Slashdot Mirror
The Dirt On Mars, In Words And Pictures
An anonymous reader writes "The Spirit rover's first soil analysis reveals some puzzling features about Gusev crater. The region seems to contain the greenish silicate mineral, olivine, which usually is considered water-reactive and thus volcanic in origin. For olivine to be found in the soil may point to rock formation during a drier period in martian history, even with strong evidence for sampling in an ancient lakebed. A second puzzle is why the soil seems so crusty. After the rover arm pressed soil down, the top layer of dust hardly moved, a finding that suggests something may be binding the dust like some type of salt or thin cement." For even more and better Mars pictures, read on below.
mlyle writes "I've spent a few hours hacking together some software to deal with the Mars Exploration Rover imagery at JPL. The software puts together a webpage and RDF feed of new raw imagery as it is posted to the JPL site, along with technical information decoded about how the picture was taken. It also produces stereo anaglyphs and color images that NASA has not seen fit to convert and make publically available. Be sure to also check out the ultra high resolution image of the lander as viewed from Spirit."
BTW, what happened before Creation? See, everyone, at some point, gets backed into the taking-something-on-faith corner. Some are just more explicit about it than others.
Not me, I don't know what there was before the big bang and don't mid admitting it. I guess you could say that believing in the big bang requires a certain amount of faith but at least there is evidence for it and it is a lot more credible than a 2000 year old book that has been translated so many times it can't be accurate.
Eggzactly.
One of the less ridiculous "proofs" for God's existence is that, "the world exists. Because there cannot be infinite causes, an ultimate originator must exist and that originator is God."
The "no infinite causes" ('nic') line is from Aristotle.
The problem is that NIC is only true if you take Aristotle's word for it. Now, he was assuredly a smart dude, but he was not infallible. His philosophy denies the existence of atomic particles (so if you agree with Aristotle 100%, you either have a fantastic take on all the science of the last 100 years, or you're provably wrong about something.)
The second problem is the assumption that, "if there is an ultimate originator, then it is God."
This is also simply an article of faith, which does not per se make it wrong, merely unjustified.
I can say with equal emphasis and personal faith that, "Since there cannot be an ultimate originator, there must be infinite causes." Further, I could say: "Therefore, those infinite causes are God", or equally, "Therefore, belief in God as an ultimate originator is fallacious."
No one can disprove that without assuming something on faith, either in a trusted authority (philosophical, religious, or otherwise) because no one actually has evidence either way.
Faith is a natural and healthy part of the human experience. Self righteousness and moral absolutism are comfy illusions. The difference between faith and zealotry is that zealots can't or won't change their beliefs under any cirumstances. Even when their own intelligence officers tell them that Iraq abandonded it's WMD programs in 1991.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Anyone that isn't a religious nut can come to the conclusion pretty easily that life in some form is out there in all probability.
Probability less than 1.00 is not proof. If proof was found that life exists or had existed on Mars in the past, then it changes the way we look at the Universe. If life could develop on two planets in the same solar system, what does that say for the possibility and commonality of life elsewhere?
Perhaps Mars is boring. It's the same argument people said about the lunar missions a generation ago. It only became boring because we let it.
Take a step back and stand in awe of the fact that we have the ability to even do what we are doing. It isn't boring. It wasn't in 1969 and it isn't now. It should be considered anything but boring. Maybe if we hadn't gotten "bored" in 1972, it wouldn't be a robot up there analyzing samples up there and sending back imagery used preprogrammed commands on a 20 minute delay. It would be a man or woman instead, with us hearing their voice, the excitement and thrill at walking on another world and making that thrill of discovery, curiousity and exploration infectious to entire planet and to another generation. But we didn't. We should have.
Have a sense of romance and excitement. I wish I could send commands to the rover along the lines of "Look that way! What's over there?!?" or "Drive over there and look behind that rock.".
There are some things that should transcend day-to-day living and the focus on our daily lives and exist simply for the sake of doing it, cost and politics aside. Space exploration should be one of those things.
I think you are confusing scales. In the short term finding Osama MAY be more important than finding life, or traces of, somewhere else in the cosmos. But in the long term Osama doesn't matter in the least, neither does 9/11, America, You, I, or much else. Finding life would answer a COSMIC question, killing Osama with some little Geneva convention violating bug would answer a wholly secular, and temporal question.
Finding traces of life on Mars would further the work of Galaleo[sp], Darwin, Einstein, and all the other great minds who pushed the boundries of knowledge, who led to BIGGER questions. Finding Osama would make George Bush look like he already did not waste BILLIONS (not just millions) of dollars, and MIGHT increase Americas sense of security by a minute modicum.
Finding life would challenge theology, and put some serious stress on the creationists, which in my opinion is a good thing. It also would expand the Earthly feilds of science, answering some time-old questions. Finding Osama and killing him would only answer the question "Where is Osama?", which is of little importance to the world-as-a-whole, and the greater reach of intellectual history streaching before us.
Finding life would be comforting to us, now and generations hence. We would for once know that we are not alone, and that the odds of alien life, albeit simple, are greater than some nay-sayers say. Finding Osama, well, would be comforting to the US, at least until the next "evil doer" comes along to rain on our parade.
You must look at the bigger picture. Killing Osama is a sign of hatred, dark emotions, revenge, war. Finding life, a sign of hope, progress (in a good way), knowledge, and a greater respect for life itself. What is wrong with embracing both goals, vengence and death, and hope and respect?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey