Nasa Confirms Water on Mars

  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9185
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11397_3-62446 ... &subj=news

Quote:
NASA announced that laboratory tests aboard the Phoenix Mars Lander have proven that water exists on Mars. No organic compounds have been identified but NASA hasn't given up hope.


Image

Quote:
These two photos, taken four days apart, show ice has disappeared due to a process similar to evaporation. Note the lumps in the lower left of the trench in the photo on the left are not seen in the photo on the right.


Thats a start, they were already fairly sure water did exist there anyway. Now when and if they discover life on Mars that would be very big news as it would completely re-shape how we view our universe.
  • grinch2171
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6819
  • Loc: Martinsburg, WV

Post 3+ Months Ago

In other NASA news, they also discovered liquid on Saturn's moon Titan.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 31,00.html

It isn't water but ethane and methane.

Larry Soderblom, a scientist with the US Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona wrote:
Detection of liquid ethane confirms a long-held idea that lakes and seas filled with methane and ethane exist on Titan.
  • righteous_trespasser
  • Scuffle
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6231
  • Loc: South-Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

hey that's cool ... Someday soon we'll be able to go to mars and live there in some big-ass dome or something ...
  • kc0tma
  • o|||||||o
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3316
  • Loc: Trout Creek, MT

Post 3+ Months Ago

And how about NASAtv broadcasting the total solar eclipse all day today, thats cool too.
  • righteous_trespasser
  • Scuffle
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6231
  • Loc: South-Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

NASAtv ... ? wow, first time I've seen that ... did a quick google ...
  • kc0tma
  • o|||||||o
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3316
  • Loc: Trout Creek, MT

Post 3+ Months Ago

They have a 24 hour television web cast, its even on some satellite and cable providers. Its cool because they have total coverage of all the shuttle missions and big events at the space station, as well as normal scheduled programming. Dangit though, I block that at my firewall at work so that people in my office will actually work instead of goof off all day like I am right now on ozzu. Maybe I can open it up for a few hours....
  • righteous_trespasser
  • Scuffle
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6231
  • Loc: South-Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

hehe, nice ... maybe if they explore further on mars they'll find an ice cream parlor ... that would be SOOO cool ... I wish I had my own shuttle that I could send up and plant some things there for NASA to "discover" and make them get really confused.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5146
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

This is great! These Mars missions have been incredibly successful.

I find it incomprehensible that there wouldn't be some form of life somewhere else in the universe. Even if it were just microbes or only a few photosynthesizing cells. Maybe not on Mars or within our solar system, but somewhere.
  • spork
  • Brewmaster
  • Silver Member
  • spork
  • Posts: 6299
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

digitalMedia wrote:
I find it incomprehensible that there wouldn't be some form of life somewhere else in the universe. Even if it were just microbes or only a few photosynthesizing cells. Maybe not on Mars or within our solar system, but somewhere.

Ditto.
  • kc0tma
  • o|||||||o
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3316
  • Loc: Trout Creek, MT

Post 3+ Months Ago

righteous_trespasser wrote:
I wish I had my own shuttle that I could send up and plant some things there for NASA to "discover" and make them get really confused.


I just want to feel what it is like to have no gravity. A few weeks ago I canoed the Dismal River here in Nebraska, and along the way there is this big huge spring that has enough water coming up that you stay very boyant (spelling?). I think floating in that spring is probably pretty close to floating in space without gravity.
  • spork
  • Brewmaster
  • Silver Member
  • spork
  • Posts: 6299
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

righteous_trespasser wrote:
I wish I had my own shuttle that I could send up and plant some things there for NASA to "discover" and make them get really confused.

"Sir, we think we've found something here."

"What is it, Johnson?"

"Well sir, it... it appears to be a six-pack."
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9185
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

digitalMedia wrote:
I find it incomprehensible that there wouldn't be some form of life somewhere else in the universe. Even if it were just microbes or only a few photosynthesizing cells. Maybe not on Mars or within our solar system, but somewhere.


I agree, that would be an awful waste of space if there wasn't any life.

Finding life on Mars could prove that it is much more common in our universe though, which could change how we view many things from science to religion.
  • eautocad
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 195
  • Loc: Spring Hill, Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

if there is traces of water, than there is a very good chance there still is NO LIFE ON MARS or EVER WAS.

The earth was around for 10 billion years before water grew life... Mars might have had water on its way to its current position in our solar system. However, that journey wouldn't stay in acceptable conditions long enough to let life grow.

Sorry, no aliens in this solar system. Unless life figured out a way to live in super cold temps or super hot temps (highly unlikely)
  • kc0tma
  • o|||||||o
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3316
  • Loc: Trout Creek, MT

Post 3+ Months Ago

Maybe not this solar system, but probably else where.

Drake Equation
  • kc0tma
  • o|||||||o
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3316
  • Loc: Trout Creek, MT

Post 3+ Months Ago

And besides, the Phoenix mission is not to find life on mars, but rather to find remnants of life on mars. Scientists already know that currently mars can't handle life without living in a biodome or something, but they speculate that years and years and eons ago mars could have supported life.
  • spork
  • Brewmaster
  • Silver Member
  • spork
  • Posts: 6299
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

eautocad wrote:
if there is traces of water, than there is a very good chance there still is NO LIFE ON MARS or EVER WAS.

The earth was around for 10 billion years before water grew life... Mars might have had water on its way to its current position in our solar system. However, that journey wouldn't stay in acceptable conditions long enough to let life grow.

Sorry, no aliens in this solar system. Unless life figured out a way to live in super cold temps or super hot temps (highly unlikely)

There are dozens of species capable of living within extreme temperatures and conditions, such as bacteria and microbes that live on the surface of undersea geothermal vents. Some live by producing energy from hydrogen sulfide, a compound that essentially kills most other lifeforms.

Just because a place can't sustain life for "most" species doesn't eliminate the chance of something at all living there. ;)
  • kc0tma
  • o|||||||o
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3316
  • Loc: Trout Creek, MT

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well said Mister Spork, Moderator, Esquire.
  • eautocad
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 195
  • Loc: Spring Hill, Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thats a good point, I didn't take amoeba and other single celled organisms into consideration. But would the time in transition, to where mars currently resides, be long enough to support this growth? It took a while before life started on earth, even though variables suggested it...

To think about....
With out granite, humans wouldn't be here. Next time you curse your granite counter for smacking your elbow, be appreciative you have an elbow. Granite was the first hardest surface to repel the tough water motion from the sea, long enough to "continents" to form. W/o granite, you probably wouldn't have adapted to land forming that elbow. :mrgreen:

Thanks history chanel! You can download them on Xbox live, I highly recommend doing this because you can watch it over and over again.

:D It's nice to talk about something else besides internet marketing.
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

If they find evidence of life as we know it previously existing on Mars, I think it would mean either

  1. The planets are slowly venturing away from the sun
  2. The sun is getting smaller

In scenario A that would mean there's a sweet spot around the sun where the temp is just right to sustain life & our continued existance depends on how quick the second rock from the sun were to move into the sweetspot.

In scenario B that would mean we're doomed unless we develop the ability to travel and live in space.

Given the nature of stars burning out, I'm more inclined to believe the latter.
  • Prime
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 934
  • Loc: Liverpool

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
1. The planets are slowly venturing away from the sun
2. The sun is getting smaller


As far as I understand it, you are right on both counts. They are currently accepted theories (amongst many).

An update, apparently more news to follow;

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/02 ... /?hl-en=n3
  • camperjohn
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1127
  • Loc: San Diego

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bigwebmaster wrote:
Thats a start, they were already fairly sure water did exist there anyway. Now when and if they discover life on Mars that would be very big news as it would completely re-shape how we view our universe.


It wouldn't really re-shape how we look at our universe. It will only reshape stupid religious people think. Actually religious people don't think so...

Intellegent people were already aware the earth was not flat, and was not the center of the universe.
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
[the earth] was not the center of the universe


It will never be possible to prove that as it would require being able to observe from outside of the universe, which is not possible.
  • Bogey
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • Bogey
  • Posts: 8488
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I think he means that the earth rotates around the sun and not the sun rotating around the earth... I'm sure the earth rotates around the sun.

Water on Mars may be the cleanest (life-free) in the whole universe...

What is Pluto made up of?
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

It's entirely possible for the sun, and the entire universe, to be orbiting the earth.
You can't be sure unless you're able to observe the universe from outside of the universe, which you can't do.

It's not possible to prove, nor disprove that the earth is at the center of the universe. :)
  • camperjohn
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1127
  • Loc: San Diego

Post 3+ Months Ago

Yes, but you can prove that religious people are stupid.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9185
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

camperjohn wrote:
Bigwebmaster wrote:
Thats a start, they were already fairly sure water did exist there anyway. Now when and if they discover life on Mars that would be very big news as it would completely re-shape how we view our universe.


It wouldn't really re-shape how we look at our universe. It will only reshape stupid religious people think. Actually religious people don't think so...


Well I disagree. At the moment scientists really do not know how often life occurs throughout the universe. There is no proof that life exists anywhere but on Earth, but they have a good idea it does exist, just not how often. If life were to exist on Mars it would prove to scientists that life probably occurs very often throughout the universe. If scientists cannot find life anywhere in our solar system but Earth it could indicate that life may exist elsewhere, just not very often and probably only on Earth-like planets. So in other words life would be extremely rare. These two ideas in my opinion can completely reshape how we view our universe and how research is done in the future.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9185
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
It's entirely possible for the sun, and the entire universe, to be orbiting the earth.


They have already proven that the sun and Earth orbit each other. The sun and Earth orbit the center of gravity of everything in our solar system in fact. Since the sun has so much more mass than anything else in our solar system though, the center of gravity is very close to the sun. This is actually known as the barycenter and is the center of gravity where two celestial bodies orbit each other. The distance does play a role in this calculation too, its very similiar to a seesaw, where someone heavy could sit on one end, and if a little kid sits far enough on the other end he could lift the heavy person.

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

The same thing happens with our moon (Luna) and the Earth and everything else out there that exists.
  • Belk Media Group
  • Director of Art
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 777
  • Loc: California, Fresno.

Post 3+ Months Ago

righteous_trespasser wrote:
hey that's cool ... Someday soon we'll be able to go to mars and live there in some big-ass dome or something ...


If the world was created by the "Big Bang Theory" chances are, that another planet with our exact specifications to sustain "human life" are improbable. Water simple is not enough, we are not fish. Plus, it must have a neutral ph balance to be drinkable. And really, it's no big deal to find water and/or ice other than on Earth. It's no secret it exist else where. They know it's in comets, on moons, in the rings of Saturn. So, is there life in those places? It's NASA *plum*, dont fall for it.

If the world was created by god, than, we know there is no human life elsewhere and still Earth is the only place we will ever be able to live like we do here.
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bigwebmaster wrote:
joebert wrote:
It's entirely possible for the sun, and the entire universe, to be orbiting the earth.


They have already proven that the sun and Earth orbit each other. The sun and Earth orbit the center of gravity of everything in our solar system in fact. Since the sun has so much more mass than anything else in our solar system though, the center of gravity is very close to the sun. This is actually known as the barycenter and is the center of gravity where two celestial bodies orbit each other. The distance does play a role in this calculation too, its very similiar to a seesaw, where someone heavy could sit on one end, and if a little kid sits far enough on the other end he could lift the heavy person.

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

The same thing happens with our moon (Luna) and the Earth and everything else out there that exists.


If I turn my monitor the same speed as that image, it looks like the smaller dot is being orbited by everything else. Untill I was able to observe from outside of my monitor (the universe) I would never have known that. :)

I think that's what quantum physics means when it says that observing a point in space alters its' path, or something like that.
  • jflynn
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2310
  • Loc: Baker City, Oregon

Post 3+ Months Ago

Finding Ice isn't the problem, It's finding Ice made of Water. Ice can be made by all sorts of things that can't sustain life (at least as we know it).
  • Prime
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 934
  • Loc: Liverpool

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
They have already proven that the sun and Earth orbit each other. The sun and Earth orbit the center of gravity of everything in our solar system in fact.


Actually, I'm not convinced you're right to be this black and white. Your argument is based on theories that have stood the test of time and are supported by overwhelming observable evidence (*said the spaghetti monster), but they are still only theories and not to be confused with fact - i think :roll:

To pick up on Joebert's wacky point, when observed from beyond our own universe the laws of physics may not even apply :? dimensions could be different... :multi: 'god only knows' what it would be like to look-in from the outside.
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

If you can't see the whole picture, you can't tell what it's doing.
Untill someone finds the edge of the universe, there will always be an amount of uncertaity whether the universe revolves around the earth or not.

There was a time when the fact that the earth is flat had withstood the test of time & had been derived from numerous observations. :D
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9185
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Prime wrote:
Actually, I'm not convinced you're right to be this black and white. Your argument is based on theories that have stood the test of time and are supported by overwhelming observable evidence (*said the spaghetti monster), but they are still only theories and not to be confused with fact - i think :roll:


The stuff I quoted you wasn't theories, that is all stuff they have proven. That is how they can send spaceships up and know what velocity to send them to stay in orbit. It is also how they know what velocity is needed to break orbit and head to other planets, asteroids, comets, the sun etc on the precise path that they do. How do you think they were able to send what they have to Mars? You really have to have a good understanding of these laws and how gravity works to pull things off like that.
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

That only covers the relationship between the Earth & the Sun. There's still the matter of the relationship between the Earth & the Universe.

It's just like the time meman couldn't prove that polar bears will actually be "extinct" because there will always be a level of uncertainty whether there's another planet with polar bears on it somewhere else in the Universe. :)

I'm not arguing against gravity, only against it being possible to prove whether the Universe revolves around the Earth or not. :)
  • Prime
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 934
  • Loc: Liverpool

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
The stuff I quoted you wasn't theories, that is all stuff they have proven. That is how they can send spaceships up and know what velocity to send them to stay in orbit. It is also how they know what velocity is needed to break orbit and head to other planets, asteroids, comets, the sun etc on the precise path that they do. How do you think they were able to send what they have to Mars? You really have to have a good understanding of these laws and how gravity works to pull things off like that.



You believe something to be absolute because you can observe/calculate it :?: ...try this... :roll:

Most of science is not based on fact but on theory. Gravity is a theory general relativity evolution and quantum physics are all theories. And whilst I happen to agree with them (in my limited understanding) they are all to often taught/mistaken as fact.

You do not need to fully comprehend the underlying reasons in order to exploit an opportunity.

I maybe guilty of arguing bigger picture with limited success :oops:
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Take for instance this pocket watch.

Image

Any single gear tooth when observed becomes a stationary position & can be the center of the pocket watch (Universe) & all of the gears can continue to work exactly how they did before observation.

You can argue that the room around the pocket watch is proof that the gear tooth is revolving around its' axis, but how do you know the room itself is not spinning without going outside of it and making that observation ?
  • Prime
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 934
  • Loc: Liverpool

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Any single gear tooth when observed becomes a stationary position & can be the center of the pocket watch (Universe) & all of the gears can continue to work exactly how they did before observation.

You can argue that the room around the pocket watch is proof that the gear tooth is revolving around its' axis, but how do you know the room itself is not spinning without going outside of it and making that observation ?


my head hurts :puppydogeyes: I have a headache :cry: time for bed... :D
  • quantumcloud
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 455
  • Loc: Dhaka, Bangladesh

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
That only covers the relationship between the Earth & the Sun. There's still the matter of the relationship between the Earth & the Universe.

...............

I'm not arguing against gravity, only against it being possible to prove whether the Universe revolves around the Earth or not. :)

joebert wrote:
You can argue that the room around the pocket watch is proof that the gear tooth is revolving around its' axis, but how do you know the room itself is not spinning without going outside of it and making that observation ?
:)


Interesting topic. There are actually 2 scenarios that must be considered to avoid confusions. One, in which the entire universe with all the 11 dimensions, including space-time, is revolving or more precisely rotating (with respects to a point in our 3 spatial dimensions). And one in which the objects inside the universe are revolving around a central point. Here the rotation of space-time and the universe in total is not the main factor.

All of our observations and evidences suggest that the Cosmological Principle is true; that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large spatial scale and there are no preferred directions or preferred places in the Universe. The local group, which consists of milky way and few other galaxies, lies on outskirts of Virgo Cluster consisting of a few thousand galaxies. But it is a very very small scale. In the large scale the universe is mostly empty and would look the same in any direction you look. Now let's assume a simple rotating universe model where every point in space is rotating around an origin. If the universe rotates with respects to a point in our 3 spatial dimensions - this violates the Cosmological principle as there is now a preferred direction and place. Also those who follow Mach (as Joebert here) may think that a rotating universe is meaningless because if the whole universe is rotating then there is nothing with respect to this rotation can be happening. So there is really no way to prove one way or the other unless we actually go outside of the universe and observe (visually?)! However, GTR shows that a rotating universe would have observable effect that we can detect staying within this universe and we can settle the issue one way or the other. If you fire a laser beam in the so-called empty space-time of a rotating universe it will appear to travel along a spiral path rather than a straight line. But increasingly precise observations show that this is not the case and we do not have a rotating universe revolving around anything according to GTR. A rotating universe theory was put forward by Godel around 1949 but later observations of the real universe dismissed this theory.

To consider the 2nd scenario: objects within the universe move around another big object when the Mass of the big object curves the space-time fabric and forces smaller objects moving in straight line to move along the curve instead. There is no such large object on or nearby earth that can cause the entire universe to revolve around it. The uniform expansion of the space-time fabric everywhere at once also suggests strongly that there is no center of the universe.

There is no Center of the universe around which everything revolves. There is the famous balloon analogy that anyone can look up to see exactly how the space-time metric expands and why there is no Center of the universe.

Lastly for both Joe and Prime, the Observer effect or the Collapsing of Quantum Probabilities applies only to microscopic scale; scale much smaller than atoms. Quantum Mechanics has no relevance to macroscopic objects.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9185
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Prime wrote:
You believe something to be absolute because you can observe/calculate it :?: ...try this... :roll:

Most of science is not based on fact but on theory. Gravity is a theory general relativity evolution and quantum physics are all theories. And whilst I happen to agree with them (in my limited understanding) they are all to often taught/mistaken as fact.


I still disagree. Yes there are many theories, but there are also laws too. Please read Newton's Law of Gravity:

http://physics.about.com/od/classicalme ... ravity.htm

Quote:
Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.


Also read this:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Now this could be where you are confusing what I am saying. I am just talking about the center of gravity and how things orbit each other. It is fact that the sun orbits around a center of gravity, this is also how they can figure out if a star in the night sky is actually a binary star (actually two stars not one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star

Anyway that is off topic. Now if you involve time and all sorts of additional things then I would agree with you in that you are getting more into theory. If you read that link above here is a quote:

Quote:
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
  • jflynn
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2310
  • Loc: Baker City, Oregon

Post 3+ Months Ago

I've known some woman that thought the Universe revolved around them,

:)

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 40 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
cron
 

© 1998-2016. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.