#21
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
In article ,
says... NASA acknowledges that organic matter exists in the surface of mars? [just put one sentence. No arguments of course] Cite? A description of this 'organic matter'? This one was easy to find: Dec. 16, 2014 NASA Goddard Instrument Makes First Detection of Organic Matter on Mars https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...organic-matter From above: The team responsible for the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument suite on NASA's Curiosity rover has made the first definitive detection of organic molecules at Mars. Organic molecules are the building blocks of all known forms of terrestrial life, and consist of a wide variety of molecules made primarily of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. No doubt this is what got Jacob all worked up. But, that was *immediately* followed in the same paragraph, with: However, organic molecules can also be made by chemical reactions that don't involve life, and there is not enough evidence to tell if the matter found by the team came from ancient Martian life or from a non-biological process. Examples of non-biological sources include chemical reactions in water at ancient Martian hot springs or delivery of organic material to Mars by interplanetary dust or fragments of asteroids and comets. So nothing definitive, just like every other "indication" of life on Mars (present or just past). Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... NASA acknowledges that organic matter exists in the surface of mars? [just put one sentence. No arguments of course] Cite? A description of this 'organic matter'? This one was easy to find: Dec. 16, 2014 NASA Goddard Instrument Makes First Detection of Organic Matter on Mars https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...organic-matter From above: The team responsible for the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument suite on NASA's Curiosity rover has made the first definitive detection of organic molecules at Mars. Organic molecules are the building blocks of all known forms of terrestrial life, and consist of a wide variety of molecules made primarily of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. No doubt this is what got Jacob all worked up. But, that was *immediately* followed in the same paragraph, with: However, organic molecules can also be made by chemical reactions that don't involve life, and there is not enough evidence to tell if the matter found by the team came from ancient Martian life or from a non-biological process. Examples of non-biological sources include chemical reactions in water at ancient Martian hot springs or delivery of organic material to Mars by interplanetary dust or fragments of asteroids and comets. So nothing definitive, just like every other "indication" of life on Mars (present or just past). Yeah, I found that a while back. It's why I asked him to describe said 'organic material', which his exposition implies is tree bark or something. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
Le 03/05/2017 à 19:09, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
So nothing definitive, just like every other "indication" of life on Mars (present or just past). Yes. Nothing definitive. A definitive measurement would have been the concentration of carbon compounds corresponding to fossils in those formations. The rover did not turn back to make that measurement. Actually, it is difficult to understand how the exploration is being done, and I argued here some months ago that the rovers should have turned around. But they didn't. So, there is nothing definitive, just speculations of people that wait and wait till NASA starts accepting reality. There are so many "hints" that all together they show a consistent picture. Life in mars exists underground, well protected from radiation and the harsh conditions of the surface. Human exploration is done with the fix idea that "there is nothing there", and, not surprisingly, they don't find anything. In another message you say: Sorry dude, no smoking gun here. Your rambling on about it like it's been proven makes you sound like a raving nutter (my opinion, of course). Great arguments here. "Raving nutter", yeah, of course. I write here for the record. This is a very ancient usenet group, and I have been following it since a long time. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
Le 02/05/2017 à 02:47, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
No, I'm the one making the claim that there is so little risk that going nuts and quarantining Mars forever because it's somehow different than the Moon makes little sense. Agreed. Going nuts is a bad thing, and quarantining Mars forever is also stupid. I was saying that before bringing any marsian biological material here, we should find out "in situ" i.e. in Mars, what kind of life exists there. There are no technical barriers for studying marsian life remotely. Actually, that was what Viking did already. Taking care of bio hazards with first contact is just taking elementary precautions. After we have analized marsian life and its behavior we can make a better judgement about its potential danger. Marsian life is adapted to mars, i.e. underground life, probably bacteria, and maybe higher forms. It could be dangerous in earth conditions, and anyway, if it exists we should not send people to mars. And here is the reason why you seem to ignore marsian life. It would make all the plans of sending people to mars impossible. Since humans can't be sterilized, and making a 100% containment for earth bacteria on mars is impossible, all landing plans would have to be scrapped. We can then conduct experiments (aboard a space station around mars, for instance) to see how earth life forms interact with marsian forms. If we see no problems we can go a step further and send a few people that would not be allowed to come back until several years have passed and we know that there is no immediate risk. First contact is not to be taken lightly. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
jacob navia wrote:
Le 02/05/2017 à 02:47, Fred J. McCall a écrit : No, I'm the one making the claim that there is so little risk that going nuts and quarantining Mars forever because it's somehow different than the Moon makes little sense. Agreed. Going nuts is a bad thing, and quarantining Mars forever is also stupid. If going nuts is a bad thing, you should probably resist doing it so frequently. I was saying that before bringing any marsian biological material here, we should find out "in situ" i.e. in Mars, what kind of life exists there. And when you don't find any, how long do you look? The range and scope of toasters is limited. There are no technical barriers for studying marsian life remotely. Actually, that was what Viking did already. Well, other than the "have the right instruments and cover enough ground" 'barriers'. Taking care of bio hazards with first contact is just taking elementary precautions. After we have analized marsian life and its behavior we can make a better judgement about its potential danger. What Martian life? So far as we can tell right now, there isn't any. Marsian life is adapted to mars, i.e. underground life, probably bacteria, and maybe higher forms. It could be dangerous in earth conditions, and anyway, if it exists we should not send people to mars. What Martian life? So far as we can tell right now, there isn't any. And here is the reason why you seem to ignore marsian life. It would make all the plans of sending people to mars impossible. How's that again? Since humans can't be sterilized, and making a 100% containment for earth bacteria on mars is impossible, all landing plans would have to be scrapped. Why? You think we're going to find spotted owls or something? We can then conduct experiments (aboard a space station around mars, for instance) to see how earth life forms interact with marsian forms. If we see no problems we can go a step further and send a few people that would not be allowed to come back until several years have passed and we know that there is no immediate risk. First contact is not to be taken lightly. So how many centuries do you want to sit and spin with toasters? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-05-03 20:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: What Martian life? So far as we can tell right now, there isn't any. You cannot say that. All you can say is the tiny rovers who covered a tiny territory on Mars have not found conclusive evidence of life that could be detected with its limited sensors. Of course I can say that. Which part of "so far as we can tell right now" is it that is a mystery to you? For all we know , Mars is filled with a life form that we don't know how to test for. or it could be empty of any life and be more sterile than a hospital operating room. Hell, there might be unicorns prancing around the Martian plains ****ting magic pixie dust everywhere. And it is exactly because we can't be sure that we have to ensure proper process happens when any crew or material is returned to earth. Just because it LOOKS like there is no life doesn't mean we can be careless. I give up. You're obviously incapable of understanding basic biology, don't believe in evolution, and think the whole thing is just Pure ****ing Magic. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|