| Science Forum Index » Astro - Seti Forum » Not meaning to start a conspiracy... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Matt Giwer... |
 Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I forget where I read it but a few days ago I came across a suggestion that
NASA is avoiding finding life on Mars for religious reasons. Another
conspiracy to be broken by renegade priest Fox Mulder.
But then I realized it answered one question I have had for a long time. Why
not send a microscope to Mars? Maybe not exactly that but why do they send
things which are only good for indirect and therefore arguable measurements?
--
Roe v Wade are just two ways to get across a river.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4139
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Tue Jun 16 23:24:19 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Golden California Girls... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote:7621ad00ef]I forget where I read it but a few days ago I came across a
suggestion that NASA is avoiding finding life on Mars for religious
reasons. Another conspiracy to be broken by renegade priest Fox Mulder.
But then I realized it answered one question I have had for a long
time. Why not send a microscope to Mars? Maybe not exactly that but why
do they send things which are only good for indirect and therefore
arguable measurements?
[/quote:7621ad00ef]
They did send a microscope.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/spacecraft/meca.html
Just don't be bothered by facts getting in the way of your delusion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Golden California Girls wrote:
[quote:198f2b5550]Matt Giwer wrote:
I forget where I read it but a few days ago I came across a
suggestion that NASA is avoiding finding life on Mars for religious
reasons. Another conspiracy to be broken by renegade priest Fox Mulder.
But then I realized it answered one question I have had for a long
time. Why not send a microscope to Mars? Maybe not exactly that but why
do they send things which are only good for indirect and therefore
arguable measurements?
They did send a microscope.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/spacecraft/meca.html
Just don't be bothered by facts getting in the way of your delusion.
[/quote:198f2b5550]
As I said, not specifically a microscope. I would have thought it obvious I
was talking about a direct observation of life. The microscopes described are
not designed for observing life. Please read first what you suggest others read.
I mentioned the renegade priest by name to joke about the conspiracy aspect
of it. Please read what I post before responding.
--
The oldest known version of the Old Testament is
the Septuagint written in Greek.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4154
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Thu Jun 18 02:43:44 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43 at (no spam) tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4a3863dc$0$5064$9a6e19ea at (no spam) unlimited.newshosting.com...
[quote:5d1b241d3b]I forget where I read it but a few days ago I came across a suggestion that NASA is avoiding finding life on Mars for religious
reasons. Another conspiracy to be broken by renegade priest Fox Mulder.
[/quote:5d1b241d3b]
Hi Matt, it's been a while !
Before assuming a conspiracy, maybe it is better to first find that article where you found that statement.
Then we can maybe find out who said it and why, and what NASA really has to say about it.
[quote:5d1b241d3b]
But then I realized it answered one question I have had for a long time. Why not send a microscope to Mars? Maybe not exactly that
but why do they send things which are only good for indirect and therefore arguable measurements?
[/quote:5d1b241d3b]
It depends on what you consider a credible instrument to prove/disprove life.
On Earth, with plenty of microscopes, we found 'microbes' in Mars' rocks (meteorites), but even that seems not to be completely
creadible proof of (past/current) life on the red planet.
[quote:5d1b241d3b]--
Roe v Wade are just two ways to get across a river.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4139
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Tue Jun 16 23:24:19 EDT 2009[/quote:5d1b241d3b] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote:915f3f215f]"Matt Giwer" <jull43 at (no spam) tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4a3863dc$0$5064$9a6e19ea at (no spam) unlimited.newshosting.com...
I forget where I read it but a few days ago I came across a suggestion that NASA is avoiding finding life on Mars for religious
reasons. Another conspiracy to be broken by renegade priest Fox Mulder.
Hi Matt, it's been a while !
[/quote:915f3f215f]
BOINC ended most of the reasons for being here. Death to BOINC!?
[quote:915f3f215f]Before assuming a conspiracy, maybe it is better to first find that article where you found that statement.
Then we can maybe find out who said it and why, and what NASA really has to say about it.
[/quote:915f3f215f]
It is something I have been unable to explain for a long time which I give an
example of below. The article suggested an explanation. I posted it with the
intention to open discussion. After all, I might be wrong. That happens once
or twice a decade. ;)
[quote:915f3f215f]But then I realized it answered one question I have had for a long time. Why not send a microscope to Mars? Maybe not exactly that
but why do they send things which are only good for indirect and therefore arguable measurements?
It depends on what you consider a credible instrument to prove/disprove life.
On Earth, with plenty of microscopes, we found 'microbes' in Mars' rocks (meteorites), but even that seems not to be completely
creadible proof of (past/current) life on the red planet.
[/quote:915f3f215f]
By credible I mean watch it move, split, whatever. Go to the first lander in
76. I agree there would have certainly been problems with another camera
looking through a microscope back then. Today a good enough CCD chip weighs
less than a gram. The top of the line might be 2 gms. Guessing of course but
even if a kilogram it is lighter, cheaper and easier than a camera back then.
An actual microscope can't be that heavy or expensive so all kinds of add-ons
and frills can be added without much additional cost. And if no life turn it
over to the geologists.
Redo the 76 experiment with a microscope watching. If things are metabolizing
they are moving and replicating -- they are doing something to use the energy
release of metabolization. Metabolism byproducts was the original positive
result that was argued away. This would be a simple test to see of the
argument was correct.
It seems so bloody obvious. Go for a direct observation rather than indirect
observations. They should have learned indirect observations are subject to
being argued away and not bothered with them again.
I grant direct observation can be argued away as contamination if there is
even the vaguest similarity to earth life.
To summarize, the first results were positive but could be argued away
because they were indirect. Redo the test with direction observation to test
the argument.
It has always seemed obvious to me. Am I making an error?
--
The squattertowns will continue to expand until the terrorism ceases.
The provocation will continue until the response ceases.
The snakebites will continue until morale improves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4149
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Thu Jun 25 05:07:04 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
