Slashdot Mirror


Flowing Water On Mars' Surface May Just Be Rolling Sand Instead (theverge.com)

Two years ago, NASA made a big splash when it announced the discovery of flowing water on the surface of Mars. Unfortunately, according to new research from the U.S. Geological Survey, the surface features that NASA thought were made up of liquid water may actually be flowing grains of sand instead. The Verge reports: The features in question are dark streaks that show up periodically on Martian hills, known as recurring slope lineae, or RSLs. When one of NASA's spacecraft, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, studied these lines more closely, it found that the RSLs were made up of hydrated salts -- meaning they were mixed with water molecules. At the time, NASA thought that was significant evidence that flowing liquid water caused these bizarre streaks. But researchers at the USGS say these features look identical to certain types of slopes found on sand dunes here on Earth. Those slopes are caused by dry grains of sand flowing downhill, without the help of any water. It's possible the same thing is happening on Mars, too. Since liquid water is key for life here on Earth, many thought these strange lines of flowing water may help support life on the Martian surface. But now these RSLs may not be the best place to look for life anymore.

81 comments

  1. So, uhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess those mirages are still a bitch on Mars too, eh?

  2. Sand? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    Well that does it, I'm out.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Sand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martian sand storms. Evolve and get used to them.

    2. Re:Sand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martian sand storms. Evolve and get used to them.

      Send in the Fremen!

  3. Rolling Sands... by DrTJ · · Score: 1

    ... that explains why Mick Jagger looks like he does. He and his mates must have grown up on Mars!

  4. Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the atmospheric pressure, and the temperature, it was highly unlikely that they had any flowing liquid water anyway.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by doctorvo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Liquid brines are not only plausible under Martian conditions, they have been reproduced experimentally.

      Given the presence of large amounts of calcium perchlorate (eutectic point -74C), there are almost certainly liquid reservoirs of brine somewhere on Mars, the only question is how big they are and where/when they are exposed to the surface.

    2. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Rei · · Score: 1

      The whole discussion has always seemed more academic to me than anything else. Deliquescent perchlorate brine concentrates aren't somewhere you'd look for life, they're something you'd use to sterilize a surface. Even normal levels in Martian regolith are probably enough to slowly burn your skin from handling it, in a manner akin to lye.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    3. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Rei · · Score: 1

      Why, sure there is! The American Petroleum Institute said so themselves in a 1956 documentary - the Martians just need to kick out their communist-ish government and they'll find it!

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    4. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's missing the point. The calcium perchlorate deposits suggest that large bodies of water previously existed. Pointing out that life is unlikely to form in highly-concentrated caustic salt solution is odd because nobody proposed that in the first place.

    5. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Rei · · Score: 2

      That's not true; Mars's perchlorates are believed to be due to the same process that forms perchlorates in places like the Atacama, just on a much larger scale: UV-driven gas-phase oxidation of volatile chlorine species (such as HCl) and/or chlorine-bearing aerosols in cold, exceedingly dry environments.

      The fact that Mars was once wet has nothing to do with its present perchlorate inventory.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    6. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by phayes · · Score: 3, Informative

      This Ars Technica article was much more informative than the cited sources.

      Brines evaporating should have left detectable level of salt deposits which we are not seeing.

      That said, if it is sand, we should also be seeing a build-up of these darker sands at the bottom of the slopes which we are not seeing either.

      Clearly we are missing something that a visit would resolve.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    7. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is clearly (and understandably) a desire in the scientific community to find as much evidence of water on mars as possible. More water means higher chance of life and better chance of human colonization support. I think its possible the scientific community was biased toward a water flow explanation, or possibly that's just the one the media stuck to. Did they work as hard to prove other explanations? I'm not sure they did, but this story is evidence that they are doing just that.

    8. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by ilguido · · Score: 2

      Yes and it was a well known fact decades ago. This water-on-Mars affair was the usual publicity stunt to get more funds from the government with pseudo-science (because real science makes the headlines rarely). It is a fact that Venus is the more earth-like planet inside the solar system (and probably even beyond the solar system), however since studying Venus is too costly and complicated we got this Martian frenzy.

    9. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Baron_Yam · · Score: 0

      > It is a fact that Venus is the more earth-like planet inside the solar system

      By mass and gravity. The surface and atmospheric conditions on Mars are closer to Earth than those of Venus, by a longshot. Mars, for instance, has remnants of a magnetic field, Venus doesn't. Mars has an average temperature of -60c, Venus is 462c. Mars has a surface pressure of 600mbar. Venus has a surface pressure of 93bar. The Martian atmosphere is mostly CO2, as is that of Venus... but Venus also has sulfuric acid. A day on Venus is 243 days long. A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than one on Earth. Mars has a couple of small moons (though admittedly not really significant compared to ours). Venus does not.

      If you ask me which rock is more like Earth, for anything other than mass and density I'll choose Mars.

    10. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Deliquescent perchlorate brine concentrates aren't somewhere you'd look for life, they're something you'd use to sterilize a surface

      Actually, the presence of perchlorates is good news for the possibility of life on Mars.

    11. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      I think its possible the scientific community was biased toward a water flow explanation, or possibly that's just the one the media stuck to. Did they work as hard to prove other explanations? I'm not sure they did, but this story is evidence that they are doing just that.

      You're making the mistake of equating what's published with some measure of scientific truth. The scientific literature is a place for debate, not truth. You can't have a debate if you insist that everything everybody says is known to be true. Finding the truth is the whole point of having a scientific debate in the first place.

    12. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by ilguido · · Score: 2

      If you ask me which rock is more like Earth, for anything other than mass and density I'll choose Mars.

      Other than mass, density (which is also related to the composition of the planet) and distance from sun, that is everything. Saying that Mars is more like Earth than Venus is like saying that a chimpanzee is more similar to George Clooney than an amputee, because both the chimpanzee and George Clooney have two legs and two arms. In fact, like a chimpanzee could never be a human being (like George Clooney), Mars could never be a life supporting (that is Earth-like) planet because it is too small (hence no atmosphere, no magnetic field etc.), while maybe Venus could have been an Earth double, if only it had been a bit further from the sun. The fact that Venus is clearly not a double of planet Earth, despite being so similar from a geological and astronomical point of view, is interesting for those who want to know why the Earth is the Earth and not another sterile rock. The reasons why Mars is a sterile rock are well known.

    13. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Strider- · · Score: 1

      That said, if it is sand, we should also be seeing a build-up of these darker sands at the bottom of the slopes which we are not seeing either.

      A possibility, though, is that the sand is weathering once exposed to the Martian atmosphere. I don't know what the chemical process would be. All it would take is a change to the composition of the material directly on the surface, and it would look different from above.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    14. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by phayes · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to quote too much from the Ars article (which along with the comments is as usual more insightful that comments here on /.) but:

      But even the authors admit there are some problems with this idea [of solid sandy traces & not water]. To begin with, when a slope destabilizes and some of the material flows downhill, the largest particles should flow the farthest. This should leave the slope in a more stable state and less likely to have RSL appear the Martian year following; instead, they seem to reappear in the same places.

      Then there are color issues. Darkening could be ascribed to the uncovering of material that hasn't been lightened by its exposure to harsh Martian conditions. But many of the RSL show a complicated pattern of darker and lighter features. In addition, there's no obvious mechanism to lighten the RSL back up again in less than a single Martian year. The review suggests a coating of dust might help, but there would have to be additional factors involved.

      Finally, like the salt left behind by evaporated brines, the downward flow should leave piles of material at the base of the slope and near any features like boulders that protrude from it. But there's no sign of that in most of the images. So, based on these issues, the idea that these are granular flows has nearly as many problems as the watery explanation.

      So where does that leave us? The paper argues that we're right back where we started: we don't expect liquid water on the surface of Mars, and the RSL simply aren't conclusive evidence of it. "Flowing liquid water in the current Martian climate has always been an extraordinary claim," the authors write. "The observations and interpretations presented here suggest that RSL are no longer extraordinary evidence." As long as we're not sure what they are, they can't be used as evidence of anything else.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    15. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      You're making the mistake of equating what's published with some measure of scientific truth.

      No, I clearly said "or possibly that's just the one the media stuck to". I never said anything to equate what is published with scientific truth. And I never ' insist(ed) that everything everybody says is known to be true".

      You can't have a debate putting words in the mouths of others.

    16. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off a bit on the Math there...
      "Mars has a surface pressure of 600mbar."
      Mars has a surface pressure of 600 _Pascals_.
      That's 6 mBar. Roughly 0.6% of Earth Sea Level pressure. 600mBar is almost breathable, if there was something worth breathing. (This can be measured with a sensitive Barometer. Note that "Bar" has been depreciated in favor of Pascals, a damn stupid derivation that nobody sane uses.)

    17. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Rei · · Score: 1

      The "safe drinking level" for perchlorate in water on Earth for a 70kg human is 32 parts per billion. The average level of perchlorates in Martian regolith is half a percent, and the hypothetical perchlorate brines were "perchlorate salts containing only the minimum amount of water to make them flow". Even bacteria do not survive in such perchlorate concentrations (only the hardiest of species can handle the half a percent found in average regolith, let alone concentrated brines). Heck, Martian regolith is so salty to begin with that you'd be outright killing non-halophile bacteria by desiccation (even if the atmosphere wasn't so tenuous), regardless of perchlorate concentration.

      Lastly, the very fact that there is so much perchlorate on Mars is clear evidence that there are no bacteria consuming it. It forms very slowly.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    18. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      The "safe drinking level" for perchlorate in water on Earth for a 70kg human is 32 parts per billion.

      Perchlorate is so toxic to humans because of specific protein interactions (mostly, that it blocks an iodide pump in the thyroid). Giving this example in a discussion of perchlorate effects on bacteria is downright stupid.

      The average level of perchlorates in Martian regolith is half a percent, and the hypothetical perchlorate brine ...

      Terrestrial bacteria have not had any need to adapt to perchlorate brines, so they don't tolerate it very well, so that's not a relevant argument.

      Lastly, the very fact that there is so much perchlorate on Mars is clear evidence that there are no bacteria consuming it. It forms very slowly.

      Or bacteria have adapted to match their growth rates to its rate of formation over the last few billion years, because any bacteria that didn't have such a mechanism would have gone extinct. Alternatively, it might be biogenic.

      Sorry, your arguments are bogus: large amounts of perchlorates are not intrinsically incompatible with life as you implied. You can speculate whether they are good for life or bad for life, but that's all it is: speculation.

    19. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      You can't have a debate putting words in the mouths of others.

      I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to explain to you where you misunderstand how science operates. Scientists are biased, in terms of what they work on, in terms of what they believe to be true, and in terms of what they publish; you don't need to look for "evidence" of that, it's part of the process. That's why the scientific literature is full of papers that provide incorrect explanations and incorrect results; the literature is probably biased towards such papers.

    20. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >Off a bit on the Math there...

      Some people have a human nemesis, I have decimal places.

    21. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      You can't have a debate putting words in the mouths of others.

      I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to explain to you where you misunderstand how science operates. Scientists are biased, in terms of what they work on, in terms of what they believe to be true, and in terms of what they publish; you don't need to look for "evidence" of that, it's part of the process. That's why the scientific literature is full of papers that provide incorrect explanations and incorrect results; the literature is probably biased towards such papers.

      I don't misunderstand how science operates. I never claimed bias plays no role in science, that is your twist. I merely pointed out a specific bias. It is YOU who put words in my mouth and took that as some misunderstanding or commentary on bias in science in general.

      Biases in science are not always helpful. Pointing out biases can be very helpful. Sorry I pointed a potential one out. Why do YOU misunderstand how that can be helpful?

    22. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baron_Yam:
      Happy Thanksgiving! We yam what we yam.
      Mayhaps in places other, we might discuss Torr?

      In one Job, I tossed off MicroTorrs over and over, as if anybody had a clue. Screw Pascals and Bars...
      Things get very interesting at around One Microtorr. The Paschen Discharge region is broken through, and mean Free Paths start to get out of the noise.
      And at around One MicroTorr, Helium Hydride is not only possible, with Helium and Hydrogen around, it's inevitable. HeH started off this whole Molecular thing near the very Beginning.
      Fancy that.

    23. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Sorry I pointed a potential one out. Why do YOU misunderstand how that can be helpful?

      And I keep telling you: your reasoning was wrong and you misidentified the bias. You said "I think its possible the scientific community was biased toward a water flow explanation" as an explanation for why a paper was published postulating water flow when new interpretations contradict that. In actual fact, the scientific community is, if anything, biased against, not towards, a water flow explanation.

      That is, your reasoning was evidently based on the incorrect notion that if scientists are biased towards something, they preferentially publish something that conforms to their biases. That's not how bias in the science works at all.

      Pointing out biases can be very helpful.

      It can be, but not when you speak from a position of ignorance.

    24. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      And I keep telling you: your reasoning was wrong and you misidentified the bias. You said "I think its possible the scientific community was biased toward a water flow explanation" as an explanation for why a paper was published postulating water flow when new interpretations contradict that.

      Your seeming desire to tell me I don't understand science is clouded by your lack of reading comprehension. I did NOT say the bias was an explanation for why 'a' paper was published. Rather, the bias "could" explain the propensity to look at water first and focus on water based explanations.

      Then, I followed with; "but this story is evidence that they are doing just that.", working hard to prove other explanations. In other words, the bias, if it exists, did not in the end prevent them from considering other explanations.

      Settle down and consider the fact that maybe you misinterpreted something, rather than make uninformed claims as to other's understanding of science.

    25. Re:Flowing liquid water was never that plausible by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Well, I think both your original statement and your level of understanding of science are pretty clear. We'll just have to live with having a low opinion of each other.

  5. Re:That's science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We've been going Antarctica for over a century now, and we have yet to set up a remotely self-sufficient Colony there. And it has things that Mars lacks, like Water, an Atmosphere, a warmer Climate, and Polar Bears... well... Penguins actually. What does Mars have? Lots of Sand, and no Magnetic Field to divert slightly greasy Solar Atoms.
    Which brings up the fact that Penguins are largely self-sufficient and happy there. They may not fly much, and their diet is limited, and on top of that, they have Penguin Breath. But we can learn a lot from them. They go for months without eating, they are warm enough, and they seem to quite enjoy Penguin Sex... even with all that Halitosis. Sociologically, Emperor Penguin Daddies babysit while the Girls have a Season Out. This is not as hedonistic as it would appear, since Emperor Penguins mate for life. They have fine Family Values.
    I do wish that the Space Nutters would stop reading crappy Science Fiction and dream of nailing Podkayne on Mars. Antarctica is perfect for them. In fact, it could be a Libertarian Paradise. Antarctica has no Taxes, no Police, and not even a Currency. They could have their own Monetary System, based on the Frostbitcoin.
    And it's White. Very, very White.

  6. Beating A Dead Horse by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    They’ve been sending probe after lander after probe for decades now trying to prove there is or once was life on Mars. The battle between Science and Religion played out across the planets. Like the believers would ever be dissuaded by any scientific facts.

    1. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They’ve been sending probe after lander after probe for decades now trying to prove there is or once was life on Mars. The battle between Science and Religion played out across the planets. Like the believers would ever be dissuaded by any scientific facts.

      There is an international agreement on not contaminating Mars until we know that there isn't life there.
      If you are sure that there isn't life on Mars then it is still of interest to prove it so that future missions there doesn't have to worry about it.

      (Unfortunately saying that there isn't life on Mars is a bit like saying that there isn't a God. There is always another rock you haven't looked under so he might be there. You can only prove that something exist, not that it doesn't.)

    2. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by Rei · · Score: 2

      Right. So rather than the Big Bang coming from basic rules of physics that "just are", it's instead supposed to come from an infinitely more complicated being that "just is"?

      Why hello Occam!

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    3. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 2

      Doesn't mean its your God though. Or even a human God. Or even something you'd recognise as a God. In fact if we accept your proof at all then it pretty much disproves the existence of YOUR God.

    4. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      basic rules of physics that "just are"

      Where do they come from? Why are they?

      Saying it all ends with "it just is" is the same as believing in some entity behind it all. Both are arbitrary assumptions made out of ignorance.

    5. Re: Beating A Dead Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, dude. Rock gods are something completely different than you are describing.

    6. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by Rei · · Score: 2

      Right. Totally the same thing. So if I was walking in the woods and three rocks just happened to be in a row, "They just happened to be that way" makes totally as much sense as "There's an invisible troll living in the woods who arranged these rocks at night."

      (If you want my personal viewpoint: it's a combination of "all basic sets of rules exist in different universes" combined with the weak anthropic principle)

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    7. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 2

      You do realize the existence or non- of life elsewhere has no bearing on religion? The Catholics already have set up a protocol if any is found.

    8. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize the existence or non- of life elsewhere has no bearing on religion? The Catholics already have set up a protocol if any is found.

      Yes, I saw the South Park episode wherein the conclave of cardinals included various aliens.

    9. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      You do realize the existence or non- of life elsewhere has no bearing on religion? The Catholics already have set up a protocol if any is found.

      The battle I was talking about will certainly get hotter if life is discovered independent of the earth. It would certainly advance the cause of evolution and science in general with people open to new facts, at least.

    10. Re:Beating A Dead Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the scientific facts that change daily? Science is not about trying to learn the truth of the universe and reality we live in. It has become more akin to religion in the 10th century. When you dare to question a 'scientific truth of established scientific fact' you are not debated, you are labeled a heretic deserving to be cleansed in the fire of social justice.

  7. this isn't news by doctorvo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People already knew that sand/dust can cause similar features. They believed (and still believe) that this is indicative of flowing water because of seasonality, temperatures, and association with hydrated minerals. We won't know for certain until we observe flowing water more directly, of course.

  8. Re:That's science by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    I guess that changes the Space Nutter narrative a bit, huh?

    No, not really. In terms of availability of water, this also makes little difference, because it's clear that Mars has vast quantities of water ice on the surface; whether that occasionally melts on its own or not it really not important.

    But we space nutters don't really consider Mars a good target for colonization anyway: there is little economic benefit, and it's a deep gravity well.

  9. Re:That's science by aussie_a · · Score: 0

    It actually was water. Because the science is settled. Stop being a hydro-denier!

  10. Infinite instances is exactly what Ockam rejected by raymorris · · Score: 1

    So candidate theories would be:
    1) The rocks are lined up because someone / something lined them up.

    2) There are actually infinite number of those rocks in an infinite number of arrangements, in an infinite number of forests ...

    You mentioned Occam's Razor above. Sometimes people confuse Occam's and the KISS principle. If you're really thinking about which is simpler, it seems to me that #1 is the much simpler explanation. Infinitely so, in fact. If one misunderstands Occam's Razor to mean the simpler explanation is more likely, theory #1 would be infinitely more likely.

    What William of Ockam said was:

      Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate (Plurality must never be posited without necessity)

    So that's an outright rejection of the "infinite universes" idea unless and until there is no possible explanation remaining that doesn't require a plurality of universes.

    Unfortunately, neither theory can be tested publicly in a rigorous scientific way. Both are also very much subject to ad hoc additions or changes. The Biblical definition of God is "that which has always been, and always will be". Will that God certainly exists, by definition. It would be pretty silly to argue that "that which has always been" isn't, so we can only end up discussing the details of how we might describe God. Everyone has their own ideas, some more specific than others, some more Biblical than others, but thousands of different descriptions, so we can never publicly prove or disprove much about all of them.

    I said "publicly prove", a curious phrase. Aside from the scientific method involving experiments, it's also possible to know your leg hurts based on private experience. You may know without a doubt that your leg hurts, and have no possible way to ever prove it publicly. One might, whenever one feels angry or frustrated, receive silent words of love, guidance, or encouragement and they'd know that happens to them, but never be able to prove it scientifically. Things can be known which cannot be proved. An observer could only look at how the person handles tough situations and see that there is something special going on.

    If curious what exactly makes this person so calm, loving, and wise, you could only do two things - ask them, then if they say they do certain things, you could try it out for yourself. In my case, I saw a group of people who obviously had *something* special going on in their lives. I asked them about it and they said some kind of power, or set of principles, which they couldn't explain, was at work when they did certain things, such as praying for guidance to do tell right things. "You can try saying this prayer once a day for 30 days", they said, "it works for us". I couldn't prove anything mathematically, but I *could* try it, so I did. I privately know it works for me. In the same way I know that I'm hungry at the moment I also know that something is helping me today. I don't pretend to understand that something, which I call "God" because I know of no better word for it.

  11. And some evidence is just wind-sculpted by ve3oat · · Score: 1

    Living in Canada, I have often observed the interesting patterns in dry snow lying on the ground caused by stiff winter breezes over a period of several days. And sometimes when I have seen photos of "evidence of water on Mars", the similarities to wind patterns in our snow has seemed obvious. Fine sand and ordinary dry snow probably have pretty similar aerodynamic responses. Add to this the fact that sand is much more abrasive than snow and you have the possibility of Martian sand causing gradual changes in the shapes of overlying rocks. I wonder why these similarities and possibilities have never been considered in the drive to prove that water existed or exists on Mars.

    1. Re:And some evidence is just wind-sculpted by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      > I wonder why these similarities and possibilities have never been considered in the drive to prove that water existed or exists on Mars.

      I'm just going to throw this out there - when you're talking about dynamic activity on another planet... the people doing this research have not only considered those things, but done their best to model them to an infinite number of decimal places.

      They're looking for life, and the best way we know of to find it is to look for liquid water. So they look for possible (not necessarily absolutely certain!) water. They found something that could be interpreted as a sign of water, they worked on those theories and models for a while, and now they're finding it more likely it's not water.

      That's science. It not only doesn't get everything right on the first guess, the process doesn't even claim to.

    2. Re:And some evidence is just wind-sculpted by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the sand rolling down hypothesis is strange because if sand does roll down and not accumulate at the bottom of the roll, where is it?

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    3. Re:And some evidence is just wind-sculpted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like demanding to know where the water goes when a wave breaks on the beach. Why isn't there a huge pile of foamy water left over!?

      A desert is constantly changing as wind moves sand around. The particles may change color as their exposure to the elements changes (wind, sun, nearby compounds).

      The explanations that don't require liquid water are far more likely.

    4. Re:And some evidence is just wind-sculpted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no science always claims to know everything. just read the articles on the web and the media. that is why people hate science soo much. it not like scientist are writing 'we think we might have discovered there flowing water because of X' . Instead they are saying:

      "We have discovered flowing water on mars!!" They make this claim without ever having visited mars to check.

  12. Re:Infinite instances is exactly what Ockam reject by Rei · · Score: 2

    So we want to get into the history of Occam's razor rather than it's actual definition as used in modern English? Because Ockam never actually posited "Occam's Razor", and even the quote you cite appears to have only pertained to the subject of miracles and God's power. Rather, Ockam was frequently known to have used Occam's Razor as a debating technique, rejecting complex ideas in favour of simpler ones.

    Furthermore, you need to be clear on what is meant when discussing plurality. Are you honestly suggesting that if I saw an anthill that a "a huge number of ants made it" would be a less logical answer than "a single invisible unicorn coughed it into existence out of fairy dust"?

    Lastly, you absolutely can make statistical tests for the power of prayer. They just don't give you the answer that you're wanting.

    --
    We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
  13. Re:That's science by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    a warmer Climate
    Actually not, on Mars around the equator it is up to +20C.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  14. Re:That's science by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    The ice on the surface is mainly CO2.

    AFAIK they only found water ice in a few under ground deposites.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  15. Re:That's science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Antarctica is also covered by numerous treaties that prevent claiming territory.

  16. Re:That's science by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    I have no idea what you're trying to get at. There are vast water ice deposits on the surface of Mars covered by about 1-10m of Martian dust and sand. For the purpose of Martian colonists getting at them, means "on the surface" (as opposed to deep underground).

  17. Could just be a wandering star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars isn't a planet, and neither is Earth.

    Space is fake. The Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.

    Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895
    Lunar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/92378881

  18. Re:Come in Antarctica Station, Ripley here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space is fake. The Earth is flat.

    Antarctica is forbidden to you by the Antarctic Treaty; Attempt no landings there.

  19. Re:Beating A Dead Planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.

  20. Re:Infinite instances is exactly what Ockam reject by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    If curious what exactly makes this person so calm, loving, and wise, you could only do two things - ask them, then if they say they do certain things, you could try it out for yourself. In my case, I saw a group of people who obviously had *something* special going on in their lives. I asked them about it and they said some kind of power, or set of principles, which they couldn't explain, was at work when they did certain things, such as praying for guidance to do tell right things.

    It's not a surprise that the placebo effect works, or that stress is the #1 killer in America. There are benefits to religion. They are simply outweighed by the drawbacks. Not just to you, but to everyone else, too. A lot of people draw comfort from being part of the Catholic church, but they're also actively funding and supporting child molestation and the protection of child rapists. And let's not forget, you know, get thee to a nunnery.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. I'm sure you don't want to lie to yourself by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > So we want to get into the history of Occam's razor rather than it's actual definition as used in modern English? ... Rather, Ockam was frequently known to have used Occam's Razor as a debating technique, rejecting complex ideas in favour of simpler ones.

    I'm sure you can see that is exactly what I addressed FIRST, saying "if you're really thinking about which is simpler ..." I know you can see what I wrote. I'd assume you're not purposely lying to me, and to yourself, about what I wrote, so I suppose you just read WAY to fast and completely missed the first few sentences entirely. On the other hand, if you do want to keep insisting that what we can both see right here in black and white isn't there, well then of course we're done. There's no helping someone who denies what is right in front of him.

    AFTER addressing what I suspected you meant (KISS), yes of course I pointed out that what Ockam said is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming his support for. You can't very well say "of course heavy things float up - gravity anyone?" and not expect someone to point out that gravity says heavy things fall down, the opposite of the thesis claiming to be supported by gravity.

    Similarly, in looking at the meta-analysis you linked to I'm going to assume again you're actually interested in seeking truth, so you just read your own link that you cited too fast, and missed both the introduction and the author's conclusions. I assume you're not trying to lie to you and me about what your own link said, because we can both read. The analysis looked at studies of intercessory prayer for people in hospitals. The introduction mentions some of the studies they looked at:
    --
    The California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco conducted a study of the effects of intercessory prayer
    on patients with advanced AIDS. Patients in
    that study who received prayer survived in
    greater numbers, got sick less often and
    recovered faster than those not receiving
    prayer. (23).
    Over time studies have shown intercessory prayer to have positive health effects across a variety of disorders,
    including cardiovascular disease, acquired
    immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), bloodstream infection, leukemia, and in vitro fertilization and egg transfer.(24)
    --

    After analyzing all of the studies, the analysis you linked to concludes that research indicates intercessory prayer for hospitalized patients is [only] moderately effective overall, with some studies showing a clear correlation and some not. That puts it's effectiveness similar to many medications, which are effective for perhaps 10%-60% of patients. That's what the analysis you linked to says. I know you can read it. Whether you choose to pretend you can't and deny all evidence that doesn't fit your first guess is entirely up to you.

    1. Re:I'm sure you don't want to lie to yourself by Rei · · Score: 1

      Wow, surely even you have to see how dishonest your cherry picking of that paper was - grabbing from the "Positive Correlation" section, while omitting the "Negative / No Correlation" section in its entirity, and completely lying about what the summary says. It does not say that it's "moderately effective"; it says that studies have been inconsistent, few attempts to reproduce results, and that even where positive, the researchers have admitted that their results may well be psychological.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
  22. Re:That's science by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Which brings up the fact that Penguins are largely self-sufficient and happy there. They may not fly much, and their diet is limited, and on top of that, they have Penguin Breath. But we can learn a lot from them. They go for months without eating, they are warm enough, and they seem to quite enjoy Penguin Sex... even with all that Halitosis.

    It's only Halitosis if they consider pukey fish breath to be 'bad'. But they're raised from infancy to believe that it is the source of all life...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Re: That's science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point. We need to build modular pebble bed reactors on the ancient continent. We m
    Need to burn more coal to warm up the climate and get the rivers flowing. We need to start killing those penguin for food and their pelts. White people need to use their white guilt to move out of Europe and the USA. Give it back to natives. White people move to anarctica

  24. Re:That's science by Strider- · · Score: 1

    AFAIK they only found water ice in a few under ground deposites

    Mars Odyssey, which is in orbit around Mars, has instruments onboard that have detected large quantities of Hydrogen in the upper few meters of most of the Martian surface. They basically work by measuring the radiation emitted after cosmic rays strike the surface, and based on that data and the pattern of these events, you can determine the element that was hit.

    Anyhow, given the unstable nature of Hydrogen, and what we already know about the chemistry and mineralogy of Mars, the most likely explanation is that the Hydrogen is there in the form of Water Ice, and the concentrations in many locations are such that it's probably best described as ice with soil mixed in, rather than frozen/permafrost soil.

    While it hasn't happened yet, one of the proposed missions to Mars includes an autonomous drilling rig that will be able to bore several meters into the surface, and analyze what's down there.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  25. Re:That's science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a warmer Climate
    Actually not, on Mars around the equator it is up to +20C.

    For short periods, at ground level. A few feet up...brr-r-r

  26. Re:fuck science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck yea. The fact that your post hasn't been upvoted proves that this website is full of faggots

  27. Re:That's science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Actually not, on Mars around the equator it is up to +20C."

    Let's see somebody doing this on Mars anytime soon:
    https://www.studentsonice.com/antarctic2011/images/SOIAntarctica2011_JAN6_MB_08_000.jpg

    Deception Island in Antartica has a number of Geothermal Springs, leading to natural Hot Tubs, year round. Some are frankly too hot, and were once used for Rendering by the Whalers. Admittedly, at the South Pole, it is a lot colder. But the Ice there is real Ice, not that scant Martian CO2 frost.
    But thanks anyway; we are actually having a discussion here, not a snark war.

  28. Re:That's science by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    >But we space nutters don't really consider Mars a good target for colonization anyway: there is little economic benefit, and it's a deep gravity well.

    Speak for yourself. Since we have no way (yet) to adapt the human body to zero-g or radiation exposure significantly above what we get on Earth... Mars gives us gravity (but less than Earth's, which is handy so long as it's sufficient for human physiology) and a place to burrow for protection from radiation.

    It gives us a place we can plausibly survive with minor improvements to existing technology. Perhaps that plausibility is only because of ignorance of the depth and breadth of the problems involved, but it's still very definitely easier than living in a can floating in vacuum (though still much harder than surviving in, say, present-day Antarctica without a supply line).

    There's little economic benefit, it's true... unless and until there's a thriving colony which will be its own excuse for existing. And it's further from the Sun so it's probably a better launching point than Earth for capturing and mining asteroids (they'll be moving more slowly further out). It's definitely a better place to start if you're heading to the asteroid belt to grab something there.

  29. Maybe NASA could send a man to the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe NASA could send a man to the moon to check it out, they've done it before so it should be easy this time. Maybe they will be able to to capture some video footage of it this time that would plausible, perhaps when the rockets take off they could kick up a dust storm.

  30. Re:That's science by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Sounds cool.
    I searched a bit around, it seems they found quite a lot of possible water deposits.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  31. Re:That's science by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    There's little economic benefit, it's true... unless and until there's a thriving colony which will be its own excuse for existing.

    Colonies only "thrive" if they produce a surplus, and that's unlikely for a Martian colony given current technology.

    It's definitely a better place to start if you're heading to the asteroid belt to grab something there.

    It seems to me that the most likely scenario for space colonization involves moving asteroids into lunar orbit via ITN, mining them (and making tons of money), and then using them as habitat shells that can be moved around the solar system.