Life on Mars

I was reading this article about 13 things Scientists that do not make sense. One of the things is this piece I have quoted here. I've noticed there's a lot of astronomers and space engineers and whatnot here, so someone explain something to me. Why is it that scientist have absolutely ruled out the possibilty of a completely different life form? For example, here they have concluded that life on mars was possible because it was once "wet" But is the possibility of, lets say, Silicon rather than Hydrogen based life forms, not necessarily on mars, possible?

Here, Enjoy...


Crosslink by admin: Life of Mars

I see nothing here to indicate that scientists disregard the possibility of Silicon-based life. That was not the point of this mission. It is pretty obvious that the first place we should start looking is for life that we recognize. We know what to look for in that case. They were looking for that and nothing else. The results show a false positive for "life as we know it," but that does not mean that they would disregard evidence for another form of life - just that they were not looking for it.

Edit: Btw, I think that life as we know it is considered to be Carbon-based rather than Hydrogen-based.

Yes, but isnt the special interest in finding life on mars because they have proven that it once had water? Though the same experiments have never been carried out on the moon lets say (Not to sound too ignorant, but its just an example because its the only other planet we've made contact with). Or at least they werent published, or publicized like Mars.

But you answered my question, that the possibility is considered, though the search is for life as "we" know it.
Thanks.

Edit: Yeah I think you're right, but what I meant was the original element which sparked the chain for our creation was hydrogen and its transformation into helium, I think.

I think the recent flurry of interest in life on Mars is actually due to compounds found in a meteorite that is believed to have originated on Mars.

Edit: The hydrogen fusion thing is much more important in stars and the early universe than it is for the development of life on Earth. What's more important there is the formation of complex molecules, rather than elements.

I can't think of his name at the moment, but a scientist proved this before the Viking mission. His data suggested the opposite of an MIT conclusion and was rejected. The MIT people hid some anomolies to there machine and data, which was later rejected and the article retracted from Science. This guy is now making a sugar that can't be absorbed (opposing stereochemistry) and if you can read what he writes, it is quite interesting for this subject.

I think the experiments to see if the moon was once wet have been performed, but the results were as expected; "negative" so not very interesting and not published.

The silicon based life forms would show a positive result in the chiral molecule experiments. If they just find racemates (left and right handed molecules) then there probably won't be any life, carbon or silicon, but both would give a positive result if present

Pieman, is it the case that left-handed molecules (or just one or the other) are required for life to develop? My hubby did a talk on a paper he read awhile back (though this is definitely NOT his field) that said something about polarized light in star-forming regions allowing for the development of single-handed molecules that lead to the formation of life. Is there some basis in reality for what I'm saying here or am I just spouting out crap that my memory has jumbled?

this makes me think of "The X-files" for some reason...

Did anyone read that article? I think physicists should start getting their shit together and find some answers.
I mean there's a suggestiong that we are COMPLETELY off on every matter of study we have ever done. Some even suggestion of reviewing Enstein's theory of Relativity, his theory on cosmic ray speeds, and Newton's laws of gravity
There's not much left to work with now is there?

@ IPJ as usual, u r spouting crap.

Some molecules that life forms produce can come in two (or more depending on the complexity of the molecule) chiral forms. The molecules are exactly the same, but are mirror images of each other and can't be superimposed on each other (like your hands: u can put them over each other so the fingers and thumbs line up, but one will be palm up and the other will be palm down). Altho they are essentially the same, they behave differently, mostly physically, but sometimes chemically (as in the case of thalidomide, one form was good, the other very bad). Because of this, life forms will usually produce one enantiomer (chiral form) because it is easier energetically (I think lactic acid is one of these but don't quote me).

You got the bit about polarised light twisted. Chiral molecules are categorised by monochromatic polarised light. One form will rotate it clockwise, and the other anticlockwise.

@Chemicalburn - It sounds as though you really don't know anything about these things you are claiming are wrong. Before making any judgments about them or believing someone else's claims, perhaps you should learn a bit about them first. Sure, we should always question the theories we use. Don't be so quick to assume that we don't.

@CB

It is very possible that einstein and newton were wrong. Just because they were really clever and they have published equations, etc. doesn't mean they're right. One thing about bein a scientist is not takin someones word for it without understanding it and agreeing with it urself

I now know the guy's name and it is ...what for it...GIL LEVIN and it was the Viking mission!
I read this in one of the alumni magazines that I got sent as he is a fellow JHU alumni.

L-tagatose

I need some memory-brain food!

FU!


I'm confused. So you're saying that the polarized light doesn't induce the handedness of the molecules one way or the other but just rotates it? I'm quite sure that this paper was on the handedness being due to the polarized light and being conducive to life. Off to look up the article... (obviously, this is totally NOT my field)

...and also recognizing that sometimes in order to progress, one must assume the validity of certain models. That does not necessarily mean that they adhere to them 100%, but that they have assumed them for the sake of investigation. Of course, they will normally have assumed them, because they prefer them to the alternatives.

As far as I know the polarised light doesn't have anything to do with the production of these molecules (unless it's different in space or if the light is high in energy to the point of being able to break bonds). The molecules themselves will rotate the plane of light according to their handedness

Gary, you dont half talk some shit at times.

Too true. Cheers Keith

@IPJ It was simply a joke for starters, and I do know a little about some, thats why I am not in this argument between you and Pieman. I know I dont know enough to shoot out crap.
But still this article does state that there are major holes in some scientific theory we have believed in for some time. For example the Dark Matter problem. If this turns out to be true, then Newton's laws of gravity as we know them MIGHT be altered completely. However, I do not plan on running around frantically talking about how our physicists are jackasses and dont know shit. But I would at some point make an implicit joke at a public forum not expecting it to scar someone personally.

@PM I do know that. And I do not take it word for word. Like I said, this is not my field, but I do read what I get a chance to come across and find interesting. And I do understand that most fact is "Relative truth" If you could put it that way. But again. it was just a lame joke I guess. Considering the circumstances, thought it would make a good comedy situation Guess not...

No, u've started somethin now CB!

This is one of the guys that I think is correct as mentioned in numerous other threads (big-bang, etc...). I really like the fact that he kicked MIT's butt on a shoestring budget. My kind of scientific rebel, only this guy has got a clue.

Some of the theories are wrong, that happen, but most are mainly incomplete due to incomplete observation that are solved with time and method.

Newton theories were the best of his times that have been proven incomplete by einstein but einstein does not work at very small scale, someone someday maybe will unify them all in a ring.

Note that I don't like the article "13 things that do not make sense".
Usually, the problem is that the observation are so vague that you can not build anything solid on them. 1 experiment on Viking say A, the others B. Is it life or experimental error?
Someone claim cold fusion but can not reproduce it, was it real?

There is no lack of sense, there are too many therories with some which are wild and popular.

What argument? I see no argument here. It was an ignorant person (me) asking someone more knowledgeable about a subject (Pieman) some questions. That's not an argument. That's called inquiry.


The Dark Matter problem is a problem, yes, but that doesn't mean that people believe in one solution. One scientist can only focus on so much and so must normally assume some theories to continue their work. Some choose dark matter (most), some choose alternative models. Newton's Laws are already known to be wrong in certain cases, which is why we have relativity theory.

Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that anything you say on this forum will stick with me even past today, let alone scar me? I'm simply correcting something you've said that is just wrong. No reason to get testy about it. If it's such a joke, put a winky smiley there. Of course I'll assume you're serious when you make comments like "I think physicists should start getting their shit together and find some answers," because that's the kind of shit that I hear from non-scientists all the time, and they're serious about it. Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended, that was not my intention.

If chiral molecules can polarized light, polarized light can affect these molecules.
Which may have an effect why life form is mostly right or left handed, I don't which one we use most. If we were under some polarized light at the beginning of our creation, the left or right molecules whould had an advantage to win the evolution war

Chemical process usually produces an equal amount of both but life form react differently to one or the other. Drug industry spent a lot of effort and money to separate the two types of molecules. That's why they try to develop biological factory that would produce only the right molecules in animals or plants

Yes, and it the first reactor would have been built in my hometown, but Reaganomics killed its funding. The only problem that needed to be solved on it was that it generated to much heat and became unstable. It is not like it never worked, just that keeping it going for more than a fraction of a second needed to be overcome.

Good point about observations, FB.


Haha. That reminds me when I was in a physics course one time, and the professor said that only one magnetic monopole in the universe could solve some major problems in cosmology. He followed that by saying that a group at Stanford had reported detecting a magnetic monopole, but they were unable to detect another one after that. Some wiseass in my class yelled "maybe that was the one monopole!"

chiral molecules DO NOT polarise light. They simple rotate the plane of the light. Therefore, polarised light DOES NOT affect the molecules, unless the light is of sufficient energy to induce bond breaking/flexing/bending/etc. which it usually isn't.

"Chemical process usually produces an equal amount of both but life form react differently to one or the other."

Not true, depends on the process and the molecules involved. There are very easy ways to separate enantiomers, and they don't necessarily use biological processes

Very wise indeed.

Like the hot fusion, they have to overcome the problem of containement. With the exception of this small detail, they have it working since the 50's.

I found the article.

@IPJ My bad then. I was inquiring too, which was the purpose of the thread. And I thought you got offended, thats why I wrote back.
I know about the relativity theory, and I know that Newton's laws are wrong in some cases. And I CERTAINLY do know that these matters are not a scientist's f*** up. I did not mean to insult scientists in general.

i enjoyed reading this theory:

http://www.superstringtheory.com

And it will send scientist 00 with license to kill ignorance.

which people? the M People?

i'll get my coat

Taxi for one!

I think we are just living on the back of a giant turtle.

la la la la

Life on Mars...

...boring???

What are you talkin' about?

It's a flippin' GREAT song!

My ears were burning. Does this look like fun to you?

Nope, but the little guy looks like fun

Cute one, eurovol.

@Eurovol, hey that was a great article on D-Tagatose thanks for the link, gotta love stereochemistry. Someone should write a book or make a movie on Levin´s life story!

I sorta couldn't help giggling when I read this article on CNN: Scientist: NASA found life on Mars - and killed it.