Slashdot Mirror
Is Mars A Green Planet?
linuxator writes: "While scientists were looking at stuff that Pathfinder collected from the red planet, they discovered that they may be looking at chlorophyll. What does it prove if it really is chlorophyll? Well, chlorophyll is that green stuff in plants... So figure it out yourself :) "
Scientists at the International Slashdot Observatory have found evidence of repeat postings on /.
The lead researcher said, in presenting his findings, "compare this article with the parent. Notice the stunning similarity? The only rational explanation is that Slashdot is repeating itself."
...somebody left the latch up, and the pathfinder was rolling around in the garden again. That's all. ;p
We know there is water on a couple moons, which would get significantly less exposure to the sun. I am really just curious.
101010b 2Ah 52o
"Stoker has said they did not find evidence of chlorophyll or any evidence of life on Mars," the spokesperson said. "There's really nothing to report. I think they [the BBC] read more into the abstract than is really there."
Next thing you they're gonna be saying Mars is a Blue Planet!
(someone's got to know what I'm talking about)
I stole this Sig
I think this whole thing has been blown WAY out of proportion. They measured the illumination levels of pixels in 15 wavelengths. Out of all the Pathfinder photos, six pixels were found that matched the illumination levels you would expect for chlorphyll. Four of the six pixels were of the spacecraft body. Surely NASA checked the lander for moss growth before launch so two-thirds of the pixels are false positives right off the bat. Now, if you were going to bet on the origin of the other two (count em - two) pixels, what's the odds breakdown - chance vs. Mars life vs. flecks of paint or something else from the lander that we ALREADY KNOW can trigger false positives?
i think that if you study the chemical reactions between water and iron, you will find that hard water and hydrogen is a byproduct... this isn't real water.... there probably isn't any pure h20 left on the planet after millions of years of reacting with iron and hydrogen leaving the planets atmosphere... if you study further, you realize that all the water just disintegrated over time... there may still be some water frozen in ice, but probably is only hard water (H2O2)...
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Isn't H2O2 (Hyrdogen Peroxide?) unstable, doesn't it break down into Water and Oxygen?
101010b 2Ah 52o
Only it turns out that water on Mars is an impossibility. Combining H2 with O is an entropic
process, meaning it requires quite a bit of energy (specifically E = Lf*m where Lf is the heat of fusion of
water).
Where do you get your information from? Sure there may not be enough energy for combustion of
Hydrogen on Mars, but last time I checked there were a myriad of sources of water and energy. First a
foremost the Oort Cloud and comet material, not to mention the fact that Mars was probably considerably
more geologically active at one point and probably supported a considerably more dense atmosphere,
which in turn would have allowed for more liquid water. But simply writing off life on Mars because of a
misguided use on entropy, really makes me wonder if you are a Fundie or something looking for a way to
deride extraterrestrial life in order to support your dogma based belief system.
Well, you can complain about it all you want, but personally if it creates more intresting in study of the solar system and gets the NASA budget bumped up a bit I am all for it.
Only it turns out that water on Mars is an impossibility. Combining H2 with O is an entropic process, meaning it requires quite a bit of energy (specifically E = Lf*m where Lf is the heat of fusion of water)
Well... first off... every chemical reaction has entropy. Order is either hightened, or lowered. What you should have said is that it is exothermic, but even then, the point that it requires a bit of energy is just saying that it needs a little boost to get the reaction going (forgot the exact term for this... its like a spark plug in a combustion engine).
So there's no combustion on mars... doesn't mean that there is no water.... When do you think all the water on earth was created? During its own creation. In the creation of a planet, there is a ton of abundant energy going around... plenty for the creation of water. So why couldn't mars be the same? Sure, there is a lot of iron on the surface of mars, but just like on earth, there could be underground caverns full of water. Last time i checked, that is what they wanted to search for next...
Another source for water is metorites, comets, and other small chunks floating around in space that enter our atmosphere (and mars too).
What you should have said is that it is exothermic, but even then, the point that it requires a bit of energy is just saying that it needs a little boost to get the reaction going (forgot the exact term for this... its like a spark plug in a combustion engine).
Its called activation energy. And in the presence of some catalyst the activation energy can be lowered but the overall energy change for the system stays the same.
Veramocor
it turns out that water on Mars is an impossibility. Combining H2 with O is an entropic process, meaning it requires quite a bit of energy (specifically E = Lf*m where Lf is the heat of fusion of water). Mars has been shown to be too far from the Sun to get enough energy per square meter to build up any significant quantities of H2O.
Europa is further from the sun than Mars, and is absolutely covered in water. The bodies in the Oort Cloud are a lot further from the sun than either Mars or Europa, and they contain vast amounts of water.
And who the heck are Feldmeyer and Smythe? Google turns up nothing on these figments of your imagination.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
oops... im a dork... your right...
0 011130 mars1130p2.asp
here is what i was trying to say:
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/2
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
They are putting the cart before the horse here. The shift of discussion to chlorophyll and away from water is misdirection.
Let's see here. "They" are the people that said in effect, "there seems to be a spectrographic signature for chlorophyll in some particular areas around and ON Pathfinder in these multispectral images. We don't really know what it means, and we are not drawing conclusions until we have completely analized these data."
Now you, in contrast, already know what? "They" are apparently committing psuedoscience because a spectrograph has yielded empirical results that you do not like on mathematical grounds? Is this not similar to the physicist that argued that bumble bees can't fly based on mathematical grounds? Then too, just what IS all that hydrogen bound up in around Mar's south pole, if it is not in water ice?
"Cold fusion"? Feldmeyer and Smythe? Might you be meaning Pons and Fleischman?
Combining H2 with O is an entropic process, meaning it requires quite a bit of
energy .
Really, igniting hydrogen and oxygen does require a small initial input, but since the reaction is exothermic, the reaction usually continues until the reactants are too diffuse to maintain the process. I know from actual experimentation that you can take hydrogen and release it into ambient air without getting any reaction. But if you apply a match, then you get a reaction. This seems to me to indicate, based upon your logic and mathematics, that there really is no water on this planet either.
Your argument could be (but isn't) logically flawless, and still be subject to the adage that "logic is method for being wrong with confidence."
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Ooo, this irritates me. It irritates me even more that NASA scientists say absurd things and get misquoted all the time, just for hype's sake. But in particular it bugs me that this data can be so ignorantly misinterpreted.
What is chlorophyll, and how would one go about identifying it, and how is that indicative of life?
Chlorophyll is stable pigment molecule, at the heart of which is a coordinated Mg2+ ion, that occurs in the photosystem proteins of most photosynthetic orginisms (on Earth, anyway). It snags photons of particular wavelengths, uses this energy to boost electrons to stable higher energy levels, and passes these energized electrons off to the associated photosystem, where they are ultimately used to drive ATP synthesis and make other good stuff.
Scientists, including the ones huddled over the Pathfinder data, generally identify chlorophyll by its characteristic absorption spectra. So if, in the Mars data, we see something that seems to absorb with a similar fingerprint to chlorophyll, does that mean there's life on Mars!?!? No!
It doesn't mean there isn't, but it isn't even very good supporting evidence.
Just because it looks green doesn't make it chlorophyll. Lots of organic molecules absorbs in that region, and it wouldn't be surprising... Well you see where I'm going. Lemme jump to the more interesting point.
The thing that makes chlorophyll especially good at its job at capturing light energy and converting it to chemical energy isn't its structure: there are oodles of molecules out there that absorb photons and kick an electron into a relatively stable higher energy level. Chlorophyll's claim to fame is its buddy, the photosystem protein.
Photosynthetic organisms have evolved special large, multi-subunit, many-hundred-amino acid proteins to harvest light energy, and most of these just happen to use chlorophyll, of all the available pigments. At some point in distant history, a very successful photosynthetic protein evolved, using the chlorophyll molecule as a catcher's mitt. This protein then became the evolutionary fuel for countless photosynthetic descendants over the next several billion years.
Note, however, that many organisms *do* use photosynthetic pigments other than chlorophyll. If versatile photosystem proteins had evolved for these pigments, then the plant life on Earth would likely be some pretty shade of orange or yellow, instead of green. So the key isn't *chlorophyll*, its *protein.* It is, and I can't stress this enough, *extremely* unlikely that two independent evolutionary pathways would produce light-harvesting proteins that utilize the chlorophyll pigment.
SO, the presence of chlorophyll, much less, of green splotches, does not do much to support the Mars-Life-ers.
Unless we postulate that life evolved on one of the two planets and spread to the other by some sort of meteorite. Which is a whole other rant all to itself.
-!splut
The angel in the oatmeal.
Urban legends are often a convenient way to bury an embarassing attitude. Strictly speaking, a single individual identified as the "creator" of an urban legend, means that the story is neither urban, nor a legend, simply fiction with an author. A very real astronomer at the end of the 19th century pitied coming generations of astronomers and physicists because there was nothing more to discover but the details. Also, the means by which bumble bees stayed aloft WAS an aerodynamic mystery until quite recently. I think the article announcing the explanantion can be found in the Scientific American archives.
On another front of supposed urban myth I have heard for instance that the story of the house wife who called computer support because her control pedal was not working is an urban myth. None the less, during a brief stint as stand-in support, I personally answered just such a call. The woman had reasoned by physical analogy that the mouse was like her sewing machine control. Diagnosing that over the phone was pretty entertaining. Many true, but improbable stories embedded themselves as myth in our psychic landscape, but that fact hat they are myth may not make them less true. Just for fun, how long ago did your biologist take a shot at discrediting the physcist?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Yes, besides 15 wavelengths just doesn't cut it. You just can't get a precise spectral fingerprint of stuff like clorophyl, not with 15 wavelengths, not under these conditions. So all they have is some erroneous pixel colors. Not very substantial. This isn't news, this is just bad science. Maybe they are desperate to pump more funding out of the Bush administration (which would be a good thing), but this isn't the stuff that's going to get them very far.
If you used the flawed software they used for that color of the universe thing.
You mean I'm supposed to mouse with my hand?
Just when I covered my entire floor with sorbothane...
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
No, it's not, it's a very polluting power inefficient planet, and it doesn't have the "green" logo.
You mean I'm supposed to mouse with my hand?
....the small oval thing with three buttons on the same end as the cord... ...yes mam, it is called a mouse... .... IT'S WHERE???"
Yep, astonishing. What always puzzled me was that she had noticed the mouse cursor move, when she tried to work the "foot pedal." But that was all that happened, so things were not working properly. My part of the conversation was pretty surreal too. "...your mouse...
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.