Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Mars has water


lord_casek
 Share

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

sounds fine by me. 2d8n91j.jpg

 

 

This is the best picture ever.

 

 

casek: I know it doesn't sound believable, but it was one of those science channel things and I saw it a while ago and am probably mis-representing it quite a bit. Plus, there's no text for me to reference. It was something about how they thought Mars may have had water but something happened along with the low gravity that made the oceans dissapate into space. Maybe they said it was a meteor that did it. It was "one theory".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the most relevant post in this entire thread is the one with screen shots of total recall.

 

 

Whether there is life or not on Mars is somewhat irrelevant. Especially if it comes in the form of microbial life. Aside from the obvious metaphysical/ontological revisions that will need to happen in the course of human knowledge, we will just use it and abuse it like always. Unless that microbial life will wipe us out, who gives a fuck. Not humanity.

 

 

 

Hey man, don't forget "Species". That fucking bitch came from some dirt from Mars. Or maybe it was "The Astronaut's Wife" where that happened. I can't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure most of you have heard about this but I'll add it anyway...

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0323_050323_jupitereuropa.html

 

Rothschild studies the origins of life on Earth and other planets. She's intrigued by Europa because it appears to contain likely key ingredients for life—water, an energy source, organic compounds, and billions of years of development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not convinced man will ever be able to live sustainably away from this planet. The more we do things that are out of sync with evolution the more problems we seem to face. Examples;

 

*Ethnic groups start to get sick just by moving from one side of the planet to the other, ie Europeans with skin cancer and Africans with rickets.

 

*Obesity increases dramaticly due to sudden chang of lifestyle and inactivity.

 

*Suspected increase in cancer due to GM foods.

 

It seems to me that the idea that, humans and the planet that spawned us are inseperable , is not so unbelieveable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is the process by which we overcome some natural impedements. It is not that we are out of sync with evolution, but necessitating a positive acceleration in its efficacy. It is like increasing the surface area of a substance such that it dissolves quicker. The body is going to need to respond to the environmental stimulus it is recieving, or we will die off. Do not confuse failed evolution with being out of sync with evolution. It is a mischaracterization of the theory to do so.

 

 

To respond to the content of your comment, mehh, we are pretty fragile beings. Rationality is our largest faculty against our succeptibility to biological failure. As such we continue in its vein to defeat our own impending mortality (Medicine, Science, etc.).

 

To your last comment, why close the system there? "it seems to me that the idea that, humans and the planet that spawned us are inseperable," and that the universe which spawned our planet and others of the terresterial category "planet" are inseperable, "is not so unbelievable." Your argument is that of degrees and fails in such. It is reasonable to believe that as necessarily biologically adaptive beings, should we create or find an environment close to ours that we can succesfully adapt to such a situation. In fact I stand to believe that if we create or find an environment such that it reflects nature before we really started fucking with it, we would find less adaptive issues that we see now;

 

to continue your list in an anti-thetical fashion:

 

*Reduced allergies due to lack of novel chemicals being introduced into the environment

 

*Less hormonal issues in children due to "purer" agricultural environments

 

*etc.

 

basically, humanity will prevail so long as we can calibrate the environment we inhabit such that it maps on the those essential qualities which assure the succesful procreation of our species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is the process by which we overcome some natural impedements. It is not that we are out of sync with evolution, but necessitating a positive acceleration in its efficacy. It is like increasing the surface area of a substance such that it dissolves quicker. The body is going to need to respond to the environmental stimulus it is recieving, or we will die off. Do not confuse failed evolution with being out of sync with evolution. It is a mischaracterization of the theory to do so.

 

 

To respond to the content of your comment, mehh, we are pretty fragile beings. Rationality is our largest faculty against our succeptibility to biological failure. As such we continue in its vein to defeat our own impending mortality (Medicine, Science, etc.).

 

To your last comment, why close the system there? "it seems to me that the idea that, humans and the planet that spawned us are inseperable," and that the universe which spawned our planet and others of the terresterial category "planet" are inseperable, "is not so unbelievable." Your argument is that of degrees and fails in such. It is reasonable to believe that as necessarily biologically adaptive beings, should we create or find an environment close to ours that we can succesfully adapt to such a situation. In fact I stand to believe that if we create or find an environment such that it reflects nature before we really started fucking with it, we would find less adaptive issues that we see now;

 

to continue your list in an anti-thetical fashion:

 

*Reduced allergies due to lack of novel chemicals being introduced into the environment

 

*Less hormonal issues in children due to "purer" agricultural environments

 

*etc.

 

basically, humanity will prevail so long as we can calibrate the environment we inhabit such that it maps on the those essential qualities which assure the succesful procreation of our species.

 

man are you saying that we are introducing LESS novel chemicals into our environment than ever before in human history? caus i'm afraid youre wrong. same deal with 'pure' agriculture, maybe in a very small minority of organic farms. Also both those examples if they even were true are just reverting back to the state we were once in not actually making improvements, just going back on mistakes.

 

Also if you're workign with the theory of natural selection for your argument it seems as if youre going the entirely wrong way about it. Humans as 'adaptive beings' has nothign to do with our ability to quickly shape and live in a foreign environment. Im sure i dont need to verse you on natural selection but it's us adapting to our environment over millions and millions of years. it's not us changing an environment to suit ourselves. If i'm misunderstanding you and youre jsut saying we could live on a planet sufficiently similar to earth for survival then that's a no brainer but it has nothing to do with mars as it is obviously not sufficiently similar. And t obe honest I really cant see terraforming a different planet as working in the forseeable future due to efficiency issues among many many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the best picture ever.

 

 

casek: I know it doesn't sound believable, but it was one of those science channel things and I saw it a while ago and am probably mis-representing it quite a bit. Plus, there's no text for me to reference. It was something about how they thought Mars may have had water but something happened along with the low gravity that made the oceans dissapate into space. Maybe they said it was a meteor that did it. It was "one theory".

 

 

discovery channel? i think i saw that. glad i'm not the only nerd who watches that sometimes.

 

scientists are leaning towards the water they've seen ebbing in and out of that one

gully as being underground part of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man are you saying that we are introducing LESS novel chemicals into our environment than ever before in human history? caus i'm afraid youre wrong. same deal with 'pure' agriculture, maybe in a very small minority of organic farms. Also both those examples if they even were true are just reverting back to the state we were once in not actually making improvements, just going back on mistakes.

 

Also if you're workign with the theory of natural selection for your argument it seems as if youre going the entirely wrong way about it. Humans as 'adaptive beings' has nothign to do with our ability to quickly shape and live in a foreign environment. Im sure i dont need to verse you on natural selection but it's us adapting to our environment over millions and millions of years. it's not us changing an environment to suit ourselves. If i'm misunderstanding you and youre jsut saying we could live on a planet sufficiently similar to earth for survival then that's a no brainer but it has nothing to do with mars as it is obviously not sufficiently similar. And t obe honest I really cant see terraforming a different planet as working in the forseeable future due to efficiency issues among many many others.

 

No No, I was not saying that we are introducing less novel chemicals into our environment than bever before. I agree that we are doing such here on earth. I was saying that should we find an "alien environment" which was close to that of previous periods of earth's environment, we should stand to see such happenings. Not that this is in any way what is happening here on Earth.

 

Also, evolution, like most natural processes works within the confines of the argument between catastrophism and uniformitarianism. While, as you are arguing, it seems indicative in the fossil record of long periods of time for evolutionary changes to be reflected, there are also instances of evolutionary flourishing. Biological explosions during the cambrian era (if I'm not mistaken) are examples of such. So it would seem that while evolution as forever going process (uniform in its temporal progression) would have periods of change that seem more drastic than others (catastrophic in their relative levels of biological adaptation). Just like the repition of catastrophic floods over millions of years to create basins and canyons, such is the case with evolution. It is an ebb and flow.

 

As for my statement of accelerating the process of evolution, I was referring to the concept of the population explosion of the late 20th century. If evolution is characterized by genetic adaptation through procreation, then the faster we procreate, the faster we bring about the possibility of genetic change. It is the same concept as flies. Because of their short life spans and fast gestation periods, changes in their evolution are reflected "quickly" in comparison to our own evolutionary track. But to increase the rate at which people are born is to do almost the same as decreasing our reproductive period. And thus increase the chances of evolutionary progression.

 

Also, an interesting thing to consider as far as effecting the speed and track of evolution; Life expectancy has increased and those with life threatening conditions are living longer and longer with chances to procreate themselves. Thus we are seeing a change in the evolutionary imperative. Those people whom perhaps in past situations would not have lasted as invalids or unable to get past a prediliction to infection or disease are being afforded the opportunity to live and allow their genetic contributions to strive on. That each of us represent a specific biological identification, we represent specific genetic mutations through the course of our particular lineage. It is these mutations that are of concern, for all succesful evolution is is the dominance of one particular contingent mutation to survive in a given environment. Thus, a second contributing factor to the acceleration of evolution is the increase in viable mutations that are being allowed to exist within the possible genetic pool for procreation.

 

 

As far as the viability of terraforming in current society. I was not saying we are anywhere near to the application of such ideals, I was merely suggesting that is one of our aims. Science fiction as representative of the continued tradition of Retro-Futurism expresses the technological (and thus applied science) aims of society. The juxtiposition of current social themes to predictions of future science is like that of a self fulfilling prophecy. Why? Science fiction shows us what science could maybe do in the future. And as such provides the creative fancy which fuels the direction we apply our pure scientific knowledge towards. Take the developement of varying monitors for computers as a perfect example. Representations of future display panels ranging all the way back to Chaplin's Modern Times, can be seen as analagous to current interactive lcd, disturbed air and plasma screen technologies. Even something as recent as Minority Report is predictive to the aims of applied science. There was a link that some people put up quite a while ago in the babble I think that applies here. Perhaps it was Mams. I'll try and find it. Or take the use of holograms. We now have small pieces of technology that create three dimensional holograms at a range away from the device. I don't even need to list the many science fictions that have requested such a technology. Essentially, I see science fiction as predictive of applied science in the scheme of human history. Thus the fact that terraforming has been in such a forum for quite some time, seems indicative to me that we are concerned with such. I can assure you it is something NASA has considered.

 

I hope that provides some clarification as to what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, evolution, like most natural processes works within the confines of the argument between catastrophism and uniformitarianism. While, as you are arguing, it seems indicative in the fossil record of long periods of time for evolutionary changes to be reflected, there are also instances of evolutionary flourishing. Biological explosions during the cambrian era (if I'm not mistaken) are examples of such. So it would seem that while evolution as forever going process (uniform in its temporal progression) would have periods of change that seem more drastic than others (catastrophic in their relative levels of biological adaptation). Just like the repition of catastrophic floods over millions of years to create basins and canyons, such is the case with evolution. It is an ebb and flow.

 

ok i didn't know that, but are we still talking evolving over millions of years or over the generation or two that would be necessary for survival on a foreign planet.

 

As for my statement of accelerating the process of evolution, I was referring to the concept of the population explosion of the late 20th century. If evolution is characterized by genetic adaptation through procreation, then the faster we procreate, the faster we bring about the possibility of genetic change. It is the same concept as flies. Because of their short life spans and fast gestation periods, changes in their evolution are reflected "quickly" in comparison to our own evolutionary track. But to increase the rate at which people are born is to do almost the same as decreasing our reproductive period. And thus increase the chances of evolutionary progression.

for this to be relevant to the situation of adapting to a foreign planet it would mean that a massive and varied population would have to be transported and supported on the planet in question, which is an extremely outlandish situation considering the insane levels of infrastructure needed to achieve and maintain it.

 

Also, an interesting thing to consider as far as effecting the speed and track of evolution; Life expectancy has increased and those with life threatening conditions are living longer and longer with chances to procreate themselves. Thus we are seeing a change in the evolutionary imperative. Those people whom perhaps in past situations would not have lasted as invalids or unable to get past a prediliction to infection or disease are being afforded the opportunity to live and allow their genetic contributions to strive on. That each of us represent a specific biological identification, we represent specific genetic mutations through the course of our particular lineage. It is these mutations that are of concern, for all succesful evolution is is the dominance of one particular contingent mutation to survive in a given environment. Thus, a second contributing factor to the acceleration of evolution is the increase in viable mutations that are being allowed to exist within the possible genetic pool for procreation.

It seems to me as if the survival of all these UNfittest through the marvels of modern medicine would be a negative in the evolutionary sense as they are displaying genetic qualities that are not contingent with a strong ability to survive and thrive.

 

As far as the viability of terraforming in current society. I was not saying we are anywhere near to the application of such ideals, I was merely suggesting that is one of our aims. Science fiction as representative of the continued tradition of Retro-Futurism expresses the technological (and thus applied science) aims of society. The juxtiposition of current social themes to predictions of future science is like that of a self fulfilling prophecy. Why? Science fiction shows us what science could maybe do in the future. And as such provides the creative fancy which fuels the direction we apply our pure scientific knowledge towards. Take the developement of varying monitors for computers as a perfect example. Representations of future display panels ranging all the way back to Chaplin's Modern Times, can be seen as analagous to current interactive lcd, disturbed air and plasma screen technologies. Even something as recent as Minority Report is predictive to the aims of applied science. There was a link that some people put up quite a while ago in the babble I think that applies here. Perhaps it was Mams. I'll try and find it. Or take the use of holograms. We now have small pieces of technology that create three dimensional holograms at a range away from the device. I don't even need to list the many science fictions that have requested such a technology. Essentially, I see science fiction as predictive of applied science in the scheme of human history. Thus the fact that terraforming has been in such a forum for quite some time, seems indicative to me that we are concerned with such. I can assure you it is something NASA has considered.

 

I hope that provides some clarification as to what I meant.

thats all well and good man but time travel and faster than light travel are also our science fiction aims and we arre realistically about as close to achieving that as we are to the ability to transform an inhospitable planet (or even a section of one) into something that can support life that has evolved over countless millenia into a state that is perfectly tuned for the conditions of its home planet.

 

this is all very interestign for me i look forward to your reply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes but is it a proven fact that ther is water on mar i relly do think ther is alians or something not human up ther come on think about it why is ther just one big black thing with stars in it and why is ther other planist think about it you might just reach to the other side one day because i have..how much is it to go to space in a shit somert like £8:000:000 aint it well thats what i red in a book once all the famouse acters are doing it because it`s a trip of a life time not many people get to go to space!!!!but i can tell you one thing at the minit i am more spacet out than neil armstrong ever was and ever will be!:king:lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

discovery channel? i think i saw that. glad i'm not the only nerd who watches that sometimes.

 

scientists are leaning towards the water they've seen ebbing in and out of that one

gully as being underground part of the time.

 

 

Eh, my girlfriend is always watching it and I catch some of it. It's interesting stuff but I can't stand the commercials and I don't like how a lot of the shows play up the "apocolypse scenario" bit, it is far too sensational. I'd prefer Nova if I ever had the time to watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, my girlfriend is always watching it and I catch some of it. It's interesting stuff but I can't stand the commercials and I don't like how a lot of the shows play up the "apocolypse scenario" bit, it is far too sensational. I'd prefer Nova if I ever had the time to watch it.

 

 

 

 

we're on the same wavelength as far as that. commericals are awful and the apocalypse thing...i was mentioning that to my dad. he thinks it's weird, too. i don't watch tv unless i'm at their house babysitting dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

That looks like a fucking face to me. Those COULD be pyramids, I dunno. You figure that a few thousand, even mililons of years of erosion would eliminate the step-look of today's pyramids. The likelyhood of and alien race either existing on Mars or landing on Mars and making their mark is not much less likely than it not happening.

 

All the internet pseudo-physicists might disagree, but truth is they know just as little about what kind of life is out there as real scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...