Nasa press release!!

[Kevnool (Kev)]

If nasa is paying salaries of 50,000 as in a previous thread then you take what you can get.
I can remember they had monkeys at one stage.

Cheers kev.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

I think the scientists are obviously very good at what they do. They may be underpaid but they ain't no monkeys.

I think the thrust of NASA's astrobiology research is reasonable and well targetted. We aren't going 'out there' to look for life in the foreseeable future so it's reasonable to spend the time figuring out what to look for. And this type of research is very cheap compared to space missions.

OK the announcement was overblown that, as Les said, it was part of the political reality that they need to stay in the public eye. Here at uni they have a section whose job it is to generate positive publicity. They have regular articles in the 'IQ' section of the local rag looking at one academic or another's research. Then they keep a steady trickle of announcement about funding success, ranking next to other uni, significant discoveries etc etc. The positives from this are probably difficult to quantify but they are doubtless real and significant.

[joe_smith]

I am sorry but I have to answer your question with another one where is your proof that it doesn't exist

By the fact there has been none found. Do you mean that you don't have to have the proof to say that there IS life out there. No proof so far means no life out there. You can have a personal belief that there is life out there or you can have a personal belief that there is none. until life is found its only a theory. if you base there is life out there on a maths equation that can go either way, (like the stupid drake equation put the real numbers in and it comes out 0, NIL.) then you must say UFO's are real and the gods exists by the evidence put forward by them, if you don't have to prove the maths is true, they don't have to prove their story's and evidence. Science cant have it both ways.

A maths equation is not nil it is scientific and has been used to prove countless things in the past all of the things we take for granted like the computers and Internet we are having this discussion on are the result of mathematics.

But the equations for life in the universe haven't been proven to be true that IS the difference so you cant say it is a fact that it is real, you have faith it is true not evidence.

There may not be an Elephant in your house have you checked your fridge lately I have heard that they tend to be where the Peanut Butter is check it for footprintshttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....s/thumbsup.gif it doesn't mean that there are none it just means they are not in your house but they are in India and Africa.

I agree and that is my whole point

just because Elephant's exist in India and Africa this is not proof or evidence that Elephant 's exist in your house.
Which is the same as
Just because life exists on Planet Earth, This is not proof or evidence that Life exists on planet X or Y and even Z.

This type of argument "there is life on Earth so there must be life out there", isn't a theory its, as someone said "a bit arrogant" of the actual data found so far.

btw my elephant is in the mini, not in the fridge. I guard my peanut butterhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....ilies/rofl.gif

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

By the fact there has been none found. Do you mean that you don't have to have the proof to say that there IS life out there. No proof so far means no life out there. You can have a personal belief that there is life out there or you can have a personal belief that there is none. until life is found its only a theory. if you base there is life out there on a maths equation that can go either way, (like the stupid drake equation put the real numbers in and it comes out 0, NIL.) then you must say UFO's are real and the gods exists by the evidence put forward by them, if you don't have to prove the maths is true, they don't have to prove their story's and evidence. Science cant have it both ways.

But the equations for life in the universe haven't been proven to be true that IS the difference so you cant say it is a fact that it is real, you have faith it is true not evidence.

I agree and that is my whole point

just because Elephant's exist in India and Africa this is not proof or evidence that Elephant 's exist in your house.
Which is the same as
Just because life exists on Planet Earth, This is not proof or evidence that Life exists on planet X or Y and even Z.

This type of argument "there is life on Earth so there must be life out there", isn't a theory its, as someone said "a bit arrogant" of the actual data found so far.

btw my elephant is in the mini, not in the fridge. I guard my peanut butterhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....ilies/rofl.gif

You can't say because it hasn't been found yet it doesn't exist that is illogical its like saying because I can't go into space that it is impossible its just that I don't have the technical ability or the financial resources to do it or the physical ability. But I know it is possible.

The below quote is an example of what I mean it wasn't proven that the Earth was a sphere, untill it was proven did that mean that the earth was flat because no-one had proved it.

The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given. The Hellenistic paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[2][3][4][5] The final, practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan / Juan Sebastian Elcano's expedition's circumnavigation (1519−1521).[6]
The concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth: In early Mesopotamian mythology, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean and surrounded by a spherical sky,[7] and this forms the premise for early world maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus. Other speculations on the shape of Earth include a seven-layered ziggurat or cosmic mountain, alluded to in the Avesta and ancient Persian writings (see seven climes), or a wheel, bowl, or four-cornered plane alluded to in the Rigveda.[8]
As determined by modern instruments, a sphere approximates the Earth's shape to within one part in 300. An oblate ellipsoid shape with a flattening of 1/300 matches even more precisely. Recent measurements from satellites suggest that the Earth is, in fact, slightly pear-shaped.

I wasn't trying to prove the elephant was in your house you stated that. Because it was in the zoo didn't mean it was in your house but it proved they existed somewhere otherwise it wouldn't be in the zoo they had to get them from somewhere. And the equations for life in the universe have not been disproven either and it seems to me that you are going on faith that the no life exists without any supporting science at all other than I can't see it so it doesn't exist. Unless you are playing Devils Advocate

[Octane (Humayun)]

Warren,

You're going around in circles drawing on incongruous analogies.

Fact: life hasn't been found elsewhere.
Fact: does it mean it doesn't exist? No.
Fact: does it mean it does exist? No.
Fact: we just don't know.

H

[allan gould]

Sorry to have to say this bit your chat in this thread is just sooo way off the mark that it's odd. The full implications of their announcement is that in the organism isolated that arsenic can replace phosphorous in the DNA helix of this bacteria. As a molecular biologist this is an astounding observation which does have many implcations for evolution and molecular biology. It's has nothing to do with how many aliens Are out there but shows a vivid light on the preconceptions that we hold for where life may eventuate and evolve.

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Got to agree with Allen here.
I think NASA announcing it was a huge mistake. It changes the emphasis from a truly noteworthy discovery by dedicated bio-scientists, to a damp squib from the rocket boffins.
The discovery itself is just astounding. Alas its doomed to public obscurity, or worse, bad joke status, thanks to the messenger. Credit where its due here, although not "space-related", it IS an amazing bit of science and should stand by itself rather than being rolled-in to a dubious PR campaign by NASA.

[TrevorW]

My point exactly

"life as we know it Jimmy"

life can take mamy forms had it not been for the dinosaur extinction it's possible that intelligent reptiles could have eventually been the dominant life form on Earth.

As has so resolutely been pointed out just becasue we have not found life doesn't mean that life as such does not exist

LIfe could evolve and adapt in many harsh enviroments as has been seen from examples on Earth where life has formed, who is too say that life could not evolve in similar conditions elsewhere.

It would be naive of me too think that in all the billions of worlds out there that some form of life could not evolve on some distant planet in a remote corner of our own galaxy let alone the rest of the universe.

Consider the fact that if earth had of been give of take 10,000,000 miles or so, from where it is, would man have evolved as a species.

So although some may say that because we have not found life it therefore can't exist they would be doing so in ignorance and with the belief that life on Earth is unique in the whole universe.

[joe_smith]

Sorry to have to say this bit your chat in this thread is just sooo way off the mark that it's odd. The full implications of their announcement is that in the organism isolated that arsenic can replace phosphorous in the DNA helix of this bacteria. As a molecular biologist this is an astounding observation which does have many implcations for evolution and molecular biology. It's has nothing to do with how many aliens Are out there but shows a vivid light on the preconceptions that we hold for where life may eventuate and evolve.

but the NASA release was being put in the "search for life" arena surely this type of release is going to generate this type of debate, and so it should without debate and questioning of science ideas, how can we get new idea's and different views to solve the original questions.

You can't say because it hasn't been found yet it doesn't exist that is illogical

So everything in my imagination has the potential to being true because it hasn't been found yet? that's illogical to me.

LIfe could evolve and adapt in many harsh enviroments as has been seen from examples on Earth where life has formed, who is too say that life could not evolve in similar conditions elsewhere.

I agree 100% with this, BUT the onus is with SCIENCE to prove life is out there because all the data SCIENCE has now is NIL evidence for it. The above is based on your own egotistic world view, and every human on earth has there own, me included, its not a debate to find out who is right. Its to base the truth of the matter with the real data science has.

All I'm trying to say that the whole search for life in the universe is the same as looking for the Loch Ness monster, until we find it SCIENCE says it doesn't exist.

[TrevorW]

I do not believe it egotistical to think otherwise that because something has not been proven to exist therefore it doesn't.

You only have to look at what has been envisioned in science fiction by creative thinkers that people ridiculed as impossible, improbable and beyond the realms of science that in time were proven possible.

I believe it more a case of having an open mind to the probability that life may exist in one form or another somewhere else the universe and because science has not proven it to exist, does not render its existence improbable but moreso highly likely considering the known forms of life existing under such a myriad of circumstances.

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with it's several powers having being orginally breathed into a few forms or into one and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved", CD TOOS

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

All I'm trying to say that the whole search for life in the universe is the same as looking for the Loch Ness monster, until we find it SCIENCE says it doesn't exist.

If science says it doesn't exist then nothing and I mean nothing would have been invented because science is the search for answers to the UNKNOWN not the result of stubbing our toe on discovery and then running with it. Science doesn't say it doesn't exist it says it may exist now lets prove it in the positive or negative if scientists thought that science says there is nothing there they wouldnt be scientists because science is the thirst for learning in a way science is the result of curiosity and imagination of what could be possible. In my opionion science says it is there until it is proved to be not there if it wasn't this way why bother searching we may as well pack up and wait to die as a species because we will stagnate.

[Kevnool (Kev)]

Can someone tell me what the big story was about (announcment) ?

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by Kevnool

Can someone tell me what the big story was about (announcment) ?

They whoever discovered I am unsure, a bacteria that has arsnic as part of its dna I think that is right and doesn't rely on Phospherous which was considered a needed ingredient for life.

[Kevnool (Kev)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

They whoever discovered I am unsure, a bacteria that has arsnic as part of its dna I think that is right and doesn't rely on Phospherous which was considered a needed ingredient for life.

Thx Warren

I,ll sleep on it now.

Cheers Kev.

[M_Lewis (Mark)]

As an actual qualified microbacteriologist (for those who dont' know - people who study virus's and bacteria, and micro-organisms), and also an astronomer, it's information which qualifies what some of my work and professional colleges believe, that microbial life does exist outside the boundaries of our planet. Unfortunately we dont' have the vehicle or means to zoom off out to them, say g'day and zoom back with a few happy snaps.

Asteroids specimens that I have personally seen at QUT (queensland university of technology), which have interesting, I guess you could call 'footprints' or evidence of microbial activity inside the core of them, discovered when sliced open, further supports this theory.

I once remember going to a public astronomy event a few years back, where the astonomer running the show asked the public did anyone believe NASA did not land on the moon. Like clockwork, there was some idiot who put up his hand and claimed it was all nonsense, and supported the conspiracy theory of it being made in a movie studio. The astronomer then swung around the telescope (which was a really really big one) and showed us one of the lunar modules on the surface of the moon. It was rather comical to watch the conspiracy person eat his words.

To think life does not exist outside of this planet is like having your eyes open with the horse paddles on.

I'll leave with one more piece of hard evidence (or lack of) - ever wonder the earth is not older than 4.2billion years old? The answer is simple - they simply haven't foound an older rock on earth, older than 4.2 billion years yet.

I'll go back to eating my popcorn now...

[joe_smith]

Originally Posted by Kevnool

Can someone tell me what the big story was about (announcment) ?

Here is a good article about the discovery Thriving on Arsenic

[astroron (Ron)]

QUOTE
I once remember going to a public astronomy event a few years back, where the astonomer running the show asked the public did anyone believe NASA did not land on the moon. Like clockwork, there was some idiot who put up his hand and claimed it was all nonsense, and supported the conspiracy theory of it being made in a movie studio. The astronomer then swung around the telescope (which was a really really big one) and showed us one of the lunar modules on the surface of the moon. It was rather comical to watch the conspiracy person eat his words.QUOTE


Mark!
I did not think there is a Telescope on earth that can observe any of the Lunar lander's or any other hardware left on the moon
They where as far as I am aware only imaged in the last year or so from lunar orbiters.
As for looking through Large Telescopes, what do you call large?
None of the large scopes in Auss or in the states over a meter or so do not as far as I know have eyepieces
Please enlighten us as to were this occurred, and when.
I would be very interested
Cheers

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by astroron

Mark!
I did not think there is a Telescope on earth that can observe any of the Lunar lander's or any other hardware left on the moon
They where as far as I am aware only imaged in the last year or so from lunar orbiters.
As for looking through Large Telescopes, what do you call large?
None of the large scopes in Auss or in the states over a meter or so do not as far as I know have eyepieces
Please enlighten us as to were this occurred, and when.
I would be very interested
Cheers

http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm

[M_Lewis (Mark)]

Good conspiracy huh

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by M_Lewis

Good conspiracy huh

I am afraid you have me confused
you said that you where at a meeting where an astronomer pointed a scope at the moon and showed the a moon lander
Why did you make such an untrue statement:quest ion:
Cheers