Blobrana wrote:
i`ve got a feeling that mars is crawling with underground lifeforms...er, like the earth...
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@KennyR
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?
so these probably work different.
Why HAS it to be green?
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@KennyR
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?
so these probably work different.
Why HAS it to be green?
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@KennyR
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?
so these probably work different.
Why HAS it to be green?
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@KennyR
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?
so these probably work different.
Why HAS it to be green?
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@KennyR
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?
so these probably work different.
Why HAS it to be green?
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@KennyR
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?
so these probably work different.
Why HAS it to be green?
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@KennyR
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?
so these probably work different.
Why HAS it to be green?
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?
so these probably work different.
Why HAS it to be green?
green chlorophyll happens to be the most efficient chemical for photosynthesisHow do you know that? Source? :-)
green chlorophyll happens to be the most efficient chemical for photosynthesis
How do you know that? Source?
Well, in the deepest parts of the sea here on earth, weren't there lifeforms based on sulphur (and so), other than well where we're based on?\
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
F evolution 'found' a better way.
Nature is far far far from perfect y'know. And evolution is still going on.
And why should it be green on Mars? Maybe there's happening the same, but less/more efficient.
KennyR wrote:QuoteBlobrana wrote:
i`ve got a feeling that mars is crawling with underground lifeforms...er, like the earth...
Well, they obviously don't use sunlight, or Mars would be green. So they would have to live off warmth and sulphides produced by volcanism. Trouble is, unlike Earth, Mars cooled out a long time ago. No more volcanism. So where would they get their energy from?
KennyR wrote:QuoteSpeelgoedmannetje wrote:
And why should it be green on Mars? Maybe there's happening the same, but less/more efficient.
Then where is the oxygen by-product?
alx wrote:
You can see and hear what's happening here (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html)
The rocks' physical appearance,
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/034/1M131201699EFF0500P2933M2M1-BR.JPG (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/034/1M131201699EFF0500P2933M2M1-BR.JPG)
such as niches where crystals once grew, also helped to prove the case. It seems to have formed in water or, after formation, have been highly altered by long exposures to water. Jarosite may point to the rock's wet history having been in an acidic lake or an acidic hot springs environment.
Pictures from the rover's panoramic camera and microscopic imager reveal the target
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040302a/16-jg-02-mi1-B035R1_th200.jpg (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040302a/16-jg-02-mi1-B035R1_th200.jpg) rock, dubbed "El Capitan," is thoroughly pocked with indentations about a centimetre (0.4 inch) long and one-fourth or less that wide, with apparently random orientations. This distinctive texture is familiar to geologists as the sites where crystals of salt minerals form within rocks that sit in briny water. When the crystals later disappear, either by erosion or by dissolving in less-salty water, the voids left behind are called ...VUGS!..., and in this case they conform to the geometry of possible former evaporate minerals.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/033/1M131117272EFF0454P2953M2M1-BR.JPG (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/033/1M131117272EFF0454P2953M2M1-BR.JPG)http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040302a/07-ss-07-moess1-B038R1_br.jpg (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040302a/07-ss-07-moess1-B038R1_br.jpg)
Hum, i thought so...
Thanks in advance :-), Seehund, to express my thoughts
Seehund wrote:
But now we make the IMO rash assumption that the Martian photosynthesis, if it exists at all, works like it does on Earth.
Nope, it's a matter of chemistry. At the temperature ranges where water could be used as a solvent for life (0-100C of course), green chlorophyll happens to be the most efficient chemical for photosynthesis. There are other kinds - brown, red...but these are a lot less efficient and are used by plants that don't have any other choice, like deep seaweeds.
unless something can hybernate for millions of years and if you drop some water on it suddenly wakes up, we ain't seein' no martains.
hum, I thought that evidence was proven false...
Quixote wrote:
;-) There have been cases of that happening on Earth. Microorganisms captured in amber for millions of years springing to life once the appropriate environmental conditions were restored.
Quixote wrote:
Ken, there are trees near my house that are purple. The color may be due to other elements in the leaves besides the chlorophyll, but the point is that they don't look green to the eye, or camera.
AfterThought: It is often stated, that mars is too small to sustain a sizable atmosphere neccessary to sustain a living planet. I believe this to be wholey untrue, but rather, that mars had it's atmosphere destroyed by a very massive impact, after most of the free material in the solar system that could replinish it's atmosphere had dissipated. the evidence is in the southern hemisphere, a crater 6 miles deep.
AfterThought: It is often stated, that mars is too small to sustain a sizable atmosphere neccessary to sustain a living planet. I believe this to be wholey untrue, but rather, that mars had it's atmosphere destroyed by a very massive impact, after most of the free material in the solar system that could replinish it's atmosphere had dissipated. the evidence is in the southern hemisphere, a crater 6 miles deep.
Quite remarkable, when one looks at earth`s oceans...
Karlos wrote:
Now, given venus also has no appreciable magnetic field and is exposed to much higher levels of solar wind than mars (given its larger and closer) and retains a vast atmosphere, how much damage to mars' atmosphere is the solar wind producing I wonder?
ivier wrote:
Green however is NOT neccessarily as efficent as chlorophyll can get, just the most efficient, that earth life has found. 95% of all plant species on earth use green chlorophyll, but theres still the other 4.9999999% using purple. but there are other chlorophylls as well, they are quite rare, usually found in unusual algae and moss.
To say mars has no photosythisizing life because there is no green, is the same as saying, a city has no taxis, because there are no yellow cars.
Karlos wrote:
So again, how come the atmosphere is still so vast after so long?
ivier wrote:
Myth: Chlorophyll is green
Fact: Most Chlorophyll on Earth is green, BUT alot of it is purple, and has 70% efficiency when compared to green chlorophylls. Green however is NOT neccessarily as efficent as chlorophyll can get, just the most efficient, that earth life has found. 95% of all plant species on earth use green chlorophyll, but theres still the other 4.9999999% using purple. but there are other chlorophylls as well, they are quite rare, usually found in unusual algae and moss.
To say mars has no photosythisizing life because there is no green, is the same as saying, a city has no taxis, because there are no yellow cars.
T_Bone wrote:
Hell, who's to say all life would even be carbon based to begin with? here we are looking for green and carbon dioxide, while it's possible there's grey's excreting sand as a byproduct of silicone based respiration.
KennyR wrote:QuoteT_Bone wrote:
Hell, who's to say all life would even be carbon based to begin with? here we are looking for green and carbon dioxide, while it's possible there's grey's excreting sand as a byproduct of silicone based respiration.
Silicon-based life will never be anything more than sci-fi. Silicon shares many properties with carbon, but it does not form long chains. Carbon forms a bewildering number of compounds. Silicon does not. It's too metallic and doesn't like covalent bonds - especially not with itself.
Silicon makes rocks. Carbon makes chemistry.
It may be boring to most people, but the reason life is carbon based and green is the same way large planets are round - they just can't be any other way.
Something just crossed my mind, I wonder if something would necessarily have to be self reproducing to be considered alive?
whabang wrote:Quote
Something just crossed my mind, I wonder if something would necessarily have to be self reproducing to be considered alive?
There has been certain disputes about viruses' being or non-being, AFAIK.
whabang wrote:
@T-bone
Well, God did have a son, didn't he? :-)
KennyR wrote:
Silicon-based life will never be anything more than sci-fi. Silicon shares many properties with carbon, but it does not form long chains. Carbon forms a bewildering number of compounds. Silicon does not. It's too metallic and doesn't like covalent bonds - especially not with itself.
Silicon makes rocks. Carbon makes chemistry.
However, they seriously don't like exposure to free oxygen :-)
There is more biomass inside the earth than on the surface
ivier wrote:QuoteThere is more biomass inside the earth than on the surface
i personally hope for the pressurized nest, insect like creatures.
I think you might be waiting a long time for that one. I can't imagine the pressurised environment being feasible. Aside from the sheer maintainance problem, the idea of insect like creatures going outside and inhaling atmosphere in an average 6mb environment is a bit hard to take seriously.
ivier wrote:
i think you do not fully appreciate how thick the martian atmosphere really is, NASA is designing planes to fly high above it's surface.
...
the creatures would not have to have much of a pressure increase to keep thier homes always above the water tripoint, there are places on mars where this already occurs, the deepest/warmest regions, like canyons, near the equator! Life on mars would have to adapt to the conditions there in order to survive, the pressurized colony is the only thing no earth life form does, and thats because no earth life form needs to.
if it was a slow leaking of the atmosphere into space as some believe then they would most definately had plenty of time to adapt. if it was a sudden event, as i suggested, with a massive impact destroying the atmosphere, then there will be a much smaller chance of such an adaptation is far less likely, but still possible. the earliest forms of life adapt the quickest.