Flowing Water On Mars
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: hatt
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
Your post makes me remember Saberhagen's Berserkers. ( Scifi fiction books).
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
Your post makes me remember Saberhagen's Berserkers. ( Scifi fiction books).
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: hatt
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
Your post makes me remember Saberhagen's Berserkers. ( Scifi fiction books).
Interesting. I've never heard of that. Funny how forward thinking some people were back in the day.
Originally Posted By: hatt
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
Your post makes me remember Saberhagen's Berserkers. ( Scifi fiction books).
Interesting. I've never heard of that. Funny how forward thinking some people were back in the day.
Originally Posted By: hatt
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
When does "life" equal life? And what does "just a theory" mean to you? Universal gravitation is "just a theory," but it works each and every time in classical systems, and has worked perfectly since its elucidation, and has done everything from get man to the moon to give first year physics students a basic introduction in verifying a theory and conducting error analysis. So, if "just a theory" means something different outside of science, I'd like to know that.
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
When does "life" equal life? And what does "just a theory" mean to you? Universal gravitation is "just a theory," but it works each and every time in classical systems, and has worked perfectly since its elucidation, and has done everything from get man to the moon to give first year physics students a basic introduction in verifying a theory and conducting error analysis. So, if "just a theory" means something different outside of science, I'd like to know that.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
When does "life" equal life? And what does "just a theory" mean to you? Universal gravitation is "just a theory," but it works each and every time in classical systems, and has worked perfectly since its elucidation, and has done everything from get man to the moon to give first year physics students a basic introduction in verifying a theory and conducting error analysis. So, if "just a theory" means something different outside of science, I'd like to know that.
If you have nothing to add but trying to play word games with me I'm going to block your nonsense. You act like a little kid. When does "life" equal life" was an interesting and engaging question but then you went all retard again.
Originally Posted By: hatt
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
When does "life" equal life? And what does "just a theory" mean to you? Universal gravitation is "just a theory," but it works each and every time in classical systems, and has worked perfectly since its elucidation, and has done everything from get man to the moon to give first year physics students a basic introduction in verifying a theory and conducting error analysis. So, if "just a theory" means something different outside of science, I'd like to know that.
If you have nothing to add but trying to play word games with me I'm going to block your nonsense. You act like a little kid. When does "life" equal life" was an interesting and engaging question but then you went all retard again.
That's what I thought. You don't know what a scientific theory is, so you call it word games and then get into insults. So, I suggest you do block me. You have made it very clear you don't wish to listen to anything said by people with actual credentials, and you have no way of disputing what they say, aside from flinging insults.
Originally Posted By: BRZED
I thought NASA discovered Marvin the Martian. After all, he is depicted on the Mars rover Spirit.
Then, let us hope he does not have his Illudium PU-36 space modulator...
I thought NASA discovered Marvin the Martian. After all, he is depicted on the Mars rover Spirit.
Then, let us hope he does not have his Illudium PU-36 space modulator...
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
When does "life" equal life? And what does "just a theory" mean to you? Universal gravitation is "just a theory," but it works each and every time in classical systems, and has worked perfectly since its elucidation, and has done everything from get man to the moon to give first year physics students a basic introduction in verifying a theory and conducting error analysis. So, if "just a theory" means something different outside of science, I'd like to know that.
If you have nothing to add but trying to play word games with me I'm going to block your nonsense. You act like a little kid. When does "life" equal life" was an interesting and engaging question but then you went all retard again.
You get a thoughtful response to your pseudo-intellectual equivocating and your response is to take offense?
If you were willing to listen, and stick to ideas, instead of making the argument personal and trying to win that argument, you might find a few folks willing to help you understand the bigger picture...the context of scientific ideas and progress, what is meant by "theory", how those ideas relate to our observable world. You've got to learn the terminology and concepts in order to discuss the ideas...
I tried once here: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2218793/1
Your call, Hatt - willing to listen?
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
We're perhaps a few decades away from "life" being formed from machines. A chemical medium being required to support life is just a theory.
When does "life" equal life? And what does "just a theory" mean to you? Universal gravitation is "just a theory," but it works each and every time in classical systems, and has worked perfectly since its elucidation, and has done everything from get man to the moon to give first year physics students a basic introduction in verifying a theory and conducting error analysis. So, if "just a theory" means something different outside of science, I'd like to know that.
If you have nothing to add but trying to play word games with me I'm going to block your nonsense. You act like a little kid. When does "life" equal life" was an interesting and engaging question but then you went all retard again.
You get a thoughtful response to your pseudo-intellectual equivocating and your response is to take offense?
If you were willing to listen, and stick to ideas, instead of making the argument personal and trying to win that argument, you might find a few folks willing to help you understand the bigger picture...the context of scientific ideas and progress, what is meant by "theory", how those ideas relate to our observable world. You've got to learn the terminology and concepts in order to discuss the ideas...
I tried once here: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2218793/1
Your call, Hatt - willing to listen?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Garak
That's what I thought. You don't know what a scientific theory is, so you call it word games and then get into insults. So, I suggest you do block me. You have made it very clear you don't wish to listen to anything said by people with actual credentials, and you have no way of disputing what they say, aside from flinging insults.
So you're saying that it's not just a theory?
That's what I thought. You don't know what a scientific theory is, so you call it word games and then get into insults. So, I suggest you do block me. You have made it very clear you don't wish to listen to anything said by people with actual credentials, and you have no way of disputing what they say, aside from flinging insults.
So you're saying that it's not just a theory?
"Your call, Hatt - willing to listen?"
I'll listen when you start listening. Everyone has something to learn. On Sunday you thought liquid water on Mars wad absolutely impossible.
I 100% understand what you guys are trying to do. When you can't debate the argument you go after the person presenting the argument or try and try to pick out and small part of the argument. I do the same stuff. LOL.
I'll listen when you start listening. Everyone has something to learn. On Sunday you thought liquid water on Mars wad absolutely impossible.
I 100% understand what you guys are trying to do. When you can't debate the argument you go after the person presenting the argument or try and try to pick out and small part of the argument. I do the same stuff. LOL.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
I'm trying to figure out what the big deal is. Every planet with an atmosphere most likely has H2O on it.
Looks like my statement was indeed wrong. Most any body in the solar system likely has H2O(in some form) on it. Also interesting to note that liquid water on Mars has been speculated for at least a year and a half. Not sure why the surprise in the scientific community by the Monday announcement.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a14555/water-worlds-in-our-solar-system/
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-042
I'm trying to figure out what the big deal is. Every planet with an atmosphere most likely has H2O on it.
Looks like my statement was indeed wrong. Most any body in the solar system likely has H2O(in some form) on it. Also interesting to note that liquid water on Mars has been speculated for at least a year and a half. Not sure why the surprise in the scientific community by the Monday announcement.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a14555/water-worlds-in-our-solar-system/
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-042
MolaKule
Staff member
From the NASA link above:
Quote:
The leading hypothesis for these features is the flow of near-surface water, kept liquid by salts depressing the freezing point of pure water. "The flow of water, even briny water, anywhere on Mars today would be a major discovery, impacting our understanding of present climate change on Mars and possibly indicating potential habitats for life near the surface on modern Mars," said Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Project Scientist Richard Zurek, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
Emphasis mine.
Notice that they have NOT found water, only that the current hypothesis is these changes in slopes "suggest" water.
Quote:
"We still don't have a smoking gun for existence of water in RSL, although we're not sure how this process would take place without water," said Lujendra Ojha, a graduate student at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, and lead author of two new reports about these flows. He originally discovered them while an undergraduate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, three years ago, in images from the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Quote:
The leading hypothesis for these features is the flow of near-surface water, kept liquid by salts depressing the freezing point of pure water. "The flow of water, even briny water, anywhere on Mars today would be a major discovery, impacting our understanding of present climate change on Mars and possibly indicating potential habitats for life near the surface on modern Mars," said Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Project Scientist Richard Zurek, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
Emphasis mine.
Notice that they have NOT found water, only that the current hypothesis is these changes in slopes "suggest" water.
Quote:
"We still don't have a smoking gun for existence of water in RSL, although we're not sure how this process would take place without water," said Lujendra Ojha, a graduate student at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, and lead author of two new reports about these flows. He originally discovered them while an undergraduate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, three years ago, in images from the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Originally Posted By: hatt
"Your call, Hatt - willing to listen?"
I'll listen when you start listening. Everyone has something to learn. On Sunday you thought liquid water on Mars wad absolutely impossible.
I 100% understand what you guys are trying to do. When you can't debate the argument you go after the person presenting the argument or try and try to pick out and small part of the argument. I do the same stuff. LOL.
First, what I said was this:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Because the polar ice caps aren't just water ice...they're frozen carbon dioxide...
And when you look at the Martian climate, there is no reason that liquid water should exist...too cold...too dry...
Should...
That's why this discovery is exciting, it's unexpected. I didn't claim that it "was absolutely impossible".
You then picked at my characterization of Mars as cold, because a temperature of 35C was recorded by the Rover.
But that shows a lack of understanding of temperature...and on a planet where CO2 falls like snow, and where the average temperature is -63C, colder than the average winter temperature in the coldest place on Earth, cold is exactly the right word.
If you're trying to keep it simple.
I've not gone after you. I'm not interested. I've listened plenty on BITOG, particularly to your posts on firearms. I've admitted when I'm wrong, but that's not what's happening here. You made several unsupportable statements, and I take issue with your statements, not you.
I was genuine in my offer, and your response shows an interest in the ad hominem line of attack, a continued parsing of words, so, I suppose I'll wait until you're ready.
"Your call, Hatt - willing to listen?"
I'll listen when you start listening. Everyone has something to learn. On Sunday you thought liquid water on Mars wad absolutely impossible.
I 100% understand what you guys are trying to do. When you can't debate the argument you go after the person presenting the argument or try and try to pick out and small part of the argument. I do the same stuff. LOL.
First, what I said was this:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Because the polar ice caps aren't just water ice...they're frozen carbon dioxide...
And when you look at the Martian climate, there is no reason that liquid water should exist...too cold...too dry...
Should...
That's why this discovery is exciting, it's unexpected. I didn't claim that it "was absolutely impossible".
You then picked at my characterization of Mars as cold, because a temperature of 35C was recorded by the Rover.
But that shows a lack of understanding of temperature...and on a planet where CO2 falls like snow, and where the average temperature is -63C, colder than the average winter temperature in the coldest place on Earth, cold is exactly the right word.
If you're trying to keep it simple.
I've not gone after you. I'm not interested. I've listened plenty on BITOG, particularly to your posts on firearms. I've admitted when I'm wrong, but that's not what's happening here. You made several unsupportable statements, and I take issue with your statements, not you.
I was genuine in my offer, and your response shows an interest in the ad hominem line of attack, a continued parsing of words, so, I suppose I'll wait until you're ready.
Originally Posted By: hatt
So you're saying that it's not just a theory?
I indicated that you and I seem to have a differing view on what a theory is. In science, a theory is something you can use every day and take to the bank. It started as a hypothesis and experimental data has backed it up. Further experimental data from other scientists has verified that finding.
So, yes, it's just a theory that all life forms need water to thrive. In fact, because there is no contrary data whatsoever, there is no competing theory anywhere by anybody.
So you're saying that it's not just a theory?
I indicated that you and I seem to have a differing view on what a theory is. In science, a theory is something you can use every day and take to the bank. It started as a hypothesis and experimental data has backed it up. Further experimental data from other scientists has verified that finding.
So, yes, it's just a theory that all life forms need water to thrive. In fact, because there is no contrary data whatsoever, there is no competing theory anywhere by anybody.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
So you're saying that it's not just a theory?
I indicated that you and I seem to have a differing view on what a theory is. In science, a theory is something you can use every day and take to the bank. It started as a hypothesis and experimental data has backed it up. Further experimental data from other scientists has verified that finding.
So, yes, it's just a theory that all life forms need water to thrive. In fact, because there is no contrary data whatsoever, there is no competing theory anywhere by anybody.
I mentioned the difference between hypothesis and theory the other day, but someone apparently in favor of making language less concise simply labeled the two words synonymous. Sad to see language being dumbed down and subtlety in meaning lost. To me, it is critical if someone comes up with merely a hypothesis or with a theory to back his hypothesis.
Originally Posted By: hatt
So you're saying that it's not just a theory?
I indicated that you and I seem to have a differing view on what a theory is. In science, a theory is something you can use every day and take to the bank. It started as a hypothesis and experimental data has backed it up. Further experimental data from other scientists has verified that finding.
So, yes, it's just a theory that all life forms need water to thrive. In fact, because there is no contrary data whatsoever, there is no competing theory anywhere by anybody.
I mentioned the difference between hypothesis and theory the other day, but someone apparently in favor of making language less concise simply labeled the two words synonymous. Sad to see language being dumbed down and subtlety in meaning lost. To me, it is critical if someone comes up with merely a hypothesis or with a theory to back his hypothesis.
Originally Posted By: Garak
In science, a theory is something you can use every day and take to the bank. It started as a hypothesis and experimental data has backed it up. Further experimental data from other scientists has verified that finding.
And to make a 'theory' even "stronger": Newton's universal law of gravity was "proven" to be slightly incorrect by Einstein's General "Theory"
In science, a theory is something you can use every day and take to the bank. It started as a hypothesis and experimental data has backed it up. Further experimental data from other scientists has verified that finding.
And to make a 'theory' even "stronger": Newton's universal law of gravity was "proven" to be slightly incorrect by Einstein's General "Theory"
Last edited:
Quote:
So, yes, it's just a theory that all life forms need water to thrive.
So why all the arguing. We could have been talking about living machines. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not limited to what can be supported by evidence we have by observing .00000000000000000000001%(note that this number isn't accurate I simply hit a lot of zeros to illustrate a point, no need to ring in) of the Universe. We don't even know if this is the only Universe. It seems almost certain machine will become self aware at some point in the future. Water being necessary for life is almost certainly not accurate since we're developing our own examples.
So, yes, it's just a theory that all life forms need water to thrive.
So why all the arguing. We could have been talking about living machines. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not limited to what can be supported by evidence we have by observing .00000000000000000000001%(note that this number isn't accurate I simply hit a lot of zeros to illustrate a point, no need to ring in) of the Universe. We don't even know if this is the only Universe. It seems almost certain machine will become self aware at some point in the future. Water being necessary for life is almost certainly not accurate since we're developing our own examples.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Quote:
So, yes, it's just a theory that all life forms need water to thrive.
So why all the arguing. We could have been talking about living machines. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not limited to what can be supported by evidence we have by observing .00000000000000000000001%(note that this number isn't accurate I simply hit a lot of zeros to illustrate a point, no need to ring in) of the Universe. We don't even know if this is the only Universe. It seems almost certain machine will become self aware at some point in the future. Water being necessary for life is almost certainly not accurate since we're developing our own examples.
You seem to equal self awareness and life, since you keep mentioning AI and living machines. AI may and probably will rather soon become selfaware. Life is now as far as I know defined as an organism, meaning organized organic matter, which has the capacity to grow, function, reproduce and die. Self awareness on the other hand is, or rather will soon not be bound to organic matter. Who knows how life will be defined int he future? I sure don't. Maybe it's time to watch Bicentennial Man again.
Quote:
So, yes, it's just a theory that all life forms need water to thrive.
So why all the arguing. We could have been talking about living machines. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not limited to what can be supported by evidence we have by observing .00000000000000000000001%(note that this number isn't accurate I simply hit a lot of zeros to illustrate a point, no need to ring in) of the Universe. We don't even know if this is the only Universe. It seems almost certain machine will become self aware at some point in the future. Water being necessary for life is almost certainly not accurate since we're developing our own examples.
You seem to equal self awareness and life, since you keep mentioning AI and living machines. AI may and probably will rather soon become selfaware. Life is now as far as I know defined as an organism, meaning organized organic matter, which has the capacity to grow, function, reproduce and die. Self awareness on the other hand is, or rather will soon not be bound to organic matter. Who knows how life will be defined int he future? I sure don't. Maybe it's time to watch Bicentennial Man again.
Originally Posted By: Al
And to make a 'theory' even "stronger": Newton's universal law of gravity was "proven" to be slightly incorrect by Einstein's General "Theory"
Agreed. Of course, that's why I mentioned a classical system, rather than something on a galactic scale or quantum scale.
Originally Posted By: hatt
So why all the arguing. We could have been talking about living machines.
The point is that there is no other theory about how life can thrive without water. People have conjectured. They have speculated. But, there is no theory. There isn't even a testable hypothesis. Every example of life every found so far needs water. There are millions of species of life on this planet, from bacteria up to us. And, they all need water. Some need a load of it, like fish, others need very little. But, they all need it to thrive. Therefore, it's a theory because it's backed up by all the evidence in the world.
As for machine life or AI, I would suggest that needs water, too. Turn off the water in Silicon Valley and its Asian counterparts, and see how many computers get produced. See how many machines roll off the assembly line.
Hatt, read this article. It covers the "just a theory" hokum quite nicely.
And to make a 'theory' even "stronger": Newton's universal law of gravity was "proven" to be slightly incorrect by Einstein's General "Theory"
Agreed. Of course, that's why I mentioned a classical system, rather than something on a galactic scale or quantum scale.
Originally Posted By: hatt
So why all the arguing. We could have been talking about living machines.
The point is that there is no other theory about how life can thrive without water. People have conjectured. They have speculated. But, there is no theory. There isn't even a testable hypothesis. Every example of life every found so far needs water. There are millions of species of life on this planet, from bacteria up to us. And, they all need water. Some need a load of it, like fish, others need very little. But, they all need it to thrive. Therefore, it's a theory because it's backed up by all the evidence in the world.
As for machine life or AI, I would suggest that needs water, too. Turn off the water in Silicon Valley and its Asian counterparts, and see how many computers get produced. See how many machines roll off the assembly line.
Hatt, read this article. It covers the "just a theory" hokum quite nicely.
- Status
