[TobiasMar]

No, I'm not talking about the polar caps of Mars. I'm talking about certain minerals and substances on the surface of Mars that could have formed only in water. We have discovered that! I heared so on this PBS show about Mars. very very interesting this is...

Oh yeah, here's an article with several details: http://www.pbs.org/w.../essential.html

[Andross]

It's 'heard.' And the evidence (which is old) suggests that life WAS on Mars (there definitely isn't any type of life, even in the water), which was suggested by evidence of water as well in the first place. Another one of the more suggestive pieces of evidence is carbon, which is an element that is pretty much the most versatile element known to man and is anywhere life is.

I'm just wondering if they've been smart enough to try and get carbon samples and do carbon dating to estimate how long ago the life that may have been there became extinct and if the place had complex or only basic life.

[TobiasMar]

Well....Life also needs oxygen, but I don't know how much of that Mars has, probably very little comparing to our Earth. But, if Mars does have a decent amount of Oxygen, That also may prove that Life once existed there. But I do hear that Mars is extremely vulnerable to asteroids because of a very weak magnetic field and thin atmosphere. The magnetic field is weak because the Planet's iron core isn't solid like it is on Earth, but it may have been solid with a pretty powerful magnetic field at one time. Perhaps, when the magnetic field collapsed, that was when Life on Mars was destroyed.

[Kikuichimonji]

That's very true, all living creatures need oxygen to respire...but this is on earth, and I guess that's how we've come to evolve.

So yes that is true but you never know...

[Ganon]

Hmm..intresting.I guess there could of been life there, at one point or another...but that stuff kinda scares me...

[Someone Else]

I heard something like that there was life on Mars, but it soon died because there just wasn't enough of the "Stuff of Life" for them to live. Dunno if it's true, just something I heard.

[Echo_djinn]

Kikuichimonji, on Jan 5 2005, 05:46 PM, said:

That's very true, all living creatures need oxygen to respire...but this is on earth, and I guess that's how we've come to evolve.

So yes that is true but you never know...

Yes oxygen may be on earth but to are knowledge oxygen is needed for life forms to live. I don't believe that there are other forms of life out there. Yes it's just us in this big universe. Though I find it strange to see life on mars but here is my theory on it. When they sent the probe to mars there was some bacteria or whatever on the probe so when it landed it feel on the rocks it collected and that is are mysterious life form. Now the water thing I have no idea.

[Andross]

Gimli the Great, on Jan 5 2005, 09:42 PM, said:

Well....Life also needs oxygen, but I don't know how much of that Mars has, probably very little comparing to our Earth. But, if Mars does have a decent amount of Oxygen, That also may prove that Life once existed there.

For one, it doesn't. Second of all, oxygen doesn't mean life exists. Several planets, gas planets included, are likely to have oxygen on them, whether in a pure or compound form. Oxygen is not produced just because life exists.

And Echo_Djinn, that is, sorry to say, a stupid inference. Not only did I say life was not present at all, but the vacuum of space would have made any bacteria die and fall off the probe. The only way bacteria could have been on there is if Mars produced it, which isn't possible.

In addtion, this is talking about evidence that life existed on Mars. And water evidence was present even BEFORE we put a probe down on the planet itself.

[Echo_djinn]

Andross, on Jan 5 2005, 09:36 PM, said:

For one, it doesn't. Second of all, oxygen doesn't mean life exists. Several planets, gas planets included, are likely to have oxygen on them, whether in a pure or compound form. Oxygen is not produced just because life exists.

And Echo_Djinn, that is, sorry to say, a stupid inference. Not only did I say life was not present at all, but the vacuum of space would have made any bacteria die and fall off the probe. The only way bacteria could have been on there is if Mars produced it, which isn't possible.

In addtion, this is talking about evidence that life existed on Mars. And water evidence was present even BEFORE we put a probe down on the planet itself.

No, listen what if the bacteria was inside the probe. Yes even though it is most likly that it flew out through the cracks in the probe it is still possible. It was just a theory. Not like I actually base it on what they found. Man clam down. It sounded like you were trying to insult me.

[Andross]

It's not possible at all. The bacteria can't survive because, #1, no air, #2, no water, #3, no gravity. It would float away, die, and disappear before the pod could even get to the halfway point. In addition, radiation would have made it IMPOSSIBLE for any living thing to survive out to Mars for such a long period of time in empty space.

And this was about EVIDENCE, (again, read the posts before hand), that life HAD BEEN on Mars. This is before any probe was ever sent out to Mars, as satellite and telescope images were used to discover evidence of water. Plus, the amount of material that was left on Mars which supports the theory that there was water there would make it impossible for a single germ to have an effect on results.

[Echo_djinn]

Andross, on Jan 7 2005, 06:16 PM, said:

It's not possible at all. The bacteria can't survive because, #1, no air, #2, no water, #3, no gravity. It would float away, die, and disappear before the pod could even get to the halfway point. In addition, radiation would have made it IMPOSSIBLE for any living thing to survive out to Mars for such a long period of time in empty space.

And this was about EVIDENCE, (again, read the posts before hand), that life HAD BEEN on Mars. This is before any probe was ever sent out to Mars, as satellite and telescope images were used to discover evidence of water. Plus, the amount of material that was left on Mars which supports the theory that there was water there would make it impossible for a single germ to have an effect on results.

That maybe true but do you still believe that there is life on Mars? Or that there was life on Mars? I don't. Yes there are strong facts backing up the point that there was life on Mars but I don't take it seriously.

[Andross]

Maybe true? No, it IS true. No living micro-organism could make it all the way to Mars. End of story.

I never said that I believe there was life on Mars. Neither do I not think there never was. I'm just trying to tell you that you need to check your logic, and come up with a better reason for saying there was never life.

Now, for one, water doesn't necessarily mean there's life anyway. Ice exists at Mars's polar caps, which is frozen water, and occasionally melts. But there's no life present. Europa shows that there is a strong likelihood that life is present. And while micro-organisms could survive in the near frozen conditions, it doesn't necessarily mean anything is there. Carbon is suggestive that there may have been life, but there is no other solid physical evidence. At this point in time, making the assumption that there was or wasn't life on Mars based on your beliefs, rather than facts, is foolish. Follow where the evidence leads. Don't lead the evidence to where you want it to go.

[Dullahan]

if there was life on mars it's not there now, so what's all the fuss about, there has to be life somewhere in the universe

[Elliott]

God Dullahan, lighten up, your starting to sound like me on a bad day.

[Echo_djinn]

Dullahan, on Jan 11 2005, 08:47 AM, said:

if there was life on mars it's not there now, so what's all the fuss about, there has to be life somewhere in the universe

Thats for you to decide. Yes it is quite hard to believe that in such a big universe that there must be life somewhere else I don't believe that there is. Also even if there was life on other planets we would likley never know it because we could never be able to reach them with the technology that we have today.

[Ivan is my name]

Oome on, everyone! There is billions of planets out there, and this cant be the only one with life on! I was discussing this with a friend yesterday. There is life out there, we just cant be bothered to find it.

[Elliott]

Because chances are the nearest life would be millions of light years away, and we just can't send people that far yet.

[Echo_djinn]

I think we will never have the technology to travel out of our galaxy. Maybe we can do it but I think it would take many years to have effect technology that would be able to send man out into the deep cold of space. Another thing is that we would need a man who would be brave enough to go on this journey. I doubt anyone would want to spend years in space just floating around.

[Ivan is my name]

Well if we cant go to find other life, it will probably have to find us.

[Echo_djinn]

Ivan is my name, on Jan 12 2005, 02:05 AM, said:

Well if we cant go to find other life, it will probably have to find us.

Lets be reasonable here. Lets say if there was life on another planet even if they had better technology it would be almost impossible for them to reach us. It takes light years for us to be able to send a man out into space and escape our galaxy(The Milky Way)to search other galaxys.

[Andross]

For one, I suggest you guys study the theory of relativity. Traveling at the speed of light actually makes the person in motion experience time at a rapidly increased pace. 1 year to them, for example, would actually be many decades on a regular, Earth-like planet. So if near-lightspeed travel is managed, shipping people off wouldn't be so sci-fi, because the traveling persons wouldn't feel the effects of a staggeringly long 50 years, but a period of 1. Neat, huh?

Of course, we don't have the knowledge to comprehend how to propel ourselves to such a speed. It's POSSIBLE because space is a vacuum with no friction to hinder us. It's a matter of how we can propel ourselves so fast, and making sure gravitational pull doesn't cause an inadvertent slingshot. Or we may want to slingshot, but not with the wrong planet.

Last of all, if we could develop telescopes that could peer from space onto Earth-like planets, we could at least guess as to what places show evidence of life. We can't do it Earth bound due to many factors, but satellite telescopes would work just fine. Or, should I say, should, because some new ones are being launched pretty soon to replace the Hubble.

[Max]

I believed that there must be life out there somewhere else in the universe, but as others have said, I doubt we will ever find it. People, we can't even get to Mars, let alone to another solar system. I don't see humans leaving the solar system in the next 50-100 years without some enormous breakthroughs in propulsion technology. I'm a huge advocate for the space programs, but it is plainly obvious that we won't be getting real far anytime soon.

[Ravenblade]

um...the theory of relativity doesnt mean that the person woudnt feel the effects of time. Its just that...they would only feel like it was a year when it had been more for us. They would still age normally.

Also, the next nearest star, which i think is Alpha Centauri but i cant remember so dont attack me if thats wrong, is 4 light years away...it would take the person we decided to fling at it 4 years to reach it by which time they would be dead.

And thats assuming we accelerate them to light speed which is impossible as their mass would increase to the size of the universe. (i didnt make that up)

As for outside of the galaxy...i think we're about 2000 lightyears from it cos we're in one of the thin sections but even still it isnt ever going to happen without some brilliant and improbable scientific breakthrough.

I'm pretty sure the Solar System is as far as it gets for us..

[TobiasMar]

Max, on Jan 14 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

I believed that there must be life out there somewhere else in the universe, but as others have said, I doubt we will ever find it. People, we can't even get to Mars, let alone to another solar system. I don't see humans leaving the solar system in the next 50-100 years without some enormous breakthroughs in propulsion technology. I'm a huge advocate for the space programs, but it is plainly obvious that we won't be getting real far anytime soon.

We may not....but the Rovers on Mars have found information that life and/or water may have existed on Mars some time ago.

[Andross]

Ravenblade, on Jan 14 2005, 03:52 PM, said:

um...the theory of relativity doesnt mean that the person woudnt feel the effects of time. Its just that...they would only feel like it was a year when it had been more for us. They would still age normally.

No, traveling at the speed of light (or near it) is basically bending time itself. That's why people theorize that traveling faster than speed of light sends you back in time. It's the whole space-time continum deal, and it's just confusing, but there's definitely a good possibility that your body will not just speed up to stay in motion with regular time. It's more of a 'loss of words' thing, but you aren't right. Nor wrong. We haven't tried it yet, but in theory, we COULD do such a thing, w/out the guy dying in space.

[Someone Else]

Well, another thing we have to put into consideration is that the guy has to have supplies with him out there. Not only food and water, but he has to have air too.

[Ravenblade]

Andross, on Jan 14 2005, 09:26 PM, said:

No, traveling at the speed of light (or near it) is basically bending time itself. That's why people theorize that traveling faster than speed of light sends you back in time. It's the whole space-time continum deal, and it's just confusing, but there's definitely a good possibility that your body will not just speed up to stay in motion with regular time. It's more of a 'loss of words' thing, but you aren't right. Nor wrong. We haven't tried it yet, but in theory, we COULD do such a thing, w/out the guy dying in space.

Thats not what i understood the theory of relativity to be but its been a while since i learnt it so i'll concede^^

However i definately remember Einsteins principles on..um..Mass and Energy duality or something (again, its been a while) whereby if something is accelerated to the speed of light (assuming it has mass) then its mass will increase exponentially until it would be infinite. Thus...going faster then light seems somewhate improbable.

[Andross]

Yes, but there is a possibility of going near light speed, which would still produce the same effects. Unfortunately, as Max said, a system of such propulsion doesn't seem likely for the time being. For all we know, it has to do with matter in the state of plasma and the possibility that the ultra-hot material can be used somehow. Or we somehow use nuclear energy to make an explosion that moves spacecraft (this was thought of after WWII, but before the space race even began).

But this is about Mars, and I think the topic was settled. Chances of life on Mars could have been possible. But there isn't enough evidence for us to know for sure. Fossils could easily be buried a good 1000 feet into the surface, which is a likelihood considering all the dust storms that happen there. Or everything just decayed quickly. Who knows.

The great mysteries of the Universe that can't be solved, yet we still ponder 'em :P

[TobiasMar]

Andross, on Jan 15 2005, 09:00 AM, said:

Yes, but there is a possibility of going near light speed, which would still produce the same effects. Unfortunately, as Max said, a system of such propulsion doesn't seem likely for the time being. For all we know, it has to do with matter in the state of plasma and the possibility that the ultra-hot material can be used somehow. Or we somehow use nuclear energy to make an explosion that moves spacecraft (this was thought of after WWII, but before the space race even began).

Hmm, now THAT sounds like a pretty good idea, as long as it doesn't tear the craft apart.

[Sol.Warrior]

Travelling at the speed of light IS impossible, like somebody said because mass becomes infinite. I think there WAS life on Mars, and that's why we're here./ I read this article on how therer's a face on Mars like the Sphynz and it's also in exactly the same place as the one in Egypt relative to how spherical Earth and Mars are and in respect to their equators....i'm a gonna go luk for it now lol

[Illidan]

Dullahan, on Jan 12 2005, 12:47 AM, said:

if there was life on mars it's not there now, so what's all the fuss about, there has to be life somewhere in the universe

What are we? A big pile of crap? Last time I checked we were living. Maybe you should consider wording that better next time. :)

[Ivan is my name]

There is life out there, it's just that we arent technologically advanced enough yet. When we are, I will be dead.... probably

[TobiasMar]

Unless there's Technology madness...like what happened in the 20th century. XD

[Bekita]

I wouldn't be surprised at water or somethin....but other uh...things lol I dunno if i could believe that

[Zxor]

Ivan is my name, on Jan 20 2005, 12:01 PM, said:

There is life out there, it's just that we arent technologically advanced enough yet. When we are, I will be dead.... probably

WE will probably all be dead, or near death by then.

[Ivan is my name]

Gimli the Great, on Jan 21 2005, 12:38 AM, said:

Unless there's Technology madness...like what happened in the 20th century. XD

But they will have to have really huge technology madness, because we need to travel in lightyears, which are bloody fast

[l3lueMage]

I will give it a century, or of course, they could load up a shuttle full of food to last about 10 years? and goto mars themselves. then they can once again say that one thing one small step for....(i dont know it okay!)

[Andross]

Ivan is my name, on Jan 21 2005, 06:49 AM, said:

But they will have to have really huge technology madness, because we need to travel in lightyears, which are bloody fast

There's no such thing as traveling in lightyears :ph34r:
We'd have to travel near lightspeed (not at, because it's impossible). Or we'd have to learn how to make a wormhole, which would bend two points together, thus defeating that obsolete 'shortest distance between two points is a line' crap :P

Ya know, some people think that we advanced so quickly due to help from aliens ;)

This topic has kinda lost it's point now. Unless anyone wants to change it towards the moon Titan (Saturn's largest satellite). The probe that was droped there has started sending pictures and what not. I think they're just black and white though. Nonetheless, there's now proof liquid matter exists on the planet. Mmmmm, natural liquid gasoline :lol:

[TobiasMar]

A light year is the distance Light travels in a year.

Anyway, I also find Titan interesting....I wonder if there's life there too....O_o

[Andross]

Gimli the Great, on Jan 24 2005, 06:54 PM, said:

A light year is the distance Light travels in a year.

No, I mean, lightyears isn't a measurement of speed. It's a measurement of distance.. He should've said we'd have to travel at 300,000 miles per second (or 290,000 meters per second to be more precise). if he wanted to talk speed, as it sounded as if we was saying that, not distance. It just depends on how you read it, and I'm weird like that :P

[TobiasMar]

Andross, on Jan 24 2005, 07:10 PM, said:

No, I mean, lightyears isn't a measurement of speed. It's a measurement of distance..

I know, I said that! Sheesh...But then again, traveling near lightspeed will not be available until much later or even never.... o-O

[Andross]

I wasn't telling you that, I was explaining myself ^_^

As for traveling near light speed, the one problem is the gravitational forces that would be simulated against our body. Humans can barely sustain 4G forces. Most people blackout at 6Gs if not before hand. If you hit 10Gs, you can expect a person to die at that point. Although I have no idea if there's any differences with this within a vaccum. I'd suspect the same problems though.

[TobiasMar]

O_O! Wow....now thats dangerous.