms beneath earth's suface. they feed on the
energy given off by radioactive decay. although i personally do not believe
that life will be found on mars, this could be one of the possible types
that could live there.

I'd have to agree, that sufficiently sequestered life (microbe or of
whatever's much larger) could have existed and/or be otherwise
coexisting rather nicely within Mars, as well as sufficiently deep
within our salty moon.

Too bad for Mars that could be of nearly ice to the core, whereas our
orbiting mascon of such a nearby moon offers a likely core of thermal
energy to work with, plus rather good access to all of that 1.4 kw/m2 of
raw solar energy to boot, and otherwise enough gamma and hard-X-ray
energy on deck as to doing something constructive with before we start
in with our mostly robotic extracting as to all of that nifty He3.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:82f351f2ee7e3a2e34203484ecc47a22.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:PY90h.72920$E67.71256@clgrps13

snip

Too bad for Mars that could be of nearly ice to the core, whereas our
orbiting mascon of such a nearby moon offers a likely core of thermal
energy to work with, plus rather good access to all of that 1.4 kw/m2 of
raw solar energy to boot, and otherwise enough gamma and hard-X-ray
energy on deck as to doing something constructive with before we start
in with our mostly robotic extracting as to all of that nifty He3.
-
Brad Guth

Why do you persist in referring to our moon as a mascon? I've already
explained to you that the term 'mascon' refers to a region of unusually high
density on a planet or moon's surface. The impact crater rims on the moon
might be called mascons, but not the moon itself.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:82f351f2ee7e3a2e34203484ecc47a22.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:PY90h.72920$E67.71256@clgrps13

bacteria was just dicovered 3 kms beneath earth's suface. they feed on
the
energy given off by radioactive decay. although i personally do not
believe
that life will be found on mars, this could be one of the possible types
that could live there.

I'd have to agree, that sufficiently sequestered life (microbe or of
whatever's much larger) could have existed and/or be otherwise
coexisting rather nicely within Mars, as well as sufficiently deep
within our salty moon.

Too bad for Mars that could be of nearly ice to the core, whereas our
orbiting mascon of such a nearby moon offers a likely core of thermal
energy to work with, plus rather good access to all of that 1.4 kw/m2 of
raw solar energy to boot, and otherwise enough gamma and hard-X-ray
energy on deck as to doing something constructive with before we start
in with our mostly robotic extracting as to all of that nifty He3.
-
Brad Guth


i suppose there would be two major assumptions:

1. those bacteria most likely once, long ago, had at least some contact with
the ocean or perhaps even land. over time they they somehow seeped down
there and learned to survive on the radioactive decay.

2. they evolved down there independently and have been living ever since.

i would tend to subscribe to option 1 because if they had evolved down there
then there would be a huge difference in their dna that would have been
announced right away. since there was no mention made of it, i have to
assume that it was not that much different.

so according to option 1 the moon would have to have had an atmosphere,
ocean of liquid water, warmth, light, or whatever it was that first
triggered life here. there has been no evidence found so far to support
those conditions on the early moon so i have to come to the conclusion that
life will not be found on the moon at any level.

no moon, no mars, perhaps ganymede, europa, or callisto????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1074692.stm (ganymede)
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...t22oct98_2.htm (callisto)
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/sp...opa/index.html
(europa)

tidal action from jupiter can provide the subsurface energy needed

once again, i'll state that i don't think life will be found anywhere in
this solar system. the above moons do provide the closest things to
"promising" candidates.

"captain." wrote in message
news:ylk1h.74073$E67.47613@clgrps13

i suppose there would be two major assumptions:

1. those bacteria most likely once, long ago, had at least some contact with
the ocean or perhaps even land. over time they they somehow seeped down
there and learned to survive on the radioactive decay.
That's a perfectly good one. The migration of terrestrial and/or of
panspermia derived life (especially of sufficiently intelligent life) is
a well accepted notion of life's evolution or to die trying.

2. they evolved down there independently and have been living ever since.
That's a slightly remote sort of possibility, although I think not.

i would tend to subscribe to option 1 because if they had evolved down there
then there would be a huge difference in their dna that would have been
announced right away. since there was no mention made of it, i have to
assume that it was not that much different.
The lack of DNA information may have been an intentional ruse, or it may
simply not have been processed by the time of the report, although you'd
have to believe that DNA testing should have been one of the very fist
items on their list of such worthy things to investigate.

so according to option 1 the moon would have to have had an atmosphere,
ocean of liquid water, warmth, light, or whatever it was that first
triggered life here. there has been no evidence found so far to support
those conditions on the early moon so i have to come to the conclusion that
life will not be found on the moon at any level.
Our salty moon was once upon a time covered by roughly 262 km of salty
ice, and thereby it had an atmosphere, plus having rather easily
accommodated whatever sequestered pockets of life within such ice or
perhaps icy geode pockets, and there's all sorts of perfectly viable
science that'll help to establish that this was in fact the case.
Obviously a sufficiently naysay mindset that's in total denial can't see
this science because, if it's not status quo NASA approved is obviously
why such science doesn't exist.

If you had but one viable option of getting yourself away from a given
point (A), and safely transported over to point (B), and all that you
had at your disposal was an icy orb of roughly 4000 km to work with; As
such, could you and your tribe of whatever heathens, livestock, pets,
plants and whatever spare microbes and spores have managed to survive
the interstellar trip? (I certainly could)

no moon, no mars, perhaps ganymede, europa, or callisto????
Thank God you haven't excluded our somewhat newish and relatively nearby
planetology worth of Venus, or how about Ceres????

tidal action from jupiter can provide the subsurface energy needed
I totally agree, as well as the core of our moon is somewhat sol/earth
tital warmed in addition to the 1.4 kw/m2 as radiated upon the daytime
surface that's so physically dark and nasty in more ways than merely
being double IR/FIR cooked or otherwise sub-frozen to death.

once again, i'll state that i don't think life will be found anywhere in
this solar system. the above moons do provide the closest things to
"promising" candidates.
Obviously you're excluding intelligent design as well as applied
technology, as will as having ignored the intelligent adaptation of
evolved life that finds a way to mutate in order to survive in places
that we pathetic and naysay mindset humans even with our applied
technology probably couldn't survive.

You're also into selectively excluding the regular laws of physics to
boot. Why is that?

You've also ignored the reasonably good observationology as to what's
existing/coexisting in plain sight, as to what's residing on Venus. Why
are you still into so avoiding the specific topic that's related as to
matters of Venus?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

BTW; If something works on behalf of other life existing/coexisting
upon the likes of those nifty Jupiter or Saturn moons, then why not
within our moon or especially that of surviving upon Venus?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:df2de78dcbec150265f9cc497640057d.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
BTW; If something works on behalf of other life existing/coexisting
upon the likes of those nifty Jupiter or Saturn moons, then why not
within our moon or especially that of surviving upon Venus?
-
Brad Guth

I believe Captain has already answered your point regarding the likelihood
of life appearing on our moon. Your habit of ignoring sensible replies to
your wild postings are now legendary. William Herschel thought that life
might exist in the sun and you seem to share much of his 19th century
ignorance and chilidlike imagination. If you have any evidence whatsoever
that there is life on Venus (moreover that the truth is being wilfully
withheld, in true conspiratorial fashion), I am sure we would all be
interested to see and hear about it. All we have seen of your wild theories
to date are some hazy images showing what look like natural geological
features but which you claim to be the work of alien intelligences and some
very wordy nonsense which hardly makes sense in any language. What you refer
to as 'reasonably good observationology' is no more than your own vivid
imagination, set out as if it were plain fact. It isn't. I think it is
time for you to **** or get off the pot, Brad my old duck. Give us something
tangible or butt out.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:cf2dd90f9f0a28802748e4638d43e50e.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:ylk1h.74073$E67.47613@clgrps13

i suppose there would be two major assumptions:

1. those bacteria most likely once, long ago, had at least some contact
with
the ocean or perhaps even land. over time they they somehow seeped down
there and learned to survive on the radioactive decay.
That's a perfectly good one. The migration of terrestrial and/or of
panspermia derived life (especially of sufficiently intelligent life) is
a well accepted notion of life's evolution or to die trying.

2. they evolved down there independently and have been living ever since.
That's a slightly remote sort of possibility, although I think not.

i would tend to subscribe to option 1 because if they had evolved down
there
then there would be a huge difference in their dna that would have been
announced right away. since there was no mention made of it, i have to
assume that it was not that much different.
The lack of DNA information may have been an intentional ruse, or it may
simply not have been processed by the time of the report, although you'd
have to believe that DNA testing should have been one of the very fist
items on their list of such worthy things to investigate.

so according to option 1 the moon would have to have had an atmosphere,
ocean of liquid water, warmth, light, or whatever it was that first
triggered life here. there has been no evidence found so far to support
those conditions on the early moon so i have to come to the conclusion
that
life will not be found on the moon at any level.
Our salty moon was once upon a time covered by roughly 262 km of salty
ice, and thereby it had an atmosphere, plus having rather easily
accommodated whatever sequestered pockets of life within such ice or
perhaps icy geode pockets, and there's all sorts of perfectly viable
science that'll help to establish that this was in fact the case.
Obviously a sufficiently naysay mindset that's in total denial can't see
this science because, if it's not status quo NASA approved is obviously
why such science doesn't exist.

If you had but one viable option of getting yourself away from a given
point (A), and safely transported over to point (B), and all that you
had at your disposal was an icy orb of roughly 4000 km to work with; As
such, could you and your tribe of whatever heathens, livestock, pets,
plants and whatever spare microbes and spores have managed to survive
the interstellar trip? (I certainly could)

no moon, no mars, perhaps ganymede, europa, or callisto????
Thank God you haven't excluded our somewhat newish and relatively nearby
planetology worth of Venus, or how about Ceres????


i'd say possibly to venus, no to ceres.

tidal action from jupiter can provide the subsurface energy needed
I totally agree, as well as the core of our moon is somewhat sol/earth
tital warmed in addition to the 1.4 kw/m2 as radiated upon the daytime
surface that's so physically dark and nasty in more ways than merely
being double IR/FIR cooked or otherwise sub-frozen to death.

once again, i'll state that i don't think life will be found anywhere in
this solar system. the above moons do provide the closest things to
"promising" candidates.
Obviously you're excluding intelligent design as well as applied
technology,

yes, i am.

as will as having ignored the intelligent adaptation of
evolved life that finds a way to mutate in order to survive in places
that we pathetic and naysay mindset humans even with our applied
technology probably couldn't survive.

the right conditions are needed to get the ball rolling. if they are not
there, there is no chance for adaptation because there is nothing there to
begin with.


You're also into selectively excluding the regular laws of physics to
boot. Why is that?


i'm not sure what you are refering to.

You've also ignored the reasonably good observationology as to what's
existing/coexisting in plain sight, as to what's residing on Venus. Why
are you still into so avoiding the specific topic that's related as to
matters of Venus?

i think that of all of the planets in the solar system, venus would have a
higher chance of having life most. but i honestly don't feel that any of the
planets themeselves are very good candidates. in the case of venus, i think
that the high temperatures and pressure, combined with the sulphuric acid,
would discourage life. however at sometime in the past before the atmosphere
was the way it is now, life could have started and then moved underground.
venus is in the "life zone" of our star and has a thick enough atmosphere to
block out lots of bad stuff. does venus have a magnetic field?

-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:df2de78dcbec150265f9cc497640057d.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
BTW; If something works on behalf of other life existing/coexisting
upon the likes of those nifty Jupiter or Saturn moons, then why not
within our moon or especially that of surviving upon Venus?
-
Brad Guth

upon or within?



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"captain." wrote in message
news:VJv1h.35541$H7.4203@edtnps82

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:df2de78dcbec150265f9cc497640057d.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
BTW; If something works on behalf of other life existing/coexisting
upon the likes of those nifty Jupiter or Saturn moons, then why not
within our moon or especially that of surviving upon Venus?
-
Brad Guth

upon or within?

You're starting to bug me.

Our salty moon and of it's more than somewhat lethal surface environment
is perhaps even doable if such other life were residing sufficiently
deep within hollow rilles or perhaps within geode pockets where there's
till some degree of a brine or other mineral/chemical substance
containing h2o. Life as we know it (spores, microbes and larger)
doesn't actually require direct sunlight, and sufficiently intelligent
life can simply devise whatever artificial light that a given situation
demands (proper evolution and/or intelligent design gives life
bioluminance capability and if need be better eyes that are 100 fold
more sensitive, plus others as having greater spectrum capablility than
us humans).

I'll also contribute that the science of observationology and those
regular laws of physics go hand and hand, whereas such there's all sorts
of viable possibilities that are currently available for those
rationally deductive interpretations of what's to be seen on behalf of
that rather nearby other planet accommodating such Venusian and/or ET
life, as to having been existing/coexisting upon Venus in spite of their
extremely buoyant and toasty environment that offers so freaking much
spare/renewable energy to all but the most heathen species of village
idiots.

Venus is without question humanly hot because of the relatively newish
planetology of it's geothermally active environment, but it's not
actually the least bit insurmountably too hot as for intelligent and/or
of sufficiently evolved/adapted life to touch, nor as having survived
within that toasty environment for quite some time, and perhaps that
same constructive analogy may even include us wussy humans if we'd care
to apply a little technology as based once again upon those pesky
regular laws of physics.

As far as we know, the raw Venusian atmosphere isn't directly compatible
with our existing biological and/or physiological requirements of having
to accomplish our future expeditions of Venus while in the buff.
However, with some degree of co2--co/o2 via applied technology is all
that it should take in order to improve upon those breathable
requirements on our behalf.

With energy, most everything under the sun becomes doable, and Venus
simply has way more than it's fair share of renewable/spare energy than
either of us can shake a bloody fist full of flaming sticks at, and
therefore little if any such energy for processing and/or accomplishing
whatever task need be imported from Earth. Isn't that good news, or
what?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG