View Full Version : Proof of Life on Mars?
Jason Tate
02/15/07, 07:41 PM
"We have abundant evidence that early Mars was water rich,'' Houston, Texas, Lunar and Planetary Institute astronomer Stephen Clifford told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Although water is essential for life, its presence on Mars now or in the past does not necessarily point to life on the Red Planet, but it gives scientists who support the theory some ground for their arguments.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21236031-5006007,00.html
concernedparent
02/15/07, 08:14 PM
Wrong forum. This clearly goes in personal life. Aliens are people too.
lushintransit
02/15/07, 08:34 PM
Hrm, that's interesting. I really can't wait for the day they catch a little bunny walking around or something more logical.
notoaststereo
02/15/07, 08:35 PM
id believe it. why wouldnt their be life on other planets close to us.
it does freak me out a bit. that the universe is infinite.
Burning Star IV
02/15/07, 08:37 PM
i don't buy it
Wrong forum. This clearly goes in personal life. Aliens are people too.
"Last question, Tim. How would you handle having an alien on your team?"
Praetor
02/16/07, 03:56 AM
Wrong forum. This clearly goes in personal life. Aliens are people too.
I agree. This is blatant racism.
Burnout2888
02/16/07, 06:41 AM
Very interesting...
b-thrilla.
02/16/07, 07:27 AM
Hrm, that's interesting. I really can't wait for the day they catch a little bunny walking around or something more logical.
hahahahaha
selftitled85
02/16/07, 07:33 AM
i seriously think it is impractical to set such small bounds for life.
"oh no...theres no water therefore there cant be life!!!"
i really think that if there is life on another planet that it will be significantly different then us. breathe different air...and probably not need water.
aminorthreat55
02/16/07, 07:36 AM
i seriously think it is impractical to set such small bounds for life.
"oh no...theres no water therefore there cant be life!!!"
i really think that if there is life on another planet that it will be significantly different then us. breathe different air...and probably not need water.
I agree. I love how most a lot of macro human theories start out as us being the center of attention and then realizing we're completely wrong, e.g. the sun revolves around the earth.
BoiledFrogs.
02/16/07, 08:30 AM
even if i think we would be dead before they get anywhere with space
I agree. I love how most a lot of macro human theories start out as us being the center of attention and then realizing we're completely wrong, e.g. the sun revolves around the earth.
it's funny too because we have life on this planet that in no way flourishes in the way humans do.
look at some of the bacteria that thrives in the most harsh, extreme conditions.
i mean, water on this planet generally equals some type of life, so it is certainly a good starting point, but if we're committed to finding other life it seems as if we need to be less humanocentric in our scope of what constitutes the potential for life.
richter915
03/04/07, 04:27 PM
i seriously think it is impractical to set such small bounds for life.
"oh no...theres no water therefore there cant be life!!!"
i really think that if there is life on another planet that it will be significantly different then us. breathe different air...and probably not need water.
I would like to agree with you but to think that what we know about chemistry is not universal would destroy our foundations for science and life essentially. I think other life can be out there that finds it's energy in different ways but it's not likely that you'll find a creature that powers itself through atomic nuclear fusion/fission reactions. It's more likely that energy can be attained from bond making/breaking that's why having water and a sun around helps.
id believe it. why wouldnt their be life on other planets close to us.
it does freak me out a bit. that the universe is infinite.
Firstly there are many reasons why there wouldn't be, and I can list them if you like. Mars is the only possible candidate for life out of all the planets (not moons, planets) in our solar system. That even is a bold statement to make, as the possibility of finding life now is a lot less than there would have been in the past. Even if there is life, it's most likely to be very simple organisms, able to survive such hostile conditions.
Secondly, the Universe is finite, not infinite.
notoaststereo
03/05/07, 01:31 PM
Firstly there are many reasons why there wouldn't be, and I can list them if you like. Mars is the only possible candidate for life out of all the planets (not moons, planets) in our solar system. That even is a bold statement to make, as the possibility of finding life now is a lot less than there would have been in the past. Even if there is life, it's most likely to be very simple organisms, able to survive such hostile conditions.
Secondly, the Universe is finite, not infinite.
laaate response. when i say living things i mean anything living. not parallels to humans.
and
there is proof that the universe is finite?/if so its still fucking huge.
do you believe that somewhere out in the universe there is life beside earth?
laaate response. when i say living things i mean anything living. not parallels to humans.
and
there is proof that the universe is finite?/if so its still fucking huge.
do you believe that somewhere out in the universe there is life beside earth?
haha, olber's paradox my friend. if the universe wasn't finite then why is the sky dark at night?
of course the universe is finite, the big bang theory would not make sense if it werent. we have as much proof to claim the universe is finite as we do to claim the earth is round.
course I do! just probably not in a solar system, or if so, very primative simple forms. I believe that there are much more technologically advanced beings in our universe than us.
shes.a.ghost
03/05/07, 02:31 PM
Mars is gay.
shes.a.ghost
03/05/07, 02:35 PM
what?That's what Neptune said.
yourneck
03/05/07, 04:17 PM
whoa...the universe is finite now? i always thought it was sooo cool to think about an infinite universe out there
whoa...the universe is finite now? i always thought it was sooo cool to think about an infinite universe out there
hahahahahaha
vandalsandquinn
03/05/07, 04:39 PM
whoa...the universe is finite now? i always thought it was sooo cool to think about an infinite universe out there
What?
notoaststereo
03/05/07, 06:28 PM
haha, olber's paradox my friend. if the universe wasn't finite then why is the sky dark at night?
of course the universe is finite, the big bang theory would not make sense if it werent. we have as much proof to claim the universe is finite as we do to claim the earth is round.
course I do! just probably not in a solar system, or if so, very primative simple forms. I believe that there are much more technologically advanced beings in our universe than us.
oh cool, i dont know much about space or science. it interests me but its not something im that into.
as far as the big bang theory. i thought the universe is always expanding from its origin, making it never ending... but i dont really know details about anything.
alexxxisonfire
03/05/07, 06:43 PM
Big Bang was an internet hoax.
oh cool, i dont know much about space or science. it interests me but its not something im that into.
as far as the big bang theory. i thought the universe is always expanding from its origin, making it never ending... but i dont really know details about anything.
well even on that knowledge, if you know it started from a single point (singularity), how can that ever become infinite? it will always be finite, regardless of how big it becomes. and yes it is expanding exponetially. :)
Big Bang was an internet hoax.
what?
"We have abundant evidence that early Mars was water rich,'' Houston, Texas, Lunar and Planetary Institute astronomer Stephen Clifford told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Although water is essential for life, its presence on Mars now or in the past does not necessarily point to life on the Red Planet, but it gives scientists who support the theory some ground for their arguments.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21236031-5006007,00.html
duh, they already found its capitol city
http://www.mufor.org/mars/cydred.jpg
The universe expands at a rate faster than humans can ever travel, i.e at the speed of light therefore it is in theory infinite.
No that is COMPLETELY wrong. The Universe is expanding at the rate known as Hubble's Constant (about 77(km/s)/Mpc). If the Universe expanded at the speed of light then you would never be able to see anything in the Universe (for example stars)...many problems would be created if that was true.
So no, it doesn't expand at the speed of light, and no it is not infinite.
the universe is not infinite but at any point inside, that point is at the center of it. How can that be? That is just wild.
Do you UK guys think FFAF is great? theres the proof for life on mars.
the universe is not infinite but at any point inside, that point is at the center of it. How can that be? That is just wild.
That's not so weird to think of. Every point in the Universe has to be at the centre of expansion, it's logical. I can explain it further if you like.
Do you UK guys think FFAF is great? theres the proof for life on mars.
Erm yes I do, and that wasn't really that funny. Actually, it doesn't even make sense.
matt_rawlings
03/11/07, 05:20 AM
Everyone in this thread is getting owned like a motherfucker
stop snitchin
03/11/07, 11:45 AM
great thread. this stuff is so interesting.
richter915
03/11/07, 12:21 PM
That's not so weird to think of. Every point in the Universe has to be at the centre of expansion, it's logical. I can explain it further if you like.
please do
That's not so weird to think of. Every point in the Universe has to be at the centre of expansion, it's logical. I can explain it further if you like.
I wouldn't mind an explanation of that as well.
Ok well, where to start.
Hmmm...the Universe originated from a gravitational singularity (a point of infinite density and curvature of spacetime). This expanded into what we observe as the Universe today. Now the concept you have to understand is that spacetime actually expanded - as in the distance between things expanded, rather than things physically moving away from each other through some sort of medium.
I understand this may be an obscure concept to deal with at first, but let's visualise this 2-dimensional analogy. Imagine a balloon, not inflated, and imagine drawing a series of dots on it, to represent matter (galaxies for example - oh and please bear in mind this is after inflation (the reason why matter is 'clumped' together in galaxies, rather than uniformly distributed with no 'gaps')). Right, sorry if it's already getting confusing! Let's go back to our balloon with the dots on. When you blow the balloon up, all the dots move away from each other, with neither dot being at the centre of expansion. If you pick one dot, it will appear that the dots furthest away from it are receeding from it at a faster rate than the ones closer to it. Also they wont physically be moving across the surface of the balloon, just the space already inbetween them is expanding.
Right, now I know this is only a 2-dimensional analogy, and the Universe is 3-dimensions (excluding time, and just thinking of the simple spatial dimensions - up/down, left/right, forwards/backwards...if you will). So what is happening is that the fabric of spacetime is expanding.
Hope that makes sense to everyone! I can go into more detail or try and explain it again if anyone wants. Sorry to any physicists (as I know there are a few on the boards!) who thinks I've missed stuff out or oversimplified things!
Oh and I forgot to mention, the Universe has no 'edge'. It appears basically the same in all directions you look, with everything receeding in the same fashion, at any point in the Universe. So if you theoretically go and stand at the point where the furthest thing away that we can view and look around, we will seem to be the furthest thing away and you will appear to be in the centre again (as you would at any point in the Universe).
Pretty cool eh?
matt_rawlings
03/11/07, 07:04 PM
Mark, I bet you would be increadible to talk to when stoned
Hahaha, I've had some really deep philosophical debates about religion and whatnot (a slightly different topic, but yeah) when I've been pissed before.
the_champ_is_here
03/13/07, 06:41 PM
The universe is shaped exactly like the earth
If you go up straight long enough you'll end up where you were
The universe is shaped exactly like the earth
If you go up straight long enough you'll end up where you were
Not necessarily, we're not sure what shape it is. It could be spherical though.
Not necessarily, we're not sure what shape it is. It could be spherical though.
If it's spherical, does that mean that everything in it is in place like the dots on the balloon (on the outskirts of everything - like living on the Earth's crust), or would you, in theory, be able to exist deep within the sphere? Because if you could live deep within it, I don't understand how going in one direction will take you back to where you came.
notsofamous
03/14/07, 06:59 AM
i seriously think it is impractical to set such small bounds for life.
"oh no...theres no water therefore there cant be life!!!"
i really think that if there is life on another planet that it will be significantly different then us. breathe different air...and probably not need water.
exactly!!
If it's spherical, does that mean that everything in it is in place like the dots on the balloon (on the outskirts of everything - like living on the Earth's crust), or would you, in theory, be able to exist deep within the sphere? Because if you could live deep within it, I don't understand how going in one direction will take you back to where you came.
Erm, it' sort of hard to explain. The balloon thing is just an analogy. The universe is 4 dimensional (well, technically not, but in terms of what you look at it is). So the universe is a three-dimensional curved "surface" of an expanding four-dimensional balloon (if you like). Oh and the 4th dimension is time, which is a spatial dimension also (that's sort of weird to comprehend though, haha).
I don't even understand enough physics to properly describe the actual geometry of the universe (local and global geometry). It's not really something you can visualise. To just ask the question 'what is the shape of the universe?' isn't really something that can be answered easily. Try researching it if you don't believe me, you can't just say, oh it looks like a ball or something. It depends on the curvature of the spacetime continuum and the topology. If the universe is spherical, then it will be a hypersphere. To explain things in more detail, I'd have to explain a lot, which may be rather complex and involve mathematics.
But yes, assuming the universe was spherical, theoretically you could set off in one direction and end up back where you started in the observable universe (assuming you could travel at faster than its rate of expansion, which isn't really that fast ~ 77km/s/Mpc). However this is different to the Universe (capital U), which is expanding at the speed of light.
To go further I'd have to explain a lot of things that no one is probably interested in. Physics is so deep that there's often not just a simple answer for anything, or there's multiple theories describing it (sometimes conflicting with each other).
colorlesscliche
03/15/07, 01:26 PM
The universe is infinite.
My astronomy teacher works at NASA and he says what they're really looking for is very very small living organisms like plankton on Mars.
The universe is infinite.
My astronomy teacher works at NASA and he says what they're really looking for is very very small living organisms like plankton on Mars.
Haha, no it isn't. Please read my many posts.
colorlesscliche
03/15/07, 10:24 PM
Oh and I forgot to mention, the Universe has no 'edge'. It appears basically the same in all directions you look, with everything receeding in the same fashion, at any point in the Universe. So if you theoretically go and stand at the point where the furthest thing away that we can view and look around, we will seem to be the furthest thing away and you will appear to be in the centre again (as you would at any point in the Universe).
Pretty cool eh?
If it has no edge, how can it be finite?
arf_mutha_arf
03/15/07, 11:31 PM
astronomy is such a belittling subject. i'm in a survey course right now, and the deeper i am drawn in, the smaller i seem. i really hope there is life under the icy surface of europa. it's far more fascinating then life on mars to me, although that'd be remarkable if they did find life. or even traces of it. i believe saturn's moon, titan, might also support life, since it has a very similar make up to the earth when the earth was still forming. probably just single cell organisms, but still. I wish the nearest star wasn't over 4 light years away.
If it has no edge, how can it be finite?
Ah :) Read through some of my above posts, things aren't as simple as they seem.
colorlesscliche
03/16/07, 09:42 AM
My teacher is amazingly smart and has some of the most fascinating stories about astronomy, I'm telling you - with his many years at NASA, as well as hundreds of years with his colleagues, the universe is infinite.
colorlesscliche
03/16/07, 09:44 AM
astronomy is such a belittling subject. i'm in a survey course right now, and the deeper i am drawn in, the smaller i seem. i really hope there is life under the icy surface of europa. it's far more fascinating then life on mars to me, although that'd be remarkable if they did find life. or even traces of it. i believe saturn's moon, titan, might also support life, since it has a very similar make up to the earth when the earth was still forming. probably just single cell organisms, but still. I wish the nearest star wasn't over 4 light years away.
Yeah, seems that all these planets might have single cell organisms, that's no fun. My teacher jokes around saying that if we brought some home, and they got "loose", they'd eat all of our plankton and the world would end, haha.
And another one of Saturn's moons actually has active volcano's, which is real cool.
arf_mutha_arf
03/16/07, 11:10 AM
Yeah, seems that all these planets might have single cell organisms, that's no fun. My teacher jokes around saying that if we brought some home, and they got "loose", they'd eat all of our plankton and the world would end, haha.
And another one of Saturn's moons actually has active volcano's, which is real cool.
there are actually are a couple moons that do, the most volcanically active being Io. It's tides are so strong it stretches the planet incredibly hard on a daily basis because of Jupiter's super intense gravitational field, making Io the most volcanically active body in our solar system. The entire surface of Io renews its self every year because of how much lava poors onto the surface of the moon from the interior.
My teacher is amazingly smart and has some of the most fascinating stories about astronomy, I'm telling you - with his many years at NASA, as well as hundreds of years with his colleagues, the universe is infinite.
Well if your teacher says that the observable universe is infinite, then he's a retard. The universe is not infinite, and not static, this was proven in the early to mid 1900's. Einstein stated that the biggest blunder of his life was including the cosomological constant into his theory of general relativity when he it was realised that the observable universe is finite. The big bang theory would be wrong if this were not true, and the cosmic microwave background shows that the big bang did happen, so thus the universe MUST be finite.
Go look up Olber's Paradox and then you will understand in the simplest way why the observable universe CANNOT be infinite. :)
dtrzcin
03/20/07, 10:49 AM
That's what Neptune said.
that's what Uranus said.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.