DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**9V4i8xw1** · 01-26-2007, 05:44 AM

Why is it that every article I read that is concerned with the whole "Life on Mars" saga, there is always this unending assumption that "life" means exactly what it does on earth?

Our definition of life is actually quite broad. We consider life, as anything that can basically just reproduce, and uses or generates energy to sustain this reproduction. Thats it. I mean, what other way could life be? Of there is something that does not use energy, and does not reproduce, I don't think you could exactly call it life, no? It need not be intelligent, or even more than one cell big, but the term life is fairly generic.

I read this article a few minutes ago, it seems to be saying that they believe there is water on Mars and therefore the potential to send astronauts there, the assumption being that the "water" would contain Hydrogen and Oxygen, therefore they could develop rocket fuel.

Am I being an idiot, or is there a remote possibility that this water is not actually "water" as we know it, and sending a manned mission to Mars with the idea that he may be able to get back again is just sending this poor guy to an untimely death?

No offense, but i think you need to take some basic chemistry. There is no "other water". Water, as we have chemically defined it, is H20. There are isotopes, such as deuterium, or "heavy water", but given the rareness of such isotope, i doubt you need to worry about that. Past that, anything that is not H20, is NOT water at all. H202, while looking and feeling similar to water, is not water. You can't get past chemical composition, which is what we use to test for water. Sorry, no other way about it...

The same applies to numerous other articles containing the idea that any life beyond earth absolutely MUST adhere to OUR "building blocks" of life... I think this is absurd and totally niave, hmmm, maybe its just me? [help]

Where do you get this? Any "scientist" that says life must be like it is on Earth is probably no scientist at all. We know that any life that would be out there would be different. However, the building blocks are known, simply because of the way we know life works. There are simply some basic factors which MUST be true.

01-26-2007, 05:44 AM	#7
9V4i8xw1 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 481 Senior Member	Why is it that every article I read that is concerned with the whole "Life on Mars" saga, there is always this unending assumption that "life" means exactly what it does on earth? Our definition of life is actually quite broad. We consider life, as anything that can basically just reproduce, and uses or generates energy to sustain this reproduction. Thats it. I mean, what other way could life be? Of there is something that does not use energy, and does not reproduce, I don't think you could exactly call it life, no? It need not be intelligent, or even more than one cell big, but the term life is fairly generic. I read this article a few minutes ago, it seems to be saying that they believe there is water on Mars and therefore the potential to send astronauts there, the assumption being that the "water" would contain Hydrogen and Oxygen, therefore they could develop rocket fuel. Am I being an idiot, or is there a remote possibility that this water is not actually "water" as we know it, and sending a manned mission to Mars with the idea that he may be able to get back again is just sending this poor guy to an untimely death? No offense, but i think you need to take some basic chemistry. There is no "other water". Water, as we have chemically defined it, is H20. There are isotopes, such as deuterium, or "heavy water", but given the rareness of such isotope, i doubt you need to worry about that. Past that, anything that is not H20, is NOT water at all. H202, while looking and feeling similar to water, is not water. You can't get past chemical composition, which is what we use to test for water. Sorry, no other way about it... The same applies to numerous other articles containing the idea that any life beyond earth absolutely MUST adhere to OUR "building blocks" of life... I think this is absurd and totally niave, hmmm, maybe its just me? [help] Where do you get this? Any "scientist" that says life must be like it is on Earth is probably no scientist at all. We know that any life that would be out there would be different. However, the building blocks are known, simply because of the way we know life works. There are simply some basic factors which MUST be true.
	Quote