Slashdot Mirror


Still More Evidence of Life of Mars

dirtyhank writes: "According to this article a group of Hungarian scientists have found another potential evidence of life on Mars. Apparently some groups of dark spots spread every martian spring. They say this could be caused by photosynthetic organisms."

249 comments

  1. Re:yes by Rykard · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Damn you, you sniveller! ;) At least use a name! :P

    --
    Rykard
    Breaking the Internet one standard at a time, since 1999
  2. Evolution at its best by Ghoser777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So 2 billion years ago, a small class of organisms survived the collapse of Mars' attmosphere. And so many billions of years later a distant (and possibly radically different) relative of that organism still thrives (atleast during the spring). That's pretty cool.

    This is a great scientific find (if these do turn out to be organisms), especially if by studying them we can figure out how they manage to survive at subzero temperatures. Considering we're over do for another ice age, that could come in handy.

    F-bacher

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
    1. Re:Evolution at its best by Spootnik · · Score: 0, Funny

      False alert, scientists found out it was organisms on the telescope lens.

    2. Re:Evolution at its best by chabotc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actualy i would call this evolution at its worst. In 2 billion years, you'd expect them to -evolve' wouldn't you? Compare it to what happened on this planet in 2 billion years... my god, those martians must be lazy ;-)

    3. Re:Evolution at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah. But maybe they just look like harmless little algea patches, in order to entice scientists to bring samples back to Earth. Once they've entered the cozy atmosphere of our planet, they'll activate and take control of the population through our TV sets.

      Don't you watch any scifi movies?

    4. Re:Evolution at its best by MulluskO · · Score: 1

      Educated women are much less likely to reproduce than uneducated women. Assuming that intelligent women are more likely to be educated, we are children of a lesser mind, and thus not really evolving at all.

      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    5. Re:Evolution at its best by hylander_sb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Evolution is not unbounded. An organism can only evolve as much as its environment will allow. This is why there is less 'intelligence' in the water. Water is a relatively unvaried environment. A lack of varied environment leads to less variety in the organism. Look at fish. They're all pretty much the same. Basically. Look at Mammals. VERY different within the Kingdom. What Kingdom has been around longer? The fish. Why aren't they more 'advanced' than mammals? Less variance in environment. More variance means more opportunity for evolutionary advancement through mutations. From what I recall, Mars' environment isn't too varied.

      The temperature varies, but it seldom, if ever, gets above the freezing point of water. (NASA says the high is 59 with a low of about -184) Let's not forget that the presence of liquid water is VERY important to life as we know it. Not too many organisms can survive in low water conditions. Note though that there is life everywhere on Earth, even in the ice of the arctic and antartic.

    6. Re:Evolution at its best by memyselfandmyhand · · Score: 1

      Is this similar to the reason why there is a lack of intelligence in America?

    7. Re:Evolution at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than a few years ago, astronomers saw dark patches spead across the martian surface during the planet's 'spring'. This was thought to be life spreading during the season changes, very similar to what is observed here. This is actually just the massive dust storms that are kicked up by Mars' incredible winds. Not to say that this is exactly the same as that, but chances are that this new discovery is actually just a rediscovery and re-mistake. I hope its true, God knows that we have organisms here that dwell where we wouldve thought they couldnt ever live, so odds are that there is life somewhere on Mars, but chances are.....

    8. Re:Evolution at its best by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Education is not transmitted through DNA. Duh.

    9. Re:Evolution at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Compare it to what happened on this planet in 2 billion years...

      Yes, exactly.

    10. Re:Evolution at its best by jx100 · · Score: 1

      But intelligence is.

    11. Re:Evolution at its best by Beowabbit · · Score: 1
      Water is a relatively unvaried environment.
      Um, no. On this planet, the ocean environment is at least as varied and full of weirdness as the land and the sky, and probably much more so. The deep sea floor is nothing like the surface. The area around geothermal vents is still more different. There are areas with lots of oxygen in the water and areas with almost none. Temperatures range from well below (surface-pressure freshwater) freezing to well above boiling. Somebody who actually knew something about this could go on way longer than I can; I've just seen my partners' scuba-diving videos. :-)
      Look at fish. They're all pretty much the same.
      Again, no. They strike me as a lot more varied than mammals (if perhaps not more varied than all land animals - but then, fish are not all sea life, either).
    12. Re:Evolution at its best by Link310 · · Score: 1

      Umm...aren't fish and mammals both part of the Animal kingdom? Wow, now that I look at it, we're both even part of phylum Chordata. I'll leave finding more details as an excercise to the reader, or the next poster.

    13. Re:Evolution at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientific find? I don't think so . Those "dark blotches" are dollar signs ( $$$$$ ) marching across the wops grant proposal ... Deal with it. No life exists on Mars - now or ever. No life anywhere, now or ever --- anywhere. Except Earth. We are all alone, as 'life'. And when we snuff out ourselves there will be nothing living. Anywhere. Ever again.

    14. Re:Evolution at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you have successfully trolled slashdot. We bow in awe of your mighty phallus. Now fuck off.

    15. Re:Evolution at its best by xigxag · · Score: 1

      The idea of evolution as an upwards struggle is a common fallacy. Evolution doesn't necessarily involve "improvement" as evaluated by human values. It just involves change which adapts an organism to its environment. For example, housecats (Felis catus) are evolved from larger wild cats, and the evidence seems to be that their progenitors were more intelligent. However, the domestic cat is tremendously more sucessful as a species because it has insinuated themselves into a modern human-infested environment in a way that bobcats and ocelots are unable to. Similarly, the modern human, having to operate the mind-numbing Windows, probably requires less intelligence than our immediate CLI-using forebears and so evolution proceeds apace.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    16. Re:Evolution at its best by hylander_sb · · Score: 1

      I can't agree that the ocean is more or even at least as varied as land. Consider with which parts of the ocean sea life interacts. For most, it's just the water. Yes, there are reefs and caves and sand and vents, but it boils down to the fact that it is primarily the water and the amount of light that a fish must deal with.
      Perhaps I overstated to say that fish are basically the same. However, I think that you must grant that they are more similar to each other than mammals are to each other. Mammals go from elephants to cats to mice to monkeys to horses, etc etc. The differences among mammals is much greater, mainly due to the differences in their environments.
      Please remember that I am speaking in relative terms here. I in no way intend to imply that there is NO variance in the oceans. Just considerably less than on land.
      I won't say that I have evidence, but I won't have to look too far to prove that the rate of change in land animals since they left the water has far outpaced sea animals when they started. I mean, horseshoe crabs and sharks are still around! Why? Because they're so advanced? No. Because they're environment has not changed significantly in millions and millions of years. I would have to say that the impact of human activity has got to be the greatest challenge sea life has faced in aeons. Also, take the seasons. What is the change in temperature of water in any one location? Not much. Warm oceans stay warm and cold ones stay cold...relatively. Sea life that experience vast differences in temperature in its life has to migrate vast distances to do so. For the most part these are mammals with the exception of some sharks and fewer fish like salmon. Also, when was the last time a coral reef turned into a deep sea canyon or the other way around. We have evidence that some deserts used to be forests and vice versa. THAT is variance.

    17. Re:Evolution at its best by hylander_sb · · Score: 1

      3000 brownie points for you! Ok. I used the wrong term...It should be class.

    18. Re:Evolution at its best by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      But intelligence is.

      Heh! That's a nice assumption... of course, since we've never come up with a decent definition of intelligence, much less a means for objectively testing it, it may or may not be a defensible assuption depends on what you think intelligence means and which arbitrary system of measurement you've picked to base your evidence on...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    19. Re:Evolution at its best by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      ...I think that you must grant that they are more similar to each other than mammals are to each other...The differences among mammals is much greater...

      I believe you're suffering from the taxonomical equivelent of the "all foreigners look alike" syndrome. Even biologists aren't immune to this: there are species of mice in which the genetic variation with the species is greater than the variation between humans and chimps, and yet we consider these mice different varieties of the same species whereas we don't even consider chimps to be in the same genus as us. The point being that the closer something is to being like you, the more exagerated the minor differences appear, whereas for things sufficiently alien, the differences are almost impossible to notice. This is how our brains operate.

      That having been said, I think you're on crack. The amount of variation among sea-life dwarfs the amount of variation on land by several orders of magnitude. Mammals are remarkably similar compared to one another, especially when you start looking at their organs and skeletons and you know, just taking them apart and seeing how they tick. We all have all the same parts, just in different proportions. We all operate pretty much the same way. Fish are way more varied than mammals...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    20. Re:Evolution at its best by MulluskO · · Score: 1

      Noun: intelligence
      1. a good ability to understand and to profit from experience
      2. secret information about an enemy (or potential enemy)
      3. new information about specific and timely events
      4. the operation of gathering information about an enemy

      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    21. Re:Evolution at its best by base2op · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that the presence of liquid water is VERY important to life as we know it. Not too many organisms can survive in low water conditions.

      Yeah, that's just it - Life as we know it. It doesn't mean that all life must come about as we know it. Perhaps life on other planets is based on nothing aquatic. Perhaps it's not even made of matter.

    22. Re:Evolution at its best by hylander_sb · · Score: 1

      **I don't even know why I'm bothering with this reply. No one will see it anyway**
      I concede. Genetically speaking, there is more variety in the sea. I still think that the rate of evolution on land has been much faster than in the sea due to the relative stability of the environments. By the way, when you get down to it, bacteria have all other Kingdoms (and I mean it this time) trumped when it comes to diversity. I had never thought of it before, but every multi-celled organism has forms of bacteria incorporated in their cells (ie. mitochondria).

      However, none of this has anything to do with what chemicals I may or may not ingest and I take exception to your characterization of me. If you can't disagree with someone without calling names or assaulting (erroneously) the character of your opponent, then keep out of the discussion.

    23. Re:Evolution at its best by hylander_sb · · Score: 1

      Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but we can only regard this from the point of view of life as we know it. Otherwise we wouldn't know it is life and we wouldn't think that it's life. So, either it is life as we know it, or life as we haven't previously known it and now do, or dirt.

  3. Re:What gives by Spootnik · · Score: 0, Funny

    You submitted too early. Post at least 3 months after the original story was published and it will get on Slashdot.

  4. What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Kiss+the+Blade · · Score: 0, Interesting
    It's a God awful small affair for her. The life on Mars issue doesn't just impact in the Scientific field - it affects all of us, the entirety of humanity.

    If we find life on Mars, we will never be able to colonise it. Expanding the human experience beyond the shores, the gravity well of this puny Earth requires a virgin territory. But if Mars is soiled with life, we cannot infect it with out own, for that would be interstellar ecocide.

    The children are crying, they wail because with every piece of evidence that Mars has life, the long term survival of the Human race gets that bit slimmer. We need room to grow. We need to move off this poisoned planet. But the one save heavenly haven that awaits us is already taken.

    Whatever can we do now? What happens when the light goes out?

    --

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
    There is no

    1. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      You're kidding, right?

      We'll crush any life we may find under our feet if need be, as we've done for the past 100,000 years or so.

      -Legion

    2. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Rykard · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you have been reading... but for humanity to choose suicide (effectively) over ecocide/extermiantion of another race? I have my doubts... Matter of fact, I believe the only way we wouldn't do it, is if we were killed off first.

      --
      Rykard
      Breaking the Internet one standard at a time, since 1999
    3. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Shoeboy · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's a god-awful small affair
      To the girl with the mousy hair
      But her mummy is yelling "No"
      And her daddy has told her to go
      But her friend is nowhere to be seen
      Now she walks through her sunken dream
      To the seat with the clearest view
      And she's hooked to the silver screen
      But the film is a saddening bore
      For she's lived it ten times or more
      She could spit in the eyes of fools
      As they ask her to focus on
      Sailors fighting in the dance hall
      Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
      It's the freakiest show
      Take a look at the Lawman
      Beating up the wrong guy
      Oh man! Wonder if he'll ever know
      He's in the best selling show
      Is there life on Mars?
      It's on Amerika's tortured brow
      That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
      Now the workers have struck for fame
      'Cause Lennon's on sale again
      See the mice in their million hordes
      From Ibeza to the Norfolk Broads
      Rule Britannia is out of bounds
      To my mother, my dog, and clowns
      But the film is a saddening bore
      'Cause I wrote it ten times or more
      It's about to be writ again
      As I ask you to focus on
      Sailors fighting in the dance hall
      Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
      It's the freakiest show
      Take a look at the Lawman
      Beating up the wrong guy
      Oh man! Wonder if he'll ever know
      He's in the best selling show
      Is there life on Mars?

    4. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Funny
      if we find life on Mars, we will never be able to colonise it. Expanding the human experience beyond the shores, the gravity well of this puny Earth requires a virgin territory. But if Mars is soiled with life, we cannot infect it with out own, for that would be interstellar ecocide.

      So we commit planetary suicide becuase we are afraid to contaminate a few lichens?

      This is lunacy of the highest order.

      Now we should check it out to make sure there are no instellar cruisers or bases under that sand. Don't want to piss off the neighbors, especially if they are better armed.

      Besides, they have likely seen Our tv shows. No skeletons in our closet. We park them on the lawn to scare the neighbors.

      [smile]

      - - -
      Radio Free Nation
      an alternate news site using Slash Code
      "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    5. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by geomcbay · · Score: 2

      Mars is soiled with life, we cannot infect it with out own, for that would be interstellar ecocide.


      Someone has been watching too many Star Trek episodes.

    6. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is kidding, trolling to be exact.

    7. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very interesting post but proximity says otherwise. We will "infect" Mars (colonize) probably even before the moon because of gravity. And as for inter(ra)stellar ecocide, it already began long ago with the Mars 3 lander in 1971 and Mars 6 in '73 (with which contact was lost) and the Viking 1 and 2 in '75. Radiation kills a lot but it doesn't kill everything.

    8. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by fr2asbury · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmmmm. The last time I checked, we were pretty dependant on other life to survive ourselves.
      So, unless we want to spend our entire lives sealed up in some grounded space capsule, while we try and wait for imported Earth life to thrive on a lifeless rock, we are going to need to settle on a planet that has life. Earthlike life. Ideally we'd find green plants that both produce oxygen and food.
      I know the likely hood of this is small, but so does the idea of colonizing a rock that is incapable of supporting life.
      Think about it. . . if there's NO life there, there's probably a reason.

      Jonathan

      Someone else mentioned Star Trek, presumably concerning the "Prime Directive." Ever notice that obviously no such "ideal" existed in the Star Wars universe. Civilizations seem to have gotten the space flight, weapon, and heavy sliding automatic door technology whereever they were in their development.

    9. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
      Now we should check it out to make sure there are no instellar cruisers or bases under that sand. Don't want to piss off the neighbors, especially if they are better armed.

      We've got Texas and the South--no way the Martians are any better armed...

      Give me half-a-hundred good ol' boys and I'll deliver you Mars sliced, diced and and packaged in individual bubble-wrapped servings.

    10. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not at all convinced that the presence of life would deter settlement, though I hope it would. But colonizing planets is a waste of time anyway. Why escape one gravity well just to sink into another? Why put up with marsquakes, dust storms, potentially virulent alien biology, and all the other rot one has to face on a planetary surface? Just build space colonies and have done with it.

      Failing that, if you really insist on living on a dirtball, there are lots of available bodies in the Solar System which are guaranteed lifeless. We don't need Mars for that.

      The rewards of discovering an intact alien ecosystem -- an entire new empire of life -- are far greater than any we could get from colonization.

    11. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but we're talking about an interplanetary war, not a barroom brawl. History has shown that although southern good ol' boys may be better in a fight, northerners are better in a war. This may be related to the reason people prefer southern hospitality. In any case, I'd put my money on New York (or Boston, or Chicago, or ...) street thugs over southern good ol' boys any day -- southerners are too nice, northerners will cut out your liver and feed it to the dog... :)

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    12. Re:What about the girl with the mousy hair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GMAB We *might* be able to get enough people off planet before we fatally poison the billions stuck here, to maintain adequate genetic diversity, but there's no way they would be self-sufficient. Better we try to fix what we've got.

  5. check out the image by matrix0040 · · Score: 5, Informative

    an high resolution view of defrosting dunes in the southern polar region of Mars used in this study is available on discovery.com here

  6. Another article about this on Wired. by bihoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is the
    article I submitted yesterday.

  7. Re:Life by Rykard · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Interesting... but believeable? Somewhat But, as much as I place faith in ancient writings *snickers*, I must remember the golden rule of humanity: People lie

    --
    Rykard
    Breaking the Internet one standard at a time, since 1999
  8. Life on other planets too by dytin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If these do actually turn out to be life, then this is one of the largest discoveries that science had ever made. If there is life on Mars, then it is obvious that it is not that difficult to create life, and there is most likely life in other solar systems as well. Maybe it is more complex than this algae-type life is. This is truly amazing.

    1. Re:Life on other planets too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the Mars rock they found in Antarctica? Even if there is life on Mars it still might be related to us.

    2. Re:Life on other planets too by Goonie · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Not necessarily. Maybe life got started on Earth and got carried to Mars by a big meteorite impact stirring up chunks of bacteria-containing rock, which then drifted their way to Mars.

      Or, possibly, things went the other way from Mars to Earth . . .

      Life on Mars would be an amazing find, but if we can show that it most likely came from the same source as Earth it won't say that much about the possibility of life on other solar systems. However, if we can show it evolved independently it would suggest that life will be *really* common wherever you get approximately the right planets in the right climatactic zones (and those climactic zones aren't as precise as some people think).

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    3. Re:Life on other planets too by Yorrike · · Score: 1
      What would be really interesting is (if this is in fact life, and we managed to get a sample), to take a look at it's DNA.

      If it's Earth-like DNA, and we can somehow trace it back to early life forms on earth, then we know there could have been cross-contamination between Mars and Earth.

      Otherwise, if the DNA is unique, we have the greatest scientific discovery until anti-gravity and super light speed space travel.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    4. Re:Life on other planets too by arielb · · Score: 0

      all it would prove is that life can live on Mars. It won't tell us how it got there or if it is possible for it to live or be created anywhere else

      --
      ---
    5. Re:Life on other planets too by billh · · Score: 2

      There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that an advanced, yet mostly isolated culture on Earth, sometime in the past, progressed to the point where they decided to leave the planet.

      Then again, there is nothing to prove that they didn't, either.

      I'm not suggesting this, of course, but I do enjoy thinking about it from time to time. It would explain a number of things.

  9. Re:Life by Legion303 · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Excuse me, sir, I think your tinfoil hat is loose.

    -Legion

  10. Here is an article about this on wired by bihoy · · Score: 1

    According to the article "During harsh Martian winters, when temperatures plummet to minus-328 Fahrenheit, these so-called Mars Surface Organisms are protected by a thick blanket of ice which then melts as the planet's early summer temperatures climb to just above zero.

    Large gray dark dune spots -- with a diameter ranging from 30 feet to several hundred yards -- are left behind.

    These, the Hungarians claim, are dried-out organisms which can reactivate themselves once the colder, icy season sets in again."

  11. If all you've got is a hammer ... by geckoFeet · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... everything looks like a nail. "We cannot find anything else to explain it," said EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGST Tibor Gant. There are actually lots of seasonal changes on Mars that make colors and things - geologists and meteorologists have lots of explanations for them.

    1. Re:If all you've got is a hammer ... by highschool-bert · · Score: 1

      Ssh! Not so loud... This is their ticket to funding for the 2003 mission.

      --
      WWLUG: Feed the penguin.
    2. Re:If all you've got is a hammer ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ssh! Not so loud... This is their ticket to funding for the 2003 mission.

      Right, the Hungarian space program is indeed in desperate need of funding.
  12. Re:Life by Sharadin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes, people lie. That's why the world is infested with an evil thing called 'religion'. Zecharia Sitchin, however, literally breaks the 'godspell' and shows PROOF of how and WHY we were created - and also who we were truly created by. We weren't created by no 'God' - we created by an alien race (who look just like us) who posed as gods.

  13. Re:Life by angelo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I thought the Nephilim lived on our planet X, the planet that may or may not exist in our solar system that is twice the size of jupiter or more.

  14. Nutrients by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm not a biologist, but there is a simple question that nags me : assuming there is life on Mars in the form of bacteria or lychens, where do they find nutrients ?

    My understan7ding is that basic bacteria and other simple lifeforms transform certain chemicals into other chemicals using energy (usually sunlight). On Earth, the process is known to work because other organisms, usually higher in the food chain, degrade the new chemical back into the first kind of chemicals. It is also believed that the whole process was "jump-started" on Earth by incredibly high concentrations of primordial chemicals in the environment, high enough that the first unicellular lifeform would have time to both emerge then spawn other lifeforms to recycle the byproducts of its activity before the primordial chemicals would run out.

    So, the question is, what's the theory with life on Mars ? obviously there has to be more than one lifeform, at least two, so that one degrades what the other produces. Strangely, I never see this issue appear in any life-on-Mars theory. Or do scientists assume a form of life that simply uses energy and consumes what it creates ?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Nutrients by Ghoser777 · · Score: 1

      Well, considering these organisms thrive when the sun comes out, I'd assume it would be photsynthesis. I have no idea what the organisms are made of, but if they are able to transform sun light into an energy form that they can live on, then they're set. Also, there's a lot of ice around them, along with rocks and soil that could be rich in a material that the organisms like. There are plenty of organisms that live on nasty stuff on earth, so I'm sure organisms on Mars could find something to eat.

      The key is, matter and energy are interchangeable if you know the right processing method.

      F-bacher

      --
      James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
    2. Re:Nutrients by Tyler-Durden255 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are so not a biologist.

      Neither am I but you do not need a chemically balanced life cycle to have life. As a matter of fact oxygen production on earth origionallly was not a balanced chemical process, meaning origionally plants produced oxygen and nothing used that oxygen for almost a billion years!

      Why are you assuming it has to be a balanced process or a complicated life cycle?

      Why can't life on mars be a simple lichen like life form (though lichen is a symbiont on earth) that slowly photosynthisies energy and leeched it trace elements out of rock. If it's a slow process or there is only a small amount of life they can go on doing what they are doing on mars without dispoiling there environment for as long as the sun literally shines.

    3. Re:Nutrients by dgroskind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If there was photosynthesis there should be measurable amounts of oxygen. However, the fact is that the Martian atmosphere contains about 95.3% carbon dioxide and 2.7% nitrogen, with the remainder a mixture of trace gases.

      Even if the life processes were quite different from those on earth, you would expect a different mix of gasses than this one.

    4. Re:Nutrients by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they process some kind of material with sunlight and produce carbon dioxide? There are a ton of reactions that leave that as a result -- we just don't have them in our plants here.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    5. Re:Nutrients by deblau · · Score: 1

      The answer to your question is here.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    6. Re:Nutrients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> understan7ding

      Just out of interest, how does your finger slip from 'n' to '7', and then continue on its merry way with the 'd' as though nothing happened?

      Honestly, not a flame. I'm just intrigued.

    7. Re:Nutrients by pagsz · · Score: 1

      From the article: Further probes, including spectroanalyses, are necessary to prove that the spots contain materials that are capable of photosynthesis.

      While the observations of the changing dark spots and the conditions under the ice suggest the possibility of life, nothing can be said for sure until more tests are conducted.

      This new evidence does raise some intruiging new possibilities, but it's too early to speculate that it may represent primitive Martian life.

      Wondering how "Where is the bathroom?" translates into Martian,

      --
      -- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
    8. Re:Nutrients by archen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that would assume that these things would produce a lot of oxygen. Seems to me that if there is life on Mars; it's pretty sparce at best. Besides which Mars has a fairly eliptical orbit - making for a very long and cold winter, which I would guess means that life would probably hybernate for the majority of the martian year. It's possible that the small ammount of oxygen life would make during it's breif season could wind up being absorbed or dissappated the rest of the year.

    9. Re:Nutrients by linzeal · · Score: 1

      The trees used it when they were burning didn't they? I mean if nothing used the o2 for that long a single bolt of lightening would turn the planet into a flaming cue ball, right ?

    10. Re:Nutrients by Rykard · · Score: 0

      Aye... it is Carbon DiOxide, after all... The oxygen to make it must come from somewhere ;)

      --
      Rykard
      Breaking the Internet one standard at a time, since 1999
    11. Re:Nutrients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lern 2 spel 'originally'

    12. Re:Nutrients by Tyler-Durden255 · · Score: 1

      Trees would have burned up certanly but there were none at the time, there wasn't too much out of the sea apperently and even that began to suffer from the over abundance of O2.

    13. Re:Nutrients by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2
      I've been asking myself the same question since I noticed it too ;-)

      /me can't type.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    14. Re:Nutrients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a matter of fact oxygen production on earth origionallly was not a balanced chemical process, meaning origionally plants produced oxygen and nothing used that oxygen for almost a billion years!"

      Well, you are not a biologist either - plants most certainly DO use oxygen - it's abilities as a reactive species is important. Many plants have a higher net O2 release than use - but during the night (or periods where photosynthesis cannot take place) plants consume O2 in cellular respiration.

      Before you chide someone on not being a biologist, please make sure your rebuttal facts are scientifically correct as well.

      And, yes, I AM a biologist (at least a grad student)

      Sincerely,
      Kevin Christie
      Neuroscience Program
      University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
      crispiewm@hotmail.com

    15. Re:Nutrients by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      Mars is red from rust, you know, Iron Oxide. And basically the entire surface of Mars is exposed to the air (unlike the watery Earth). The entire planet is an oxygen-absorbant sponge, and the environment is not very hospitable, with that thin atmosphere, short growing season, and limited water supply; the rate of oxygen production would be pretty low.

      In other words, the rules there are different.

    16. Re:Nutrients by kalyptein · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I wouldn't say there *has* to be >1 species. One species that gets energy photosynthetically and can recycle its own dead would also work. Dead cells would spill their contents which could then be directly absorbed or gradually be degraded by non-biological processes (seasonal temperature changes, photobreakdown, etc) into something less complex that can be.

      Imagine a scenario where at the end of the martian spring these organisms throw off tough, highly resistant spores. Summer arrives, killing the adult organisms. The rest of the year's worth of abuse degrades them somewhat. Then, next spring the spores germinate and consume the previous generation before themselves producing spores.

      I think there will be more than one species, however. It might just be a variety of species all trying to use the same strategy, or there could be room for several niches in what looks like a very simple ecology from way over here. I think the reason you don't see the number of species debated by scientists is that that would be jumping the gun somewhat. Just proving there is one species is a task not yet accomplished. Imagine you were a martian focusing your telescope on Earth. You can't say much about its life except that there is a lot of monospectral green (chlorophyll) down there. Debating how many kinds of green critters live there, until you can get a closer look, is best left to your martian science fiction writers.

      --
      Entropy gets everyone.
    17. Re:Nutrients by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      In other words, the rules there are different.

      Remember, we are looking for evidence of life here, not for explanations for why evidence is missing.

      The existence of life implies an ecosystem which implies circulation of oxygen and carbon dioxide. If there is no oxygen, you could explain it by oxidation or you could explain it by the fact there is no life.

      The scientists in this article see the discolorations as evidence of life because it occurs in conditions that could support life on earth. If the life we are talking about occurs in those conditions, we would expect that the rules are more similar than not.

      If the rules are very different, then we should theorize what those rules are and look for evidence of life under those conditions. We would then not have to worry so much about conditions that make Mars inhospitable for life as we know it on Earth.

    18. Re:Nutrients by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they process some kind of material with sunlight and produce carbon dioxide?

      And the carbon would come from where?

    19. Re:Nutrients by InigoMontoya(tm) · · Score: 1

      Imagine you were a martian focusing your telescope on Earth. You can't say much about its life except that there is a lot of monospectral green (chlorophyll) down there. Debating how many kinds of green critters live there, until you can get a closer look, is best left to your martian science fiction writers.

      I don't know about that. Ever see those pictures of the earth at night, with all the lights concentrated around the major cities? There's more evidence of life visible from space than you think.

      Not to mention the highly-detectable methane (from bovine flatulation, no less) present in our atmosphere. I think I read somewhere that that would be evidence of life on our planet. Maybe it was Sagan or something.

      Humans really have left their mark on the world. (Not to say whether that is a good or bad thing, because I honestly don't know.)

      InigoMontoya(tm)

      --
      This signature is self-referential.
    20. Re:Nutrients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the amount of living matter. If it is small, any oxygen produced by photosynthesis will first be used to oxidize metallic iron found in the surface rocks, producing iron oxide -- nice and red ;-)
      That's what happened in the early days on Earth too, producing the thick precambrian layers red by iron oxides we find. In fact, bacteria helped doing this, getting some energy in the process.

    21. Re:Nutrients by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that if there is life on Mars; it's pretty sparce at best.

      I am dubious about the line of reasoning that says that there is life on Mars but that there is so little that you can't detect it with the usual indicators of the existence of life.

      If there is life, it almost certainly is a survivor of the period 3 billion years ago when there was free water and an atmosphere. It is unlikely that life would have evolved on Mars under the current conditions when it was unable to evolve in the earlier, more favorable conditions.

      So if the current life on Mars has been there in some form for 3 billion years, it would have adapted to the hostile conditions and started to spread. The spread would be slow the way Arctic lichen's growth is slow but it has 3 billion years, which is a lot of time even for the slowest growing organism.

      Therefore, the processes of evolution suggests that there would be a lot of life rather than a very little, given the 3 billion years, if there is any life at all.

      One can of course imagine scenarios that would thwart the evolutionary tendencies of life to adapt and spread, but those same scenarios are more likely to exterminate life altogether.

      What we need is evidence of life on Mars, not explanations for why we can't detect it. The most likely reason we can't detect it is because it isn't there.

    22. Re:Nutrients by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      I mean if nothing used the o2 for that long a single bolt of lightening would turn the planet into a flaming cue ball, right ?

      Err, no. Oxygen is rather reactive and tends to combine with other stuff easily, in natural non-organic chemical processes -- if all life on Earth were exterminated, the atmosphere would revert to mostly CO2, like Mars and Venus, in a matter of thousands of years (i.e. in the blink of an eye, relative to geological timescales). The fact of the matter is, our O2 producers on Earth produce O2 in such huge quantities that it makes up over 20% of our atmosphere, a ridiculously high amount considering how reactive oxygen is. The planet does not need life to scour O2 from the atmosphere. If there were no life, it would quickly revert to being a trace element.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    23. Re:Nutrients by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Remember, we are looking for evidence of life here, not for explanations for why evidence is missing.

      And we have found some. The question is, why is it that we find this evidence for life and yet seem to be missing some other obvious signs of life (such as a chemically unlikely atmospheric composition)? And there are several possible answers. Considering all of them is not a bad idea. The only bad thing would be if we leaped to one conclusion amongst these alternatives without any evidence.

      Your argument could easily be turned on its head -- since we do find this evidence for life, we need some sort of explanation for why we see this sign but not that sign of life. If we don't seek to explain this, then we're simply being dogmatic and anti-scientific. This is evidence against the idea that there is no life on Mars, and to continue to hold that there is no life on Mars in the face of contrary evidence without seeking some way to explain why we found the contrary evidence would be to simply ignore evidence that contradicts our current beliefs, and that's just plain dogmatism, not science.

      That having been said, there are alternate explanations as to why we might be seeing these discolorations. The only way to know for sure of the truth is to gather more evidence, specifically from the sites in question. It would be foolish to believe life exists or believe life does not exist under the circumstances. We just don't know.

      If I had to place a bet, though, I'd bet on no life. Like you, I find the atmospheric composition to be fairly compelling evidence for a lack of widespread life, and the lack of widespread life makes any life at all pretty unlikely -- life does too good a job infiltrating every conceivable environ, and then a few we would never of conceived of if we hadn't gone out and discovered them.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    24. Re:Nutrients by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      since we do find this evidence for life, we need some sort of explanation for why we see this sign but not that sign of life

      We're probably basically in agreement. However, we need more than an explanation.

      It is not sufficient for a theory to account for a set of fact. If it were, you could never decide between competing theories. Generally theories should predict something that is verifiable.

      In this case, the theory is that the discoloration is caused by photosynthesis, which would predict the presence of oxygen.

      While you can explain the absence of oxygen by the resort to other theories, you are, in effect, substituting theories for evidence. At some point you have to come up with evidence, not theories.

      For instance, before considering the theory that the surface of Mars absorbes oxygen at high enough rate, that theory should predict something as a test to see if it has any merit at all.

      How ever one shores up a theory with more theories, at some point you have to come up with a prediction that matches some facts. The discussion should start there, at the prediction and the fact.

    25. Re:Nutrients by Tyler-Durden255 · · Score: 1

      You may be a bioligist grad student but sadly you have not proved me wrong. While some modern plants may use more oxyegn then they produce the vast majority don't, and we do know that oxygen production was in fact unbalanced for a long time in earth's history.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline. ht ml

      Look from 3500 Million years ago to 1600 million years ago almost 1.9 billion of the earths 4.5 billion year history. During that time the chemistry of life was clearly not a balanced chemistry. Another poster pointed out geological chemistry had to absorb some of the excess.

  15. Re:Life by Sharadin · · Score: 1

    Yes, they live on the the planet Nibiru (Planet of Crossing) which is, indeed, Planet X. It has an eliptical orbit, and passes between Mars and Jupiter every 3600 years.

  16. Wrong way around... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The homo's erectus deposited DNA in the Anunnaki.

  17. Tunnel vision by isomeme · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We cannot find anything else to explain it," said evolutionary biologist Tibor Ganti, a member of the three-man Hungarian team that believes it has discovered life on the red planet.

    "I mean, yes, we considered deposition and stripping of lighter-colored dust in a seasonal cycle related to wind patterns, which is a common phenomenon on Mars. And of course we pondered simple soil darkening due to partial ice melting; I mean, that's obvious, right? And we'd have been silly not to consider UV-catalyzed changes in soil chemistry which would occur in the spring as the UV-opaque ice layer thins or disappears.


    "But," he continued, "Who's going to give us research funding for any of those? Life is our only ticket aboard the ESA 2003 mission. So, in funding terms, we literally couldn't think of anything else."

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    1. Re:Tunnel vision by tshak · · Score: 1

      This post should be modded +10, EXACTLY.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  18. Re:Life by Rykard · · Score: 1

    Rest assured these things I know. I'd really like to believe in that theory... I want to believe in that theory... but I am a skeptical, cycnical SOB, and I just can't, without seeing some unequivocal proof.

    --
    Rykard
    Breaking the Internet one standard at a time, since 1999
  19. Re:Life by Rykard · · Score: 1

    Well... how many more years until I can see proof? Dammit, I don't want to live forever! I get bored easily

    --
    Rykard
    Breaking the Internet one standard at a time, since 1999
  20. If they find life on Mars. by Zapdos · · Score: 1

    They will need to prove that it is not from earth.
    Any life on mars could have been carried up from a earth rock thrown up 65 Million years ago, when we were hit by a large one, or any number of other times.

    1. Re:If they find life on Mars. by AstroJetson · · Score: 1

      Good point, but it's very unlikely that a rock from Earth could make it all the way to Mars. We find lots of Martian rocks here on Earth because Earth is 'downhill' from Mars (deeper in the Sun's gravitational well). It would take quite a large impact to do it the other way around - I'm not sure even the Dinosaur Killer would have been big enough. Of course, 'very unlikely' isn't the same as 'impossible', but still....

      --
      Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
    2. Re:If they find life on Mars. by Adnans · · Score: 2

      Who cares! It means that life outside earth's athmosphere is possible (without the aid of technology). If life can survive and thrive on Mars, who knows how many other life forms are out there!

      -adnans

      --
      "In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
    3. Re:If they find life on Mars. by Crazyscot · · Score: 1

      ... or from the probes we've sent there.

    4. Re:If they find life on Mars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing the point. Just because it can survive outside the atmosphere, doesn't mean it can develope outside the atmosphere. The big question is, can life START elsewhere.

    5. Re:If they find life on Mars. by AndroidCat · · Score: 2

      As well as the added energy to lift a rock out from the sun, there's also the higher Earth escape velocity.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:If they find life on Mars. by itarget · · Score: 1

      Who's to say all life here wasn't carried on a rock thrown up from mars?

      If something could marginally live on a world like mars, it would probably flourish here.

      --

      "Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
    7. Re:If they find life on Mars. by Jazu · · Score: 1

      IIRC, NASA sterilizes their probes for exactly that reason.

      --
      My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
  21. What are they? by norculf · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope they aren't trolls.

    1. Re:What are they? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2

      If they're trolls, we can always filter on the .mars domain. (And if they have fighting machines and heat rays, maybe they can wipe out ICANN for us. Nobody sneeze please!)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:What are they? by billh · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think my upstream provider might already be filtering .mars. I don't get any spam from them right now.

      I'm probably also missing the messages that tell us why they keep shooting down our probes. Anyone have them archived?

  22. Re:When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's true, but I don't think Bob Dylan was talking about karma when he wrote that.

  23. Mod this up as Funny and Insightful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really says it all. There are so many simpler explanations that assuming that life is the only explanation is outright ridiculous.

  24. Their exciting new experiment... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1, Funny

    These brilliant scientists also hope to use their data to answer an age-old question closer to home. In a similar experiment, they'll use the same procedure to try and determine whether there is really life in Nebraska. Asked why, they replied "It is the next logical step. For decades, americans and people elsewhere in the world have wondered whether there is anything there, or if it is just some abysmal pit in the middle of nowhere. We hope to be able to answer that question for everyone." However, the scientific community itself is somewhaat divided over the next endeavor. Dr. James Greely, of the Helsinki Institute of Xenobiology states "Forget the fact that they are wasting precious grant money in an envriroment that has been rather uncommon in the current political enviroment. It's inconcievable that grown men would waste their time seeking life in a place like Nebraska. Of all the unlikely places they might search, this has to top the list, [in] the universe [all] over. They might as well search for intelligent life in the Whitehouse. They've got just as much chance of finding that..." Until they publish their conclusions, though, the world will have to wait. And wonder.

  25. Or... by itarget · · Score: 1

    It could just be melting frost or ice under the surface. Who's to say?

    --

    "Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
  26. This was previously hypothesized by tsarina · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the early days of astronomy, there was some rich guy (name escapes me) with a telescope who described 'canals' on Mars and dark blobs bordering them varying as the seasons, which he presumed were vegetation. Later nobody could ever find the dark patches or canals, so it was assumed that it was an optical illusion or something. Now, though no canals, they've found modern varying dark blotches. Another mistake, or has that guy been vindicated?

    --

    ________
    "And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
    1. Re:This was previously hypothesized by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      IIRC, the name is Percival Lowell.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:This was previously hypothesized by RoninM · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, no, no. That's a complete and utter apocryphal tale. The real story goes like this: Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli
      observed canali (that's Italian) on Mars. The word "canali" means either "channels" or "canals." There's an obvious difference: a canal is man-made, a channel need not be. There were no dark blotches. They were lines across Mars.
      An American astronomer named Percival Lowell went well overboard with the canali, stating that they were, in fact canals and inventing an entire Martian ecology. He wasn't some rich guy with a telescope. Lowell predicted the existence of Pluto and founded the observatory where it was later discovered.
      What Giovanni and, to a lesser extent, Lowell observed on Mars is real. They were seeing huge surface features (like Valles Marineris) and the planet's covering of natural channels.

      Lowell popularized the observations by turning them into, basically, science fiction of the worst sort. That's a bad deal, indeed, but some of the canali were there.
      The important lesson in this story--which is highly relevant given this story--is that Occam's Razor exists for a good reason. Go with the simpler explanation (that these are naturally carved channels) until something comes along that says something wierder is true (that aliens are out farming on Mars).
      Simpler: seasonal changes over more complex: alien plant-life.

      --
      If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
  27. John Carpenter by talonyx · · Score: 1

    It would appear that these guys went out and saw John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars....

    [for those that haven't seen it, it deals with a microorganism that is awakened by the terraforming being done by humankind to the planet]

  28. [The Great Anonymous French Calembour] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life on Mars: Holà y faut ne m'harceler qu'en privé.

  29. A fable about people who find evidence of life by SIGFPE · · Score: 3, Redundant

    The Alien
    and the Shepherd Boy
    A Shepherd Boy tended his master's flock of Sheep near a dark forest not far from the village. Soon he found lifeforms in the pasture to be very dull. All he could do to amuse himself was to talk to his dog or play on his shepherd's flute.

    One day as he sat watching the Sheep and the quiet forest, and thinking what he would do should he see a Alien, he thought of a plan to amuse himself.

    His master had told him to call for help should a Alien attack the sheep and the Villagers would come immediately and drive the Alien away. So now, though he had not seen a Wolf, he ran toward the village shouting at the top of his voice, "Alien! Alien!"

    As expected, the Villagers who heard the boy's cry for help dropped their work and ran in great excitement to the pasture. But when they got there they found the Boy doubled over in laughter at the trick he had played on them.

    A few days later the Shepherd Boy again shouted, "Alien! Alien!" Again the Villagers ran to help the boy only to be laughed at again.

    Then one evening as the sun was setting behind the forest and the shadows were creeping out over the pasture, a Wolf really did jump out of the underbrush and leap upon the flock of Sheep.

    In terror the Boy ran toward the village shouting "Alien! Alien! Alien!" But though the Villagers heard the boy's call, they did not stop working and run to help him as they had before. "He cannot fool us again," they said.

    The Alien ate many of the Shepherd Boy's sheep and then escaped back into the dark forest.

    The moral of the story is:

    If you tell people there's life on Mars enough time they'll start giving you cash

    --
    -- SIGFPE
    1. Re:A fable about people who find evidence of life by artemis67 · · Score: 2

      Did I miss the part where the villagers funded space exploration because the alien ate the sheep?

    2. Re:A fable about people who find evidence of life by Ektanoor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is another story with another moral. The story is called the search for Life in Mars and is more real and much more tragic. Real because it does not recur to fables, tales and pseudo-scientific BS. It is the story of thousands of people, scientists, engineers, technicians and amateurs who tried to make a real and true search. Tragic because, at least there is already one casualty on it: Professor Wolf Vishniac. This man was the first to think on a true scientific search for alien forms. He invented the first apparatus to achive this goal, the Wolf Trap. By the time of Viking project, it was considered as one of the more reliable to test for the search. However it was removed from the Vikings due to "lack of funds".

      But that's half of the story. After this event, Professor Vishniac was faced with a campaign to devaluate his work and abilities. However, he didn't gave up. To prove that his experiment worked, he went to Antarctida, to a place his opposers considered completely void of any native lifeforms. There he died in weird circumstances. However his collegues managed to recover some of the apparatus he left there. Today this region, the Dry Valleys, are considered to possess indigenous microorganisms due to the work of Professor Vishniac.

      However this didn't demove his opposers from keeping their negative campaign on him. On 1986 a very well professor of exobiology, published a work where Professor Vishniac was not even mentioned as being member of the exobiology team and where his Antarctida expedition was seen as an extravagant attempt to analyse problems on sterilisation of spacecraft... This Professor is known as Norman Horowitz... For those who dont know him, he was one of the opponents to the sterilisation of martian probes and one of the leaders of one of the exobiology experiments that went on the Vikings. The one that seemed to prove that there is no life in Mars...

      The moral of the story is:
      If you try hard then you may prove that Life only exists on Earth...

      If you wanna check up this try to read some of Horowitz works...

  30. You trolls are beginning to disappoint. by Scoria · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It would have been more appropriate for a goatse.cx troll to write "orgasm" as opposed to "organism."

    Just a thought. (And please, Slashdotters, have a sense of humor for a day... You just might enjoy it.)

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  31. Life based on what we know. by yzquxnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Based on what we know about life what you say is fairly true. However, it is what we don't know about how life is formed and in what forms it may take that will be clincher in discovering life other than our own. We know that for life to exist in a form that we know it, we need conditions that are similar to what we find on earth. However, there is no evidence to support a conclusive claim that life cannot exist in environments that are dissimilar from where we exist. Life may very well exist on mars, but it may be in a form we have yet to discover. Scientist are always looking for water as signs to point to the possibility for life elsewhere. Maybe there is another ideal chemical combination that may also harvest life.

  32. You assume it has DNA in the first place by barzok · · Score: 1

    If there is life there, and it's not of Earth origin, will it have DNA at all? Just because all life here has it doesn't mean that Martian-origin life will.

    1. Re:You assume it has DNA in the first place by sludgely · · Score: 1

      Yes that is true, but it must have genetic information. Something is only considered living if it has heredity and is able to reproduce with variation. In order to have heredity you need genes. We might have to study they gene-structure, but they will have something... if it is life of course.

  33. Trees of Mars? by Louis+Savain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you think lichen spots are cool, check out the trees of Mars.

  34. Evidence of digital paper on Mars by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Don't you see that this story and the one posted before it are connected? The spots they see changing are evidence of digital paper on Mars!

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  35. Well by Hobobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't be so quick to judge -- in such a short article I wouldn't expect them to go into an indepth discussion, so we really can't know what they did and didn't take into consideration.

    1. Re:Well by isomeme · · Score: 2

      Fair comment. I think I'm just getting frustrated with one group of researchers after another announcing evidence of life on Mars, with each claim falling through (or at best significantly weakening) on closer inspection. As another thread on this story points out, we're edging into "boy who cried wolf" territory.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
  36. Re:Life by memyselfandmyhand · · Score: 1

    >We weren't created by no 'God' - we created by an alien race (who look just like us) who posed as gods.

    Ahh... do You mean the Goa'uld? Have they got a stargate on Mars then eh?

  37. Original JPL images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    JPL has Mars Global Surveyor images online, and this particular can be found at http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/du ne_defrost_6_2001/index.html . Also included is a *truly* high resolution image. JPL's image commentary says that the features are defrosting and not life.

  38. Defrosting Sand Dunes in Late Southern Winter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Malin Space Science Systems, the guys behind the Mars Orbital Camera, evidentaly have this explanation for it:

    http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/ du ne_defrost_6_2001/index.html

    "As winter gives way to spring in the martian southern hemisphere, the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) is observing the retreat of the south polar frost cap as sunlight falls upon it for the first time in several months. One of the most aesthetically-pleasing aspects of the spring defrosting process is the pattern that is created on the martian sand dune fields.
    Dunes are usually among the first surfaces to begin showing signs of change in late winter when temperatures are just beginning to creep above -125 C (-193 F; 148 K). The pattern of spots on the dunes in the above MOC picture was observed on June 8, 2001. The location of the dune field near 62S, 155W, is shown in the color context view, which was acquired at the same time.

    Dark spots and streaks on defrosting sand dunes were first observed by MOC in the northern hemisphere in 1998. Similar dark-spotted dunes in the southern hemisphere were described at a NASA/Mars Global Surveyor Space Science Update media briefing in 1999. Despite the "sensation" one gets when looking at pictures of spotted, defrosting martian dunes (i.e., the sensation that these images show some form of life, like vegetation, growing on Mars) these features are a normal, common manifestation of the springtime defrosting process on Mars. The ices involved--because of the low temperatures at these locations--are probably both frozen water and carbon dioxide, though it is unclear as to whether one type of ice dominates over the other in controlling the appearance and coalescence of the dark spots. It is known from the first martian year of MOC operations that by summer all of the frost--and thus all of the spots--on the dunes will be gone."

    1. Re:Defrosting Sand Dunes in Late Southern Winter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Despite the "sensation" one gets when looking at pictures of spotted, defrosting martian dunes (i.e., the sensation that these images show some form of life, like vegetation, growing on Mars) these features are a normal, common manifestation of the springtime defrosting process on Mars.

      Is this supposed to be an argument? Where's the logic?

      Despite the "sensation" one gets looking at the week old pizza in the corner (i.e. the the sensation it has green fungus and other lowly lifeforms growing on it) these features are a normal, common manifestation on week old pieces of pizza lying in the corner.

    2. Re:Defrosting Sand Dunes in Late Southern Winter by Ektanoor · · Score: 2

      What these dodos forget to mention is that first the lower layers of the dunes become dark and then the upper ones. Now anyone in the high latitudes knows that everything happens in the opposite! The Sun first heats up the steepest slopes. The only possible "violation" to this rule on Earth is due to water flowing down the slopes. But in Mars water can only flow in high quantities and mixed with sands or earth! However, what we have here is thin layers of some bright material, probably ice, as, in some other places, dust-devils easily wipe out this stuff...

      So their interpretation doesn't look so solid as it seems...

  39. What color are the spots? by josquint · · Score: 1

    They gotta be green. REALY little green men :)

  40. Could simply be heat by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are all sorts of possibilities. The temp differential in spring could be changing the reflectivity of the soil or something. Not that it ever gets warm--just changes from way below freezing to less way below freezing. The only way we will ever know will be to keep sending unmanned probes over there. (Don't expect manned craft in your lifetimes.) And probably before we ever know for sure, we will have infected Mars with Earthly life, and the question will be unanswerable forever.

    1. Re:Could simply be heat by Ektanoor · · Score: 2

      There are places like NW Hellas that show a "rule of the tumb" for these formations. There, big dust-devils roam all over. And they uncover the small layer of bright material that covers a very dark surface. The "bright" layer is probably very small and uniform, it is either frost or something else, as there are minimal differences in the darkness of these surfaces. Note that dust-devils frequently roam without "seeing" the landscape features. In NW Hellas and some other places, whereever they pass, they leave a dark surface. The general pattern of the region shows hills, cliffs, valleys and boulders. But it is interesting to note that they look very "smoothed" . In time, these paths tend to vanish by getting brighter. However, instead of showing dust covering or anything similar, they seem to vanish in a layered pattern. The paths seem to become brighter from the edges to the center.

      NW Hellas is quite far from the poles. However, these dark tracks are also seen in places with a morphology very similar to the one seen on the hungarian discovery. There are a few frames where one can see dust devils roaming over dunes and leaving similar, but not so contrasting patterns. So this is probably not temperature changes.

  41. CarbonBased Life Forms by cyberbob2010 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What would really be cool would be if we found life that was not carbon based. I don't know much about biology but i do know that all of the life on Earth is carbon based. For all of the bio. heads out there, do any of you know what other types of life could theoretically exist? Life with a chrystaline structure? Gascious forms? I really don't know, and while these ideas may sound a little Star Trekish, so does the idea of life on Mars so please do respond.

    --
    We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
    1. Re:CarbonBased Life Forms by Zard+Biomatrix · · Score: 1

      it seems to me that a potential non-carbon base lifeform is sitting right in front of you.

      really, tho... i think that one of the problems with searching for extra-terrestial lifeforms is that we only _look_ for things that _we_ can recognize as life. we look for the life under the rock, behind the rock, but never _in_ the rock (and it would never occur to us (unless we watched a lot of Star Treck ;) ) that the rock itself could be alive.. just imagine all of the things that could be living on our OWN planet that we simply cannot identify as 'alive' because it's so different - basically, unidentifiable because it defies our definitions.

      /zard

    2. Re:CarbonBased Life Forms by wysoft · · Score: 0

      You know, I've always thought in the same way. Scientists are so certain that in a given location, if the amenities required to support carbon-based life do not exist, then life must not exist at all.

      We have only explored our own solar system. The only life forms we know of are those on the planet Earth. Our "style" of life is unique enough - we require a planet, or some other form of shelter. We must consume other life forms to produce the required energy. We must couple with one another (or ourselves - lucky asexuals) in order to reproduce.

      How can we say this is the only scenario in which life exists? There may be some life form somewhere in the galaxy which feeds upon radiation.

      I would have to agree that both of us sound a little Star Trek-ish, but I would say that is better than being a dead-cold cynic.

      --
      -- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
    3. Re:CarbonBased Life Forms by Graymalkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just because silicon has a similar valence shell to carbon does not make it a suitable basis for living organisms. Silicon oxides behave very differently from carbon oxides in fact IIRC Silicon Monoxide isn't even a stable compound. The fact DNA even exists is due to the chemical properties of carbon based compounds, similar structures are not possible using a silicon base. The postulate that silicon based organisms could even exist was formed in a period when organic chemistry was a fairly young science and some engineer somewhere got ahold of a periodic table and concluded that a similar valence shell means that two completely unalike elements might be the basis for some form of life. Indeed maybe somewhere some sentient clay feeds off the UV radiation of a blue giant star but we'd have so very little in common with such an organism we probably couldn't event recognize it as an organism. Learn to trust chemistry a little bit more when theorizing about the existance of extra terrestrial life. We're a not terribly unique planet around a not terribly unique star. Earth has probably a fairly broad spectrum of indiginous life forms compared to the rest of the universe.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    4. Re:CarbonBased Life Forms by shawnseat · · Score: 1

      One possibility of this type of "exotic" life might be based on charged metal clusters in a liquid ammonia ocean. Redox reactions could occur with solvated electrons in NH3 (solvated electrons don't last more than a microsecond or so in water, and NH3 is known to spontaneously form unlike higher amines). With a sufficient collection of transition metals (perhaps from asteroid collision), there should be the potential for sufficiently diverse intermetallic ions that a truly un-Earthlike life might evolve.

      --
      Religion is the opiate of the masses. The wealthy smoke the real stuff.
  42. Is DNA Real by HBD · · Score: 0

    does anyone else think that dna is a little too perfect..think about it..a storage system that is read differently on all cells, and that it isn't the cells that evolve but the dna, little strands of acids, and the cells probably just mutated to form different type and the ones with good mutations could read the dna in a better way than others..lol..just messing with ppls heads a little..i think if life is related btween mars and earth it started on mars as a virus and was brought to earth by a collision w/ a meteor that was heading toward the sun, and since a virus can survive in space and a meteor would come from outside the solor-system and not inside it was probably mars->earth and not visa-versa..if it is realated or if there is/was any on mars...just a thought

    --
    -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
  43. Wolf by HBD · · Score: 0

    Why did he yell alien when he did not even see a wolf..lol

    --
    -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
  44. Happy Billennium by Erwin-42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    spam spam spam

    postercomment compresssion filter? WTF!

  45. Happy Billennium!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    w00t!

  46. UNIX NOW AND FOREVER! by Erwin-42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Happy Billioniversary!

    Spam spam spam!

    May W. Richard Stevens Rest In Peace!

  47. 1 billion seconds!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow... 1970 feels like yesterday too.

  48. Re:Something new! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to join in on the huge ass thread. This is my contribution! Reply to it, and I will contribute again!

  49. +1 Funny on the MQR standard by MarkusQ · · Score: 1
    I hope they aren't trolls.

    *laugh*

    In the spirit of free-as-in-chaos, I have instituted my own private moderation system. Under this system, I hereby give you +1 Funny.

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:+1 Funny on the MQR standard by norculf · · Score: 1

      Thank you. It is my opinion that Slashdot needs more moderation categories. Adding the ones that Geekizoid uses to the current list would satisfy me.

  50. up your nose by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

    with a rubber hose!

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  51. In your pants . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . with a bag of ants!

  52. page width by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    disrupted!

  53. News Just In!!!! by redcliffe · · Score: 0

    The martian life forms have arranged themselves into a pattern that reads in English: "FIRST POST"

    :-P

  54. In your shoes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a word that ryhmes with shoes!

  55. Hey egg troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Recently, my girlfriend is being really clingy and demanding too much attention. However, I don't have time to give her all that attention, since I'm too busy trollin' it up on the 'ol slashdot. What should I do?

  56. Blame scientologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    L Ron Hubbard is on Mars, and John Travolta does not want us to know it. Tom Cruise would kill me if he knew who I was, blabbing this secret to you. I must post anonymously, or Kirsty Alley will club me with Pier One furniture and take me to Mars to confront Hubbard.

  57. Goulash, that's what's up there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be Hungarian goulash.

  58. You're the greatest, egg troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole anal sex + slashdot trolling at the same time idea is fantastic! Thank you!

  59. Can you imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a Beowulf cluster of Martian bacteria?

  60. Re:Life by wysoft · · Score: 0

    That's some pretty stong acid you've got there. Care to sell some?

    --
    -- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
  61. A question for Mr. egg troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did you get the name "egg troll"? Is that your real birth name (my real birth name IS Anonymous Coward)?

  62. Re:Life by wysoft · · Score: 0

    Remember how there's an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter?

    --
    -- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
  63. onetimeisawarabbitjumpingoverafenceintothewoods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one LONG thread.

  64. metresfeet by Flagbrew · · Score: 1



    The dark spots start spreading in the spring, varying from 10 metresfeet)...


    Whats a metresfeet?

    1. Re:metresfeet by SVDave · · Score: 1

      Whats a metresfeet?

      A unit of measure used on the Mars Climate Orbiter.

  65. Your "nasty little truth" sig. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Your sig:

    "Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics" (http://home1.gte.net/res02khr/crackpots/notorious .htm)

    As far as I can tell, this is much hot air to the effect that "time travel is motion through spacetime, which is impossible because it already contains time, so all the physicists talking about time travel are crackpots".

    This seems rather silly, because what physicists actually talk about when they say "time travel" is simply a configuration of an object's world-line (graphed in spacetime) such that the world-line can intersect itself (or that the "future" light-cone from the world-line crosses some "past" part of the world-line, allowing communication, or any of a number of similar scenarios). This does not involve "motion" of the hypothetical fabric of spacetime; it's just a class of paths that objects can take within it.

    Possibly I have misinterpreted the document, but this seems unlikely, as it makes it abundantly clear that time travel involves "motion" of spacetime, which "is impossible".

    Can you clear up this apparent discrepancy?

    1. Re:Your "nasty little truth" sig. by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Possibly I have misinterpreted the document, but this seems unlikely, as it makes it abundantly clear that time travel involves "motion" of spacetime, which "is impossible".

      Certainly but you misinterpreted my argument. Why is there no motion in spacetime? Because for something to move in spacetime (or in time) it would need to have a variable temporal coordinate. This is impossible because a changing time coordinate is self-referential: it takes time to change, by definition.

      And it is not simply a matter of not being able to move backward in time. There is no motion at all in time, forward or backward. Therefore there is no time dimension. And if there is no time dimension, there is no time travel either, closed time-like loop notwithstanding.

    2. Re:Your "nasty little truth" sig. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Certainly but you misinterpreted my argument. Why is there no motion in spacetime? Because for something to move in spacetime (or in time) it would need to have a variable temporal coordinate.

      Um, no.

      Nothing moves in spacetime, and nobody's saying it does.

      Things move in *space*. The motion (velocity) of an object in space at any given time is defined as the derivative of its position (in space, relative to some arbitrary frame of reference) with respect to the time axis on the graph of its position vs. time (its worldline in spacetime).

      Your statement about a "variable temporal coordinate" doesn't make much sense. All I'm doing when I "vary" the time coordinate is look at different points of the world-line, which is most certainly possible.

    3. Re:Your "nasty little truth" sig. by Louis+Savain · · Score: 2

      Nothing moves in spacetime, and nobody's saying it does.

      You're kidding me? More than 3/4 of the emails I get from physicists (even professors) insist that there is motion in spacetime and that bodies are moving along their geodesics. They use this to support their notion that gravity is not a force because objects are following a straight path in spacetime.

      Your statement about a "variable temporal coordinate" doesn't make much sense. All I'm doing when I "vary" the time coordinate is look at different points of the world-line, which is most certainly possible.

      You can vary the time coodinate in your mind as much as you want but, in reality, a time coordinate cannot change. It is invariant. This is the reason that there is no time dimension, no spacetime and especially no time travel. Time is an *evolution* parameter, not a degree of freedom.

    4. Re:Your "nasty little truth" sig. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Nothing moves in spacetime, and nobody's saying it does.

      You're kidding me? More than 3/4 of the emails I get from physicists (even professors) insist that there is motion in spacetime and that bodies are moving along their geodesics. They use this to support their notion that gravity is not a force because objects are following a straight path in spacetime.

      When they say an object "moves along a geodesic", it's shorthand for saying that the geodesic (and the object's worldline in spacetime) runs along the time axis of the graph (actually that the object's frame's time axis runs along the geodesic, but I digress). This is a linguistic short form; nothing more.

      A "geodesic" is just the shortest path between two given points (in space and time) on the spacetime "surface" that you're graphing world-lines on. A freely-falling object's worldline will follow a geodesic. General relativity models spacetime as a curved surface, which means that geodesics won't always follow the rules of euclidean geometry (which applies only to flat surfaces). A nifty consequence of this is that, by relating curvature of the hypothetical "spacetime" surface to the mass distribution in space and time, they can arrange things so that the geodesics around a large mass's worldline will curve around the mass's worldline. Freely-falling objects (following geodesics) thus orbit the mass.

      It turns out that this is an extremely useful model of the universe, because it predicts the paths of objects in space and time more accurately than Newtonian gravity, and explains many other effects that had previously been mysterious.

      Does this clear up what physicists mean when they say that objects "follow paths" through spacetime?

      You can vary the time coodinate in your mind as much as you want but, in reality, a time coordinate cannot change It is invariant.

      Um, no. It's a coordinate on your graphing surface, like any other coordinate.

      As an example, draw a parabola on a sheet of graph paper. Declare one axis space, and one time, and you've just mapped out the worldline of an accelerating object in the spacetime of a one-dimensional universe.

      You can consider different points in time - they're just points on the graph with different "x" values.

      You can consider different points in space - they're just points on the graph with different "y" values.

      Saying that "time is an invariant" is like saying "position is an invariant" on this graph-paper sketch. It isn't - you can look at different positions in space and time on the graph. Thus, I find your statement confusing.

    5. Re:Your "nasty little truth" sig. by Louis+Savain · · Score: 2

      When they say an object "moves along a geodesic", it's shorthand for saying that the geodesic (and the object's worldline in spacetime) runs along the time axis of the graph (actually that the object's frame's time axis runs along the geodesic, but I digress). This is a linguistic short form; nothing more.

      No it isn't. They use the same meaning for motion that everyone uses: a change in a coordinate within a coordinate system. How can you possibly guess what people mean when write to me since I have never shared my correspondence with you? I don't even know you.

      It turns out that this is an extremely useful model of the universe, because it predicts the paths of objects in space and time more accurately than Newtonian gravity, and explains many other effects that had previously been mysterious.

      It could not possibly be a model of the universe since one of its consequences is that there is no motion. It is a mere math trick that works because there is an inverse equivalence between acceleration and gravity: the principle of equivalence. Big deal though. The real intersting physics will come when someone explains gravity in terms of particles, their properties and their interactions. Anything else is either voodoo or simply following in the Ptolemaic tradition of coming up with contraptions to make predictions while having no clue as to what is really going on.

      Saying that "time is an invariant" is like saying "position is an invariant" on this graph-paper sketch. It isn't - you can look at different positions in space and time on the graph. Thus, I find your statement confusing.

      Not at all. When I say that time is invariant, I am talking about coordinate time, not the time axis that is graphed as an axis on a diagram. And the position of a particle is certainly not invariant since we observe moving particles all the time. But if one assumes that a particle has a temporal coordinate, then the particle immediately becomes motionless. This is the reason that nothing can move in spacetime, which you agreed to. There is no motion in time either toward the future or the past. The direction makes no difference. It's time travel either way.

      My point (which you are trying so hard to obfuscate because it apparently offends your sensibilities and insults some of your idols) is that if nothing can move in spacetime, there is neither a time dimension nor time travel. An anybody (it makes no difference how famous or highly regarded that person is) who insists that the spacetime of relativity allows time travel in any direction either has no clue, or is a bona fide con artist.

      I do not try to hide the fact that I am talking about people like Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking. I value my freedom of speech and thought and I will not allow a bunch of pompous and condescending crackpots and charlatans in high places to do my thinking for me.

    6. Re:Your "nasty little truth" sig. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      When they say an object "moves along a geodesic", it's shorthand for saying that the geodesic (and the object's worldline in spacetime) runs along the time axis of the graph (actually that the object's frame's time axis runs along the geodesic, but I digress). This is a linguistic short form; nothing more.

      No it isn't.

      Yes it is, according to every textbook on physics I've ever read that discusses relativity.

      Ask any of the professors you've been talking to whether this is what they meant. You'll get a resounding "yes".

      Saying that "time is an invariant" is like saying "position is an invariant" on this graph-paper sketch. It isn't - you can look at different positions in space and time on the graph. Thus, I find your statement confusing.

      Not at all. When I say that time is invariant, I am talking about coordinate time, not the time axis that is graphed as an axis on a diagram.

      Um, a "coordinate" is *defined* as a position with respect to an axis. One's coordinate, in space or time, is one's location when projected on to the appropriate space or time axis.

      Check any math textbook for this one.

      Your entire premise seems to be based on the meaning of these two terms ("motion through time" and "coordinate") being garbled.

    7. Re:Your "nasty little truth" sig. by Louis+Savain · · Score: 2

      Ask any of the professors you've been talking to whether this is what they meant. You'll get a resounding "yes".

      I have no doubt that many physicists realize that nothing moves in spacetime. I quote several of them on my site. It does not take away from the fact that a huge number of physicists, including professors, believe that there is an actual evolution of bodies in spacetime along their geodesics. You feeble denials notwithstanding.

      But all of this is really irrelevant to my argument. My argument is this, given that nothing can move in spacetime, how does one (Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking come to mind) deduce from it that relativity does not forbid time travel. Heck, any idiot can see that relativity forbids time travel in any direction, either toward the past or the future. So don't use your obfuscations to hide the fact that some of the most celebrated physicists on the planet are dealing in snake oil.

      The public is not as stupid as you so condescendingly assume. We don't like it when con artists (like Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne), use our money to deceive us and tell us that we are too stupid to realize that we are being taken to the cleaners.

      We, the public, refuse to be looked down on and, unless you (the physics priesthood) cease your shenanigans and your deceptions, we will rise up and wipe that smug superiority smile off your faces. We've gotten rid of condescending priesthoods in the past and we'll do so again in the future. You can rest assured.

      Um, a "coordinate" is *defined* as a position with respect to an axis. One's coordinate, in space or time, is one's location when projected on to the appropriate space or time axis.

      And what does that have to do with my stance that a temporal coordinate is invariant? Are you saying that a time coordinate can change. If you are, you are a crackpot and con artist.

      Your entire premise seems to be based on the meaning of these two terms ("motion through time" and "coordinate") being garbled.

      Your entire premise is tantamount to saying, "I believe that relativity does not forbid time travel and that it is possible in principle to go to one's past and visit one's great, great grandparents, but I don't really mean what you think I mean. Believe me, I've seen this sort of double talk a thousand times before. So don't think you can pass a wool over my eyes. And I am not the only one.

  66. iamatworkandimreallyboredsoithinkilldosometrolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dunno. I just DLed the song Clint Eastwood off of Gnutella, so I'm not sure about the album. Hey, why is it starting to put our replies UNDER the threads? We were really doing some damage to the page width!

  67. Re:wheredoyouworkat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh i'm sleepy

  68. Does Von Daniken know about this? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2

    This is obvious proof of ancient astronaughts!

    What we're seeing on Mars can only be the Bathroom Scum of the Gods! Think about it -- how many times have you cleaned the shower/toilet with chemicals that should kill all life, but next week it's back again? This must be the same sort of thing. Maybe the Gods showered after building Stonehenge, the pyramids, etc, but never cleaned up properly? :^)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  69. But do the equations allow a nearly closed loop? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Because for something to move in spacetime (or in time) it would need to have a variable temporal coordinate.

    First of all, to define "time travel," we must define "travel." Most laypeople define "travel" as "motion" relative to a frame of reference of a large rock. Because the spacetime geodesic of an object cannot move, I consider "travel" to be a region along the geodesic where it deviates from being parallel to its local surroundings.

    As the parent described, what SF writers call "time travel" is not motion in time but rather a misnomer for a nearly closed loop in the object's geodesic. Do the equations allow that an object's geodesic may loop around and nearly cross itself, creating an effect that would be perceived as "time travel" under the lay definition of travel?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  70. relax by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

    tomorrow is sunday and btw i had to add this shit because of the lameness filter

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  71. Re:But do the equations allow a nearly closed loop by Louis+Savain · · Score: 2

    As the parent described, what SF writers call "time travel" is not motion in time but rather a misnomer for a nearly closed loop in the object's geodesic.

    It does not matter. There is no motion along geodesics. I realize that this is taught in many relativity classes but it's a fallacy nonetheless. IOW, geodesics do not exist. It's an abstraction.

    Do the equations allow that an object's geodesic may loop around and nearly cross itself, creating an effect that would be perceived as "time travel" under the lay definition of travel?

    The equations only describe a static (invariant) historical mapping of events. There is no motion at all in spacetime. One can talk about motion in space but not in spacetime. Advanced relativists like Fanchi and Howrwitz (e.g., see the latter's invariant tau formalism) know that worldline time (tau) does not change.

    The idea that one can extrapolate closed time loop from extreme gravitational spacetime curvature is ludicrous. It's even more absurd when people talk about traveling in the loop to a time in the past. Yet, this is what Kip Thorne and Hawking claim is possible.

    Spacetime is an abstract math construct used for making predictions about the motion of a body in space and the internal speed of clocks. It does not represent anything in nature. If it did there would be no motion. Physicists have no idea why the construct appears curved in the presence of mass when they map distance and clock measurements on graph paper. Here is what Dr. Robert Geroch has to say about motion in spacetime in his book "Relativity from A to B (page 20):

    "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes."

    So there you have it. In conclusion, it is fallacy that time changes. tau (worldline time) is invariant regardless of what you think your clock says. Clocks change and from that we obtain time intervals.

  72. Recent photos leave scientists baffled... by Jeffv323 · · Score: 1

    These recent photos taken of Mars show almost what looks like a civilization has formed on the planet. Scientists opposed to the idea of life on Mars claim that these building-like objects are merely rock formations. When asked about what looks like a major roadway, they declined comment.

    --
    I'm a minister!
  73. Re:But do the equations allow a nearly closed loop by Malcontent · · Score: 2

    "The idea that one can extrapolate closed time loop from extreme gravitational spacetime curvature is ludicrous. It's even more absurd when people talk about traveling in the loop to a time in the past. Yet, this is what Kip Thorne and Hawking claim is possible."

    Interesting. One of the most brilliant physists in the world is wrong and you are right. Who would have thunk?

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  74. Humans will not set foot on Mars for generations by joneshenry · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Considering the cost of a manned expedition to Mars, there will not be an economic incentive to do so because international treaty prohibits in Article II "national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

    But we have seen this before in human history, for example, the Ming Dynasty of China and the voyages of the eunuch Zhen He (Cheng Ho). China at that time had broken free from Mongol rule, and centuries of progress in engineering, science, arts, and philosophy could justify a Chinese feeling that the Ming Dynasty was the greatest civilization the Earth had ever seen. For seven voyages Zheng He captained a stupendous fleet that explored the coasts all the way to East Africa, trading and exacting tribute. In theory Southeast Asia, the surrounding islands, and the coasts of the Indian Ocean lay at China's feet.

    The problem was that China was the center of civilization. There was no immediate reason to conquer and displace inferiors. What could they offer China? China had no incentive to put skin in the game. And since China's explorations were financed and controlled by the government, once the program lost favor with the leadership, all such exploration could be swiftly terminated.

    Today's space craft sent to other planets or other outer space bodies are our equivalent of the voyages of Zheng He. For a generation the idea of exploring space captured the imagination of a rising and relatively rich civilization. But now the civilization is facing other concerns, concerns closer to home. And the civilization believes that it is the greatest of all time with no competitor on the horizon. The greatest science, the greatest engineering, the greatest arts, the greatest philosophy all permeate the civilization, one which can earnestly ask if it has reached the end of history.

    And the civilization has a better alternate space program than one that could actually be physically constructed. Through the magic of special effects in television, movies, and games all potential space programs and futures can be experienced by the masses, the ultimate space program of the mind.

    The cycles of history teach us that such a period of self-satisfaction turns into degeneration and finally collapse. After the wise king follows the corrupt sons and grandsons who cannot hold the kingdom together let alone promote expansion. The failure of this generation to take its shot at further manned space exploration means it will be a while until the next window of opportunity opens.

  75. Ad Hominem is No Argument by Louis+Savain · · Score: 2

    One of the most brilliant physists in the world is wrong and you are right.

    You have no argument. You would rather attack the messenger than respond to the message. That's a cowardly tactic. But since you bring it up, there is always the possibility he's not as brilliant as you were led to believe. But what's the point of arguing with a cult follower?

    1. Re:Ad Hominem is No Argument by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Yes I have no argument. It's like this you see.

      I have never seen pluto. I have never seen a picture of pluto. I have never seen a video of pluto. Yet I believe that pluto exists!. How can that be? Easy. I have read books by people claiming to be scientists and these people say that there is a planet called pluto way off there in outer space. Of course I never actually verified whether these people actually had degrees or whatnot but still they wrote books so it must mean something. I was also told by my teachers that pluto exists. Everybody I know also seems to be of the opinion that pluto exists.
      It seems awfully scant evidence don't you think? It all boils down to this. Do you believe so and so when they tell you pluto exists? Well for me the answer seems to be Yes. Now if someone came along and said that pluto did not exist wouldn't I have the right to ask them for their qualifications? After all the only thing I have to go on is credibility.

      The same situation exists here. I don't know too much about pysics (just what I picked up collage) so I have to take the word of other people. Given this dillema do I take the word of you (who I know nothing about) or the word of Stephen Hawkings (who I do know a little bit about, have read one of his books, have seen him on television, and have heard other people talk about him in positive terms). To me it seems like an obvious choice. Chances of you actually being right and him being wrong are pretty damned small.

      Your inability to decipher this simple state of affairs tells me that perhaps you are not as brilliant as you lead yourself to believe. Your hostile reaction also leads me to believe that you may not be as mentally stable as I originally thought either.

      Apparently you interpreted my previous post as an attack on you. That one was not meant to be an attack. This one started out not being an attack but alas it seems like it has degenerated into one anyways.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  76. We are not alone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yay! :)

  77. check out these ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://sauderzone.com/CuriousMartianAnomalies.htm

    here you'll find lots of interesting pics from mars, which somebody has taken care to put together. btw, there are lots of places all over the net which offer collections similar like the site above. be careful when loading, as some of the pics are up to 6MB.

    i wonder what the hungarian guys would say if they saw this one:

    http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m13_m18/full_jpg _c tx_map/M13/M1300736.jpg

    any comments ?

    (disclaimer: i am not affiliated with the site)

    1. Re:check out these ... by Ektanoor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well on what concerns the moc picture. This is a very general view of the place but it shows one of the main features of the dark spots. These formations seem to love craters, specially in the equator. From the equator to the poles they tend to cover the craters, and sometimes one can see, mostly at latitudes above 45 degrees, craters that have a completely dark surface.

      In a regional basis, these formations possess frequently a direction, probably dependent on winds. However, it seems the are also dependent on light or something else as there is a weirdness on their location. Northern craters and southern craters tend to have these spots located in opposite directions and seem to avoid the most intensive sunlight. Besides they "rotate" over the craters from equator to the poles. In the equator they are small and not so frequent, tending to be located over the edges of the craters. Going to the poles they start to cover a weider part of the crater. In a very very weird form. Like clocks...

      It is difficult to explain this but I'll try. Imagine a nearly equatorial crater with very thin dark strips over the section where sunlight is less intensive. Now "move" that crater up to the pole. You will see that the dark patches start to cover more and more of the crater and most times over the direction of less intensive sunlight. Near the poles the crater becomes completely dark. Features inside the crater become smooth.

      Now this happens over both hemispheres, North and South. But if ones compares south and north craters they look mostly symmetrical. However there are serious exceptions. Craters in a place called Acydalia Planitia seem likely to those seen on Shoutern Hemisphere. Apart of this widepsread "rule violation", other places seem to conform to this rule...

  78. Happens to everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It happened to me too.

    I'm posting this as an AC cause even if I do HAVE a point, I don't want to lose my karma.

  79. The high probability of life in Mars by Ektanoor · · Score: 2

    Well I posted yesterday a note about this, but, as usual got it rejected. So I will try to reproduce it and give some more detail.

    These aren't news. It's great that Hungarian scientists made lines on the mass media, but, for years, people has been discussing the features and characteristcs of these "dark spots" or "dark dunes" as NASA terms it. They are all over the planet. From the poles to the equator, one can find miriads of this stuff. But there is a big problem with them. While some have features that highly remind dunes, the large majority of them are far from being interpreted as dunes. The problem is that these formations sometimes appear near to brighter and more earthlike dunes. However , while the "bright" dunes possess all characteristics of what we know about dunes, these ones have morphologies that sometimes go far away from the aerodynamical laws that create dunes.

    One of the most scandalous features of the dark dunes is that their morphology frequently suggest that they form completely in the opposite direction of the "bright" dunes. As if wind is blowing 180 degrees opposite. NASA interprets this as if "bright" dunes were supposed to be older petrified ones. Great but there are two problems on this interpretation. First it is frequent to see dark dunes "hidding" behind hills, craters or big "bright" dunes. Second, the general erosive pattern on certain regions shows that the wind is still blowing the way "bright" dunes are formed. However dark dunes are there, and it is frequent to see them behind the most protected areas from windblows.

    Meanwhile "weirdnesses" don't end here. There are many more. The most interesting is that, in some places like NW Hellas, one can see that dust devils uncover a very dark surface, probably a few centimeters underground. No matter, hills, valleys, dunes, boulders and cliffs, the dark devils leave in Hellas always dark paths. These paths are very dark and produce an intrictaed pattern. With time, these paths tend to brighten, however they brighten in a layered form, from the edges to the center. Besides, in some enhanced images, these brightening paths seem to possess a certain form of radiosity, like those we see in thunder rays. However this is hard to confirm for the moment as they appear very near the acceptable limit of resolution. So, for the moment, I would leave this as an interesting feature, not more.

    On what concerns the claims of the hungarian scientists. They are great and they are probably doing a great job. But the problem is that this news passed nearly unnoticed. They didn't make front pages even on the Space sections of certain Internet mass media. In fact this and similar discoveries have been slightly silenced for quite long. An year ago, on a mail exchange with Dr. Van Flandern I have seen a very similar frame, and even then he was already suggesting a biologic possibility for these spots. I should note that many people here may have a very scheptical relation to Dr. Van Flandern. However, he is not the only one and there are other people who have a more conservative mind and still cannot avoid to think about this possibilities.

    Mars is freezing death but one should not consider this as a "proof" that there is no life in Mars. In fact we have some places in Antarctida who also were thought to be completely sterile and still there are organisms that can survive there. And we alwyas thought that 100 degrees Kelvin kills all microbes but some still make a life above it and under pressures that would smash any human being.

    Besides, there are problems with the well known Viking experiments. Some years ago, it was shown that the mass spectrometer could have been broken and Profesor Levin, one of the members of the Viking project and the creator of one of the biologic experiments, noted that palladium carried on the spectrometer instruments, could have destroyed the minimal contents of organics that the mars samples carried. Besides, on Viking Project, there was a situation when one of the members, consciously and deliberately, tried to destroy the work of one of his colleagues. I would suggest everyone to check up the life of Professor Wolf Vishniac, the pioneer of exobiology and the tragic fate of him and his experiment called "Wolf Trap".

    So I consider the question of Life in Mars is still open. Are the dark dunes, living colonies of martians. Probably.

  80. Life by manon · · Score: 1

    If there is life, we better make sure that Micro$oft doen't get there first! Two planets full of Windows is too much for me! ;)

    --
    42 + 1 = 42
  81. Life on Mars by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    Let's take a look at our planet. From the thin, far-out atmosphere to deep in the crust life has completely altered it from it's "natural" state. Our atmosphere is chock-full of reactive gases like oxygene and methane.
    Now, imagine a life form on Mars... these guys with their telescopes talked about photosynthesis. Out of the question. It would show up as oxygene in the atmosphere.
    The observed facts from the viking expeditions and all the latter expeditions point to a world without life. There is also no reliable indications that it ever existed.
    Can you imagine a life form tha doesn't leave any observable trace? Remember that although we often think of individual lifeforms, we have to think of ecosystems in this regard, because life apart from an ecosystem, well...
    There is no life on Mars. If there ever was, it didn't catch on. We've known the first for a long time, since some guy looked at the athmosphere and noticed there were no reactive gases. The second we have known since the viking expeditions.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    1. Re:Life on Mars by Ektanoor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a classical view of the planet. However you forget to note that Mars was "wiped" out from a large piece of its surface. At least most of the surface water went somewhere into space. However, considering the analysis of surface in the Northern hemisphere and taking into consideration to "internal" seas in Arabia Terra, Mars had a large body of water. Today only pockets can be seen in certain regions.

      Apart from this there are indications that today's atmosphere is far from being the original one. Isotopic analysis shows that a large part of todays gases came recently from under the surface. Not milliards but a few millions of years.

      Meanwhile this planet shows clear traces of huge, gigantic cataclisms. Look at the Northern Hemisphere, Hellas and the miriad of craters. Besides look at the gigantic valleys caused by mega-floods which are much more recent than the impact traces of the early times. The planet seemed to have a very hot childhood. Besides, something serious happened in its early maturity. So big that today's upper layers are simply washouts of this tragedy.

      So speaking about "natural" conditions is quite hard for a planet like Mars. Of course that this may suggest that Mars could hardly be a place for Life. But didn't we have the same thing on Earth? The Moon, the pre-Cambric frost, the Permian, the African mega-craters, the Cretacian... And recently we started to know that even our historical period may have had some big shakeups. After the findings on the Black Sea, where people discovered artifacts and constructions 150 meters deep, no one doubts that the Flood, Atlantis and other tales may have a very serious historical ground.

      And, well, we are still here. So why Martians shouldn't?

    2. Re:Life on Mars by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Martians" are certainly not still around as they would need to exist in a biological context, an ecosystem. That this doesn't exist on Mars today is apparent. There are microorganisms that can survive great cold, and there are anaerobic life-forms, but can there exist microorganisms that are both and in addition get along happily without an ecosystem? You would have to ask a microbiologist, but I suspect no.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    3. Re:Life on Mars by Ektanoor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok, what is an ecosystem for you? For Martians an ecosystem might be a highly freezing and dry land with lack of oxygen and very scarce on nutrients. Besides having deadly UV rays bathing its surface.

      Now we know that many organisms are highly adaptive to frost. But Mars has also has a temperature regime ranging from -200 upt +32. Well, considering the low levels of pressure, +32 might be a boiling temperature for a Martian... In fact, for living beings, the problem is the ratio temperature/pressure that gives a chance for physico-chemical reactions to produce a controllable level of heat. If heat dissipates too fast or keeps too long, then even a Earthling would be doomed.

      Besides we know that living beings can adapt to deep dry conditions by saving water to the maximum. However, in Mars, we know that there are huge water pockets underground even in low latitudes.

      Oxygen? Well in most terms we and 90% of earthlings are true aliens. The true pioneers of our Earth HATE oxygen. And still survive...
      Scarce nutrients? Well we know that Mars is VERY RICH on surface minerals. Iron for example. And it is there in the best forms for certain Earth bacteria to use it. And if there is one thing Mars looks better than Earth, then it is in this feature.
      UV. Well, why Martians should live right on the surface? Some earthlings have their home kilometers underground...

      On what concerns apparencies. On Earth there is a place called Antarctida Dry Valleys. For nearly ten years people thought they were completely sterile. And among them there were several members of Viking Project. However Professor Vishniac and other scientists have shown that this was a wrong view. Life is thriving in this deadly place and even has indigenous species.

  82. A last note by Ektanoor · · Score: 2

    Well some people have noted that I wrote quite a lot on this news. Well I have been on this stuff and frankly it hurts the flag to see some people caring too much about apparencies.

    However I forgot to mention one detail. Well dunes, dunes and dunes. However I said that not everywhere we see "dunes". And forgot to mention why. There is a strange morphology on some of these dunes that doesn't go with the classical view of dunes. NASA and Malin say it is due to the physical characteristics of the dark sands. Not so, as no matter the nature of this dark, dunes are highly dependent on the dynamics of windblows. In places where one may find bright and dark dunes together. ne can see that they differ radically. Bright dunes tend to create the "classical" half-moon shape, while dark dunes are frequently seen as small hills with a morphology similar to the form of water drops. But that's not all. In some places, dark dunes create "bridges" among each other. These bridges are very thin. And usually connect the upper/lower edges of the dark dunes and not their extremes as it would be frequent on "usual" sand dunes. But there is something on these dark dunes that is more important than anything else. They overcome sometimes sharp land obstacles. They seem to jump over small but steep cliffs and unite dunes between each other.

    Not all dark dunes look like this. Such dunes I described here are more frequent to be found on lower latitudes near the equator.

    Hope I didn't bother you people too much. But please, forget about the tale that "There is and can't be no Life in Mars". Just leave the question open. Until we get more pragmatic and less political people aiming to find a soution.

  83. Dammit, it's TMA-1 again by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

    You think it would have stopped with Jupiter. Damn monoliths.

  84. Re:Humans will not set foot on Mars for generation by dgroskind · · Score: 1

    Today's space craft sent to other planets or other outer space bodies are our equivalent of the voyages of Zheng He.

    Leaving aside the Cold War competition, space exploration has always been pure science, that is, science practiced for the sake of knowledge without any expectation of commericial application.

    In so far as space exploration is pure science, it is not analogous to of the voyages of Zheng He. They appear to be some combination of promoting national glory and establishing trade routes. Pure science is a higher aspiration, perhaps the highest. Although I have nothing against national glory and trade routes, their motivations are pretty conventional compared to pure science.

    Spending on pure science in general is therefore the measure of a society, not spending in one particular area like space exploration. Space exploration has to compete with other forms of pure science for funds. The question can legitimately be asked whether the discoveries in extraterrestrial geography are as important as, say, other forms of astronomy.

    There is a case to be made that space exploration can wait until it is cheaper and safer. The money now invested in the space station should lead to cheaper space travel eventually. I think we can hold off on a trip to Mars until then without talking about degeneration and collapse.

  85. Why Microbes Matter by option8 · · Score: 2
    linked from the article in the story, this story has an excellent perspective on why finding life on mars, even microbial, very primitive life.

    to quote:

    The discovery of extraterrestrial life of any size would likely be one of the most significant events in the history of humanity. Such a finding, particularly if within our own Solar System, would suggest that life is common throughout the universe and that the terrestrial biosphere is not a hopelessly rare phenomenon.


  86. Organism or impact? by Nyphur · · Score: 1
    In trying to prove that these dark spots near the springs could be the result of photosynthetic organisms, the next step would be undoubtably, to confirm that these are actually springs. If there is a possibility that these spings could possibly be small, weathered impact craters, these dark spots could be beads of very dark glass which are found at any impact crater, especially those impacting with sandy areas.

    This has been seen on Earth and since Mars has an extremely thin/non existant atmosphere, object causing impact would not be vapourised upon entering the atmosphere, which happens on Earth. This would result in many more impacts, especially small yet high-speed impacts, the kind it is next to impossible to have on earth because small fast objects would burn up in Earth's atmosphere. This phenomena would be virtually impossible to find on earth so this may be the first instance of finding it, therefore, we have no basis for comparison.

    What if these springs are simply small impact craters, and the dark spots, beads of dark glass left over from impacts?

    --
  87. Of course there is life on Mars by quintessent · · Score: 2

    Haven't you watched MTV lately?

  88. Dust Storms Anyone? by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

    I had always been under the impression that those dark patches were dust storms. As a matter of fact, I was just watching something to that effect on Discovery Channel last night.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
  89. Mars is covered with iron OXIDE by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Not to difficult to believe that all the still-unoxidized iron on the planet serves as the sink for the oxygen these critters produce -- assuming they produce oxygen at all.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  90. Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm amazed you bother to get into it with this guy. A Verizon DIY website by a person who calls himself "Nemesis" and has a Hotmail response account? Ah yes, that's where I expect to find the truth about physics flourishing.


    Mr. Savain is a member of a common enough species, a science fan who latches on to a particular arena of unsolved questions, picks a particular theoretical horse, and then uses whatever platform he can find to preach, bully, and insult his scientific superiors. Under the guise of attacking orthodoxy and the "system", these amateurs build a false impression of themselves as underdog experts fighting for the truth.


    Mr. Savain likes to have it both ways: he snidely opines that the majority of detractors to his website are recent graduates of math and physics programs, and cites PhDs who support his theories, but do a search for his name on the net and you will find him attacking people for citing their educational credentials as a basis for their opinions.


    Nobody knows why these people act the way they do. Real scientists do not bother to waste their time bashing their colleagues and demanding public apologies from notable figures like Stephen Hawkings. On the far edge of theoretical physics there are no pat, complete, or totally established answers. The nature of space and time are still up for grabs. Mr. Savain may in fact be right. Evidence for time travel of any sort (physical, energetic, the travel of information - whatever that means) is slight at best. Pop science interpretations like the Nova special are 99% fluff - like pop sci-fi interpretations of the significance of the mathematically rigorous Heisenberg Uncertainty Prinicple in the macro world.


    Further research will tell. Mr. Savain's argument against this research and time travel theories is also slight, although it is not without merit or the support of real scientists. But his attitude is that of the religious zealot - his concern is not with the truth but with proving his superiarity to others - and has nothing to do with science. His hectoring, insulting attitude is the hallmark of someone who fails to grasp the true culture of scientific research, where the range of possible ideas is examined without resorting to emotional attack and name-calling. Your best option is to ignore this kind of character.

  91. Spelling of Antarctica by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    You seem to be using the Russian spelling, "Antarctida."

    Keep in mind that if you want English-speaking persons to understand what the heck you are talking about, you should use "Antarctica."

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  92. Here is a photograph of a Martian organism by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1
    Bill Weller took four Mars Pathfinder images and created an animated, 3-D stereogram of something popping out from behind a rock. (Hope you are good at crossing your eyes to resolve those "Magic-eye"-type images.)

    He nicknamed the organism the "Zolax." (Scroll two-thirds of the way down the page to see it.) If it resembles any earth organism, I would say the tarantula -- although it seems to have a half-dozen or so "tentacles," rather than articulated legs. If you look closely at the lower-left corner of the image, you'll even see one of the tentacles in contact with the ground. The point where it's attached to the body is hidden behind the rock, and it's casting a shadow! If this is a hoax, the hoaxer showed admirable attention to detail.

    Disclaimer: the other purported anomalies on this web page are pretty dubious. (Don't you hate when some wacko points to a JPEG artifact and says "look, an artificial structure!" or "look, an organism!") I wish they weren't on the same page as the Zolax, because they hurt its credibility. Nevertheless, the Zolax looks like the real deal. It appears in both the left and right cameras simultaneously, so it can't be an image-processing artifact. It could be a hoax, but it would take a lot of effort to fake a stereo image like this.

    It would be nice if we knew the time interval between the two frames -- then we'd have an idea of how fast this critter moves.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  93. Arthur C. Clarke's "banyan trees" by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1
    Here is a good image of the entities Arthur C. Clarke has termed "banyan trees."

    Note how there is a dendritic, tree-like structure radiating outward from a central "trunk." I know crystals can sometimes grow with a dendritic structure, but consider the scale of the image: about 5 meters per pixel. These are huge structures.

    Also note that they appear to rise above the surface to a significant height. Sunlight is coming from the bottom of this image; the ground is bright on that side of the objects, and in shadow on the other side.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.