[citicroego]

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?

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?

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]

[cenRealliat]

Because it's the human egoism. We always compare everything to ourselves first. Funnily, as scientists should be the most accepting and discoverous people, they usually are the most uptight, conservatic people you'll ever meet

[bMc8F9ZI]

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?

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?

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]

If there are people willingt to fly to mrs,knowing that if something goes wrong they may not make it back,then why shouldn't we send them to mars to study it?

I think the reasoning goes like this:Life is very unlikely to have started in the first place,it is then possibly likely that if we find more it may be fairly similar,at least of a very basic level,to the life we already know about.

But I agree,if we do find life it may not be anything like life we know,we may not even recognise it as life.

[gydrorway]

Hey it's somewhere to start isn't it? I mean if life is completely different to that which see here on earth what are we supposed to look for?

[citicroego]

Hey it's somewhere to start isn't it? I mean if life is completely different to that which see here on earth what are we supposed to look for?

Well this is really the point im trying to make... exactly what are we looking for? and if we ARE looking for something specific, does that mean that we're missing alot more? Know what I mean?

[bribiaLaubysdggf]

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?

Why the quotation marks around the word water? What they're talking is the same water that you find here on Earth or anywhere else in space - water is H20. There's no other way of describing it really! However, what isn't certain is whether it's present as a partial liquid water table, permafrost or solid chunks of ice; nor are they 100% certain that water is even present in the first place. The indirect evidence such as hydrogen abundance figures from gamma ray spectroscopy or weathering features on the surface by itself is not totally conclusive enough for future space missions to completely rely on obtainable water being present near the surface.

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] There's little point in considering anything other than our own definitions of life - purely because we have no idea nor evidence for it, thus making it extremely difficult to start testing for it. The sheer diversity of organisms on Earth, in all of the extremes of living conditions, is sufficient for scientists to devote their time to looking for evidence that similar lifeforms exist elsewhere.

[9V4i8xw1]

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.

[slima]

What is life in the first place?
Maybe some planet far away knows life as soundwaves, or as stones. Or something that doesn't even come close to anything on earth.
What the hell do we know?

[citicroego]

I may not be as well educated or as intelligent as some people on this board...

The point i'm trying to make is that how do they know this liquid they see in pictures is actually water? how do they know its composition? its a liquid, maybe, but why does it have to be a liquid we have ever come across before? why is it a liquid which apparently contains the same elements as the water on earth? this is all im trying to understand.

Please dont try to knock my intelligence, im the first to admit im not well educated and dont understand some things when it comes to this, but this is why im asking these questions... if I knew, i wouldnt have bothered.

[FsQGF1Mp]

I may not be as well educated or as intelligent as some people on this board...

The point i'm trying to make is that how do they know this liquid they see in pictures is actually water? how do they know its composition? its a liquid, maybe, but why does it have to be a liquid we have ever come across before? why is it a liquid which apparently contains the same elements as the water on earth? this is all im trying to understand.

Please dont try to knock my intelligence, im the first to admit im not well educated and dont understand some things when it comes to this, but this is why im asking these questions... if I knew, i wouldnt have bothered.

Spectroscopic studies

[xiaoselangone]

The point i'm trying to make is that how do they know this liquid they see in pictures is actually water? how do they know its composition? its a liquid, maybe, but why does it have to be a liquid we have ever come across before? why is it a liquid which apparently contains the same elements as the water on earth? this is all im trying to understand.

We've mapped the periodic table of elements, so the standing assumption is that it isn't actually possible for us to discover some liquid that has a chemical composition we couldn't imagine. Through understanding of the atom, science has determined all the elements we believe to be possible. If we did find a new element in outer space that doesn't match with anything on the periodic table, then a major part of science will be found to be incorrect, or at least inaccurate. It's highly unlikely, but not entirely impossible I suppose. Science has often presumed to be correct until a major discovery has proven some element of it wrong. Finding an unknown element would be an absolutely massive discovery. I don't understand all the science behind it though, but as far as I know, what we know currently says it's not possible.

[euylvaygdq]

We've mapped the periodic table of elements, so the standing assumption is that it isn't actually possible for us to discover some liquid that has a chemical composition we couldn't imagine. Through understanding of the atom, science has determined all the elements we believe to be possible. If we did find a new element in outer space that doesn't match with anything on the periodic table, then a major part of science will be found to be incorrect, or at least inaccurate. It's highly unlikely, but not entirely impossible I suppose. Science has often presumed to be correct until a major discovery has proven some element of it wrong. Finding an unknown element would be an absolutely massive discovery. I don't understand all the science behind it though, but as far as I know, what we know currently says it's not possible.

Actually there have already been meteors that have hit earth having gotten through our atmosphere and elements within them have been found to not exist on the periodic table.

We have absolutely no idea what exists outside of our own solar system, we don't even know the composition of the furthest planet (or reclassified planet) in our solar system, namely, Pluto.

So what your saying makes no sense at all.

Its the same argument for everything that we don't know about, God, aliens and whatever else is "out there".

edit:

One of several instances which mention about meteor like this are this one,

http://www.tbo.com/life/MGBUFCRF5WE.html

see No# 31.

Although, the above link is really about a meteor that had a chemical composition unlike any other previous found, none of its elements were really "unknown".

If you google "meteor unknown element", your bound to come up with links from scientific institutes that can validate my claim.

I just don't have time to look.
I read about the meteor several years ago, so they may have already named the "unknown element" that was previously discovered.

[6M8PJigS]

Do you have a link for this?

"Actually there have already been meteors that have hit earth having gotten through our atmosphere and elements within them have been found to not exist on the periodic table."



Gareth

[astefecyAvevy]

Actually there have already been meteors that have hit earth having gotten through our atmosphere and elements within them have been found to not exist on the periodic table.

We have absolutely no idea what exists outside of our own solar system, we don't even know the composition of the furthest planet (or reclassified planet) in our solar system, namely, Pluto.

So what your saying makes no sense at all.

Its the same argument for everything that we don't know about, God, aliens and whatever else is "out there".

You are going to have to provide some linkage for those bold statements. I don't believe any of it.

We deffinitely do have a very good idea of what exists outside our solar system, and yes, we do know (or at least have a fairly accurate estimation of) the composition of Pluto.

I have never heard of meteors falling to earth with "unknown elements". The Periodic Table of Elements is so complete that there are elements on there that we know to exist but have never actually seen before.


If I were you I would read up on Spectroscopy, as was mentioned earlier in the thread.

[6M8PJigS]

From your link:
"A 145-million-year-old beach ball-sized meteorite found a half-mile below a giant crater in South Africa has a chemical composition unlike any known meteorite."

A different chemical composition to other meteorites does not mean it has brought down "new elements"

Gareth

[xiaoselangone]

You are going to have to provide some linkage for those bold statements. I don't believe any of it.

We deffinitely do have a very good idea of what exists outside our solar system, and yes, we do know (or at least have a fairly accurate estimation of) the composition of Pluto.

I have never heard of meteors falling to earth with "unknown elements". The Periodic Table of Elements is so complete that there are elements on there that we know to exist but have never actually seen before.

I too am a little surprised by Snoopy_UK's statements, which is why I've immediately gone looking for information on the topic myself. You're right about the periodic table containing elements that have never been seen, but currently that's down to just a single element from what I can find. Element 117, Ununseptium. Though yes, apparently some elements have been synthesised only in recent years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discove...s#21st_century

So how about that, there's only one element left on the periodic table that humans haven't seen.

[xiaoselangone]

If you google "meteor unknown element", your bound to come up with links from scientific institutes that can validate my claim.

About the only thing I can find is for Kryptonite. Care to help me out?

[cucceevevaind]

So how about that, there's only one element left on the periodic table that humans haven't seen.

Stable elements... we see new elements in atom smashers all the time, they last for .000001 seconds, but we know them to of existed.

[xiaoselangone]

Stable elements... we see new elements in atom smashers all the time, they last for .000001 seconds, but we know them to of existed.

Yeah I just had a look at the extended periodic table of elements. Huge.

[attackDoold]

but why does it have to be a liquid we have ever come across before? why is it a liquid which apparently contains the same elements as the water on earth?

The simplest answer, If you remember the two rovers sent to mars; Opportunity and its twin Spirit then you will remember that where opportunity actually landed basically inspired alot of articles, i went looking for one in particular and found a similar one on a quick google search, entitled:

Water Once Filled Mars Opportunity Rover Landing site - Very long article by the way

To sum it up. whatever at some point in mars's history there is evidence that there was a presence of water (H2O).

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?

No one ever said that the only other life that could possibly exist is much like our own. there is life on our own planet that exists in environments that we consider life couldnt exist.

There is a persistent theme to all the forms of life that we currently know of. Astrobiologists believe that the three most important ingredients on which life depends are water, energy and organic molecules (carbon being a good example)

Finding a needle in a very large haystack is a daunting task. but at least you can identify and know what your looking for in the case of a needle. The only life that we know to exist is pretty much all we can comprehend. Whatever other factors that may lead to different forms of life are, we can not currenlty even begin to comprehend, let alone set on a mission to find it. Whatever other life you can imagine would be irrelevent in this case as in order to find something you have to know what your looking for, and have a means to find it / test for it.

How could we make provisions for something that we dont even know exists. Right now the search is for life that requires what we have considered necessary for life to exist.

If evidence to the contrary is ever found then our pre-requisites will change accordingly.

Also i cant seem to find another article i was looking for pertaining to evidence from martian meteors but i did come across this:

The organic molecules found on meteorites, including those from Mars, contain amino acids similar to those in living things on earth.
This suggests that the building blocks for life, if not the seeds of life itself,
are everywhere, and that these materials or seeds are raining down on planets
like ours. I am sure you will also find the rest of the read very interesting; link:

http://www.ozh2o.com/h2origin8.html