Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: profound on 17/07/2017 21:56:14
-
Nasa says they are looking for life on Mars past and present and have sent various probes to Mars.
However their way of finding life on Mars is very convoluted and relies on assorted chemical reactions
which can be open to interpretation in unlimited number of ways.
Why not just send a solid state microscope to Mars.
You can buy a cheap usb solid state microscope on ebay for $10 for direct imaging.
For Nasa add 5 zeros so that it costs $1000000 and send it to Mars to send pictures/videos as it scans soil samples for life previous or now.
Curiosity has 2 microscopes on it but NASA says they will never use them for life detection and are only interested in dull rock samples and their analysis.
-
Nasa says they are looking for life on Mars past and present and have sent various probes to Mars.
However their way of finding life on Mars is very convoluted and relies on assorted chemical reactions
which can be open to interpretation in unlimited number of ways.
Why not just send a solid state microscope to Mars.
You can buy a cheap usb solid state microscope on ebay for $10 for direct imaging.
For Nasa add 5 zeros so that it costs $1000000 and send it to Mars to send pictures/videos as it scans soil samples for life previous or now.
Curiosity has 2 microscopes on it but NASA says they will never use them for life detection and are only interested in dull rock samples and their analysis.
Because the planet is big, and the field of view of a microscope is small.
Unless you happened to find life on the mm square you can see with your microscope, it wouldn't tell you anything.
But if you analyse the atmosphere it will tell you about life anywhere on the planet.
-
Nasa says they are looking for life on Mars past and present and have sent various probes to Mars.
However their way of finding life on Mars is very convoluted and relies on assorted chemical reactions
which can be open to interpretation in unlimited number of ways.
Why not just send a solid state microscope to Mars.
You can buy a cheap usb solid state microscope on ebay for $10 for direct imaging.
For Nasa add 5 zeros so that it costs $1000000 and send it to Mars to send pictures/videos as it scans soil samples for life previous or now.
Curiosity has 2 microscopes on it but NASA says they will never use them for life detection and are only interested in dull rock samples and their analysis.
Because the planet is big, and the field of view of a microscope is small.
Unless you happened to find life on the mm square you can see with your microscope, it wouldn't tell you anything.
But if you analyse the atmosphere it will tell you about life anywhere on the planet.
Well they have been analysing the atmosphere for yonks ...40 years..since the viking landers and nothing to show for it apart from conflicting and confusing results subject to endless interpretation.
Your narrow field view comment is absurd.the soil samples would be moving under the microscope or the microscope could move.
-
If life existed / exists on Mars then it's probably microbial. To see bacteria with a light microscope is tricky on Earth. You need a decent prep, a stain and a reasonable sample.
It's not practical to search for life with a light microscope. Instead the approach that is being taken is to look for chemical fingerprints potentially associated with life processes, and then narrow the search once we know where to look...
-
If life existed / exists on Mars then it's probably microbial. To see bacteria with a light microscope is tricky on Earth. You need a decent prep, a stain and a reasonable sample.
It's not practical to search for life with a light microscope. Instead the approach that is being taken is to look for chemical fingerprints potentially associated with life processes, and then narrow the search once we know where to look...
microscopes have come a long way since you were at college...the latest ones can do this automatically since year 2007.
you seem to be out of touch with the latest tech.
And chemical processes can produce an endless series of vague fingerprints.
26 letters in the alphabet.billions of words.
over 90 elements in the periodic table...trillions of combinations and permutations...
a picture is worth a thousand words.
-
microscopes have come a long way since you were at college...the latest ones can do this automatically since year 2007.
That's neat.
can you post a link?
-
microscopes have come a long way since you were at college...the latest ones can do this automatically since year 2007.
Yes, do please tell us where we can get one, because at the moment I'm wasting a fortune in my lab paying expensive humans to prep gram stains on clinical samples. I'll go and buy one and put it to work immediately.
-
Come to think of it, what stains do you use for alien bacteria?
Seems a bit like this
"And chemical processes can produce an endless series of vague fingerprints.
26 letters in the alphabet.billions of words.
over 90 elements in the periodic table...trillions of combinations and permutations..."
-
There's probably some way that you can automate the microscopy process, but there is a premium on weight and space when it comes to Mars landers: everything that is on them has to earn their way on. If there was any practical way to do this various space agencies have probably considered it, but I'm guessing it lost to other instruments that were considered to be more important.
-
Curiosity has 2 microscopes on it but NASA says they will never use them for life detection and are only interested in dull rock samples and their analysis.
I very much doubt NASA used the phrase "never use them for life detection" : as the "dull rock samples" could contain fossils.
The current composition of Mars atmosphere gives no reason to expect life is present now ... http://www.jameslovelock.org/page28.html (http://www.jameslovelock.org/page28.html)
The optics on the surface of Mars can see things smaller than a human-hair ... https://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/MAHLI/ (https://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/MAHLI/)
-
microscopes have come a long way since you were at college...the latest ones can do this automatically since year 2007.
Yes, do please tell us where we can get one, because at the moment I'm wasting a fortune in my lab paying expensive humans to prep gram stains on clinical samples. I'll go and buy one and put it to work immediately.
Just google it.
i saw it advertised in 2007.things have come a long way since.you need to keep up with progress.
it is well known that older people brains get ossified due to age,mentality stuck in a rut syndrome making them resistant to new things.Even Kirk said French minds new ideas.
-
Just google it.
That's your job, not ours.
You made the claim, and it falls to you to prove it.
-
There's probably some way that you can automate the microscopy process, but there is a premium on weight and space when it comes to Mars landers: everything that is on them has to earn their way on. If there was any practical way to do this various space agencies have probably considered it, but I'm guessing it lost to other instruments that were considered to be more important.
Again you seem to thinking to preschool ages when a mass spectrometers occupied large 1 metre by 1/2 meters desks but NASA miniaturized it to a shoebox.
Yoof minds fresh ideas.
-
Just google it.
That's your job, not ours.
You made the claim, and it falls to you to prove it.
no.
i feel it would be wrong to spoonfeed you.if you did some of your own research you might learn something new.
-
microscopes have come a long way since you were at college...the latest ones can do this automatically since year 2007.
Yes, do please tell us where we can get one, because at the moment I'm wasting a fortune in my lab paying expensive humans to prep gram stains on clinical samples. I'll go and buy one and put it to work immediately.
i just looked up automated microscopes with thousands of results.see when you save money using my idea could you keep half the savings and send me the remainder as i feel without my help you would still be doing old fashioned things.
you dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
Standard brightfield microscopy relies upon light from the lamp source being gathered by the substage condenser and shaped into a cone whose apex is focused at the plane of the specimen. Specimens are seen because of their ability to change the speed and the path of the light passing through them. This ability is dependent upon the refractive index and the opacity of the specimen. To see a specimen in a brightfield microscope, the light rays passing through it must be changed sufficiently to be able to interfere with each other which produces contrast (differences in light intensities) and, thereby, build an image. If the specimen has a refractive index too similar to the surrounding medium between the microscope stage and the objective lens, it will not be seen. To visualize biological materials well, the materials must have this inherent contrast caused by the proper refractive indices or be artificially stained. These limitations require instructors to find naturally high contrast materials or to enhance contrast by staining them which often requires killing them. Adequately visualizing transparent living materials or thin unstained specimens is not possible with a brightfield microscope.
Darkfield microscopy relies on a different illumination system. Rather than illuminating the sample with a filled cone of light, the condenser is designed to form a hollow cone of light. The light at the apex of the cone is focused at the plane of the specimen; as this light moves past the specimen plane it spreads again into a hollow cone. The objective lens sits in the dark hollow of this cone; although the light travels around and past the objective lens, no rays enter it (Fig. 1). The entire field appears dark when there is no sample on the microscope stage; thus the name darkfield microscopy. When a sample is on the stage, the light at the apex of the cone strikes it. The image is made only by those rays scattered by the sample and captured in the objective lens (note the rays scattered by the specimen in Figure 1). The image appears bright against the dark background. This situation can be compared to the glittery appearance of dust particles in a dark room illuminated by strong shafts of light coming in through a side window. The dust particles are very small, but are easily seen when they scatter the light rays. This is the working principle of darkfield microscopy and explains how the image of low contrast material is created: an object will be seen against a dark background if it scatters light which is captured with the proper device such as an objective lens.
The highest quality darkfield microscopes are equipped with specialized costly condensers constructed only for darkfield application. This darkfield effect can be achieved in a brightfield microscope, however, by the addition of a simple "stop". The stop is a piece of opaque material placed below the substage condenser; it blocks out the center of the beam of light coming from the base of the microscope and forms the hollow cone of light needed for darkfield illumination. ...
http://www.nature.com/nprot/journal/v7/n9/fig_tab/nprot.2012.096_T1.html?foxtrotcallback=true
-
you dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
We are all very familiar with brightfield and darkfield techniques, but what makes you think staining is nonsense??
-
you dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
We are all very familiar with brightfield and darkfield techniques, but what makes you think staining is nonsense??
For an automated system you dont need the complexity and expense of staining.
The semiconductor industry uses AUTOMATED HIGH RESOLUTION microscopes to check billions of chips to check for defects.
-
For an automated system you dont need the complexity and expense of staining.
The semiconductor industry uses AUTOMATED HIGH RESOLUTION microscopes to check billions of chips to check for defects.
That isn't an answer to the question. Chip screening doesn't use staining.
-
you dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
We are all very familiar with brightfield and darkfield techniques, but what makes you think staining is nonsense??
For an automated system you dont need the complexity and expense of staining.
What ARE you talking about? A gram stain takes a few minutes and is as cheap as chips. In a clinical sample, a gram stain can make the difference between life and death for a meningitis sufferer. I should know, I saved a patient's life thanks to a gram stain when I was a junior doctor.
-
you dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
We are all very familiar with brightfield and darkfield techniques, but what makes you think staining is nonsense??
For an automated system you dont need the complexity and expense of staining.
What ARE you talking about? A gram stain takes a few minutes and is as cheap as chips. In a clinical sample, a gram stain can make the difference between life and death for a meningitis sufferer. I should know, I saved a patient's life thanks to a gram stain when I was a junior doctor.
I explained it above.we are not saving lives but looking for life on Mars so staining which would add to the complexity to an AUTOMATED SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED.DO YOU SEE NOW?
-
You dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
So, you don't see anything.
OK.
That answers the question of why they don't do it.
They are more clever than you and they realise that it would be a waste of money.
Clinical (and research + other) labs throughout the world do Gram stains every day-because it works.
It's not the only sort of staining- but that's beside the point.
It's not "old fashioned"- it's "time proven"
Bacterial are thin and nearly colourless, so there's very little chance of seeing them without staining.
You can, sometimes, replace staining with dark field microscopy (there are other techniques too, apart from the one you mentioned. Fluorescence microscopy is a dark field technique too and it requires staining.)
However, dark field microscopy ironically only works when the field is light.
The field- the background of the sample, the slide and the water (or plasma or whatever) that the sample is embedded in- has to be transparent.
Martian mud isn't going to meet that criterion.
So you can't use it.
Also, it may have escaped your notice, but the surface of a semiconductor slice is very smooth and homogeneous.
The surface of Mars isn't.
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other.
-
You dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other.
why you so worried about the life of a bacterium?
-
You dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other.
why you so worried about the life of a bacterium?
Learn to read.
What I said was "automated machines that could scan one would die"
-
You dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other.
why you so worried about the life of a bacterium?
Learn to read.
What I said was "automated machines that could scan one would die"
why would an automated machine 'die' after scanning a microbe?
i have a scanner which scans papers.it does not die after scanning one.
-
You dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other.
why you so worried about the life of a bacterium?
Learn to read.
What I said was "automated machines that could scan one would die"
why would an automated machine 'die' after scanning a microbe?
i have a scanner which scans papers.it does not die after scanning one.
No, really, learn to read.
What I said was "the surface of a semiconductor slice is very smooth and homogeneous.
The surface of Mars isn't.
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other."
-
You dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other.
why you so worried about the life of a bacterium?
Learn to read.
What I said was "automated machines that could scan one would die"
why would an automated machine 'die' after scanning a microbe?
i have a scanner which scans papers.it does not die after scanning one.
No, really, learn to read.
What I said was "the surface of a semiconductor slice is very smooth and homogeneous.
The surface of Mars isn't.
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other."
scan what other?
-
I believe what the kind chemist is saying is: you can't use a microscope specialized for microchips to look at dirt. Microchips are very regular from one to the next, varying by maybe a nanometer. Random-ass clumps of martian dirt (or earth dirt, or whatever) is likely to have particles that vary over a scale of nm to µm to mm. You can't look at a 1 µm tall particle as close as you might like if there is a 95 µm tall bit of grit next to it (you don't want to run your objective lens literally into the dirt if no one is there to polish it). And if you're going to go through the process of having a robot collect, filter, grind, sort, and mount before even taking a look, how much of Mars do you think we're going to be able to see one grain at a time?
-
scan what other?
You really should try reading.
What I said was "the surface of a semiconductor slice is very smooth and homogeneous.
The surface of Mars isn't."
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other."
I only talk about two surfaces there that a microscope system might scan.
surface of a semiconductor slice and
The surface of Mars
It's simple enough to make a machine scan the surface of a very smooth semiconductor slice.
If you tried using the same machine to scan the rocky surface of Mars, you would kill the machine.
-
scan what other?
You really should try reading.
What I said was "the surface of a semiconductor slice is very smooth and homogeneous.
The surface of Mars isn't."
So the automated machines that could scan one would die as soon as you tried to scan the other."
I only talk about two surfaces there that a microscope system might scan.
surface of a semiconductor slice and
The surface of Mars
It's simple enough to make a machine scan the surface of a very smooth semiconductor slice.
If you tried using the same machine to scan the rocky surface of Mars, you would kill the machine.
you cant kill a machine.you level the slice.or simply have a guard.or a leveler mudflap.
-
Oh yes, of course... mudflaps! Why didn't I think of that? Every automated microscope comes with the mudflap attachment, I just never knew what it was for...
-
Oh yes, of course... mudflaps! Why didn't I think of that? Every automated microscope comes with the mudflap attachment, I just never knew what it was for...
NASA reduced to a shoebox a massive mass spectrometer.
An automated microscope can constructed similarly.
NASA is mostly staffed by desk jockeys with little insight and imagination.Even if they come up this idea it will be drowned in an old bogeys committee meeting.
Automated microscopes already exist as explained above.Your objections are largely fueled by moribund thinking or petty jealousy that you did not post it first.
Other people have also suggested it in addition to me as you can google it.
It has been met by a rear guard action to put up lame excuses as to why it should not be done with thinking fueled by Victorian era objections
-
Scanning chips for defects is easy because you (or at least I) know what a chip should look like.
Perhaps you can tell us what alien life looks like?
The advantage of chemical sensors is that we have a good idea of what life smells like.
-
you cant kill a machine.
On my outboard motor I have a kill cord. It does what it says.
Your objections are largely fueled by moribund thinking or petty jealousy that you did not post it first.
No, he just didn't want to be considered a fool who doesn't understand the basic physics of microscopes.
There is a lot he does understand:
He understands the relationship between magnification and subject-objective distance. At these magnifications a surface with irregularities the size of 0.2mm will damage a lens, so the surface would need to be ground as flat as a microscope slide. At magnifications greater than about 500x light is refracted too much as it passes through air to yield good resolving power, so oil immersion lenses are used and the objective almost touches the subject.
He understands that surface scanning requires reflected light, so discussion of transmitted light techniques such as brightfield and darkfield are irrelevant.
He understands that both human and automated scanning systems use differences in colour and contrast between the subject and background. Both systems use staining to enhance both colour and contrast.
Automation of miniaturised sample processing and slide preparation would be an interesting area of investigation.
Other people have also suggested it in addition to me as you can google it.
LOL I have no desire to count the number of people who don't understand basic physics.
-
Your objections are largely fueled by moribund thinking or petty jealousy that you did not post it first.
No, he just didn't want to be considered a fool who doesn't understand the basic physics of microscopes.
There is a lot he does understand:
He understands the relationship between magnification and subject-objective distance. At these magnifications a surface with irregularities the size of 0.2mm will damage a lens, so the surface would need to be ground as flat as a microscope slide. At magnifications greater than about 500x light is refracted too much as it passes through air to yield good resolving power, so oil immersion lenses are used and the objective almost touches the subject.
He understands that surface scanning requires reflected light, so discussion of transmitted light techniques such as brightfield and darkfield are irrelevant.
He understands that both human and automated scanning systems use differences in colour and contrast between the subject and background. Both systems use staining to enhance both colour and contrast.
Automation of miniaturised sample processing and slide preparation would be an interesting area of investigation.
Thank you Colin for taking the time to clarify my meaning, you did an excellent job at it. I did not take the time to make myself so clear, and instead resorted to some degree of snark, assuming that the shortcomings I foresaw would similarly be identified by others without additional explanation. For any who were confused by my earlier statement, I apologize.
-
NASA reduced to a shoebox a massive mass spectrometer.
An automated microscope can constructed similarly.
Just play a quick game of "count the moving parts" and you will realise that's nonsense.
Come to think of it, based on past experience, you won't realise how dumb your comment was; but others will.
-
Scanning chips for defects is easy because you (or at least I) know what a chip should look like.
Perhaps you can tell us what alien life looks like?
The advantage of chemical sensors is that we have a good idea of what life smells like.
Perhaps you can tell us what a stranger looks like?
The disadvantage of chemical sensors is you can never be sure weather it is chemical or biological in nature as explained above.
What a huge and expensive joke the viking probes turned out to be.They could never decide the if results obtained were chemical or biological.
-
Perhaps you can tell us what a stranger looks like?
In terms of gross morphology, like me, obviously. And by definition an alien doesn't.
The disadvantage of chemical sensors is you can never be sure weather it is chemical or biological in nature as explained above.
The difference being what?
-
Perhaps you can tell us what a stranger looks like?
In terms of gross morphology, like me, obviously. And by definition an alien doesn't.
The disadvantage of chemical sensors is you can never be sure weather it is chemical or biological in nature as explained above.
The difference being what?
you should that difference instead of asking.
-
Being a very intelligent, experienced and well qualified scientist, I know biology is an aspect of chemistry and physics. But I am amused by the halfbaked opinions of others, so perhaps you will tell us the difference between molecules of a biological and "chemical" origin in whatever intellectual universe you inhabit.
-
The disadvantage of chemical sensors is you can never be sure weather it is chemical or biological in nature as explained above.
That's wrong on two counts.
You need to learn to spell "whether".
But much more importantly, the chemical clues are not- as you imply- specific to any particular life form.
Do you understand that any disequilibrium indicates the presence of life (or, at least- something weird).
For example, the Earth's atmosphere contains oxygen and also methane.
Over geological time the two compounds should have reacted.
Yet they are still both there.
It doesn't tell you where the two gases come from- but it does tell you that something is making at least one of them continuously.
Maintaining a non- equilibrium system is strong evidence of life.
The clever bit is that you can look at the atmosphere (or water etc) anywhere on the planet and find the evidence.
You don't have to tak a zillion samples of teh surface then carefully microtome them and mount them on slides so you can put them through an automated microscope and then search for heaven knows what because we don't know what a Martian looks like.
It's really bloody clever.
The guys at NASA are good at thinking of clever tricks like that.
Am I right in thinking you didn't understand that before?
-
The disadvantage of chemical sensors is you can never be sure weather it is chemical or biological in nature as explained above.
That's wrong on two counts.
You need to learn to spell "whether".
But much more importantly, the chemical clues are not- as you imply- specific to any particular life form.
Do you understand that any disequilibrium indicates the presence of life (or, at least- something weird).
For example, the Earth's atmosphere contains oxygen and also methane.
Over geological time the two compounds should have reacted.
Yet they are still both there.
It doesn't tell you where the two gases come from- but it does tell you that something is making at least one of them continuously.
Maintaining a non- equilibrium system is strong evidence of life.
The clever bit is that you can look at the atmosphere (or water etc) anywhere on the planet and find the evidence.
You don't have to tak a zillion samples of teh surface then carefully microtome them and mount them on slides so you can put them through an automated microscope and then search for heaven knows what because we don't know what a Martian looks like.
It's really bloody clever.
The guys at NASA are good at thinking of clever tricks like that.
Am I right in thinking you didn't understand that before?
But you can never tell where the methane came from. Was it a life byproduct or chemical reactions.
You argument about a what a martian looks like is absurd.when the microscope was first invented no one knew what bacteria looked like.
-
The disadvantage of chemical sensors is you can never be sure weather it is chemical or biological in nature as explained above.
That's wrong on two counts.
You need to learn to spell "whether".
But much more importantly, the chemical clues are not- as you imply- specific to any particular life form.
Do you understand that any disequilibrium indicates the presence of life (or, at least- something weird).
For example, the Earth's atmosphere contains oxygen and also methane.
Over geological time the two compounds should have reacted.
Yet they are still both there.
It doesn't tell you where the two gases come from- but it does tell you that something is making at least one of them continuously.
Maintaining a non- equilibrium system is strong evidence of life.
The clever bit is that you can look at the atmosphere (or water etc) anywhere on the planet and find the evidence.
You don't have to tak a zillion samples of teh surface then carefully microtome them and mount them on slides so you can put them through an automated microscope and then search for heaven knows what because we don't know what a Martian looks like.
It's really bloody clever.
The guys at NASA are good at thinking of clever tricks like that.
Am I right in thinking you didn't understand that before?
But you can never tell where the methane came from. Was it a life byproduct or chemical reactions.
You argument about a what a martian looks like is absurd.when the microscope was first invented no one knew what bacteria looked like.
Thanks for answering my question- albeit accidentally.
Even after I explained it, you still don't understand it.
The point is that only life (of some sort) is a credible explanation for the disequilibrium.
to the extent to which this "You argument about a what a martian looks like is absurd.when the microscope was first invented no one knew what bacteria looked like." is true, we are taking it in turns to be absurd.
Do you understand that the microscopes that check chips know exactly what they are looking for (and are thus not the same as the first microscopes)?
It does not matter where the methane came from.
Something keeps making it (or it would have been destroyed)
Do you understand that?
If there's only oxygen- it might be what you call "chemical" and what real scientists call abiotic.
If there's only methane, it might be abiotic.
But there's no way that an abiotic system produced both in a stable system.
Can you understand that?
-
The disadvantage of chemical sensors is you can never be sure weather it is chemical or biological in nature as explained above.
That's wrong on two counts.
You need to learn to spell "whether".
But much more importantly, the chemical clues are not- as you imply- specific to any particular life form.
Do you understand that any disequilibrium indicates the presence of life (or, at least- something weird).
For example, the Earth's atmosphere contains oxygen and also methane.
Over geological time the two compounds should have reacted.
Yet they are still both there.
It doesn't tell you where the two gases come from- but it does tell you that something is making at least one of them continuously.
Maintaining a non- equilibrium system is strong evidence of life.
The clever bit is that you can look at the atmosphere (or water etc) anywhere on the planet and find the evidence.
You don't have to tak a zillion samples of teh surface then carefully microtome them and mount them on slides so you can put them through an automated microscope and then search for heaven knows what because we don't know what a Martian looks like.
It's really bloody clever.
The guys at NASA are good at thinking of clever tricks like that.
Am I right in thinking you didn't understand that before?
But you can never tell where the methane came from. Was it a life byproduct or chemical reactions.
You argument about a what a martian looks like is absurd.when the microscope was first invented no one knew what bacteria looked like.
Thanks for answering my question- albeit accidentally.
Even after I explained it, you still don't understand it.
The point is that only life (of some sort) is a credible explanation for the disequilibrium.
to the extent to which this "You argument about a what a martian looks like is absurd.when the microscope was first invented no one knew what bacteria looked like." is true, we are taking it in turns to be absurd.
Do you understand that the microscopes that check chips know exactly what they are looking for (and are thus not the same as the first microscopes)?
It does not matter where the methane came from.
Something keeps making it (or it would have been destroyed)
Do you understand that?
If there's only oxygen- it might be what you call "chemical" and what real scientists call abiotic.
If there's only methane, it might be abiotic.
But there's no way that an abiotic system produced both in a stable system.
Can you understand that?
Now you are being absurd again.do chemical systems stay the same over time?.
you take a cup of water from the sea and its pure.have an hour later it contains toxins sludge from a factory due to currents.
The chemicals from the waste interact and produce new chemicals.is it due to life or chemistry?
Thus chemical analysis can never be definite.You failed to mention viking which were a joke due to interpretation.Just like religion.
-
You are a very rude and ignorant little boy, but as ignorance is excusable I will ask you once more to tell us what you think is the difference between life and other chemistry. BC has explained NASA's distinction very clearly.
-
Any idiot can be a troll and gain a short term reward. To seek and actually find a truth isn't easy but gives long-term rewards. There are shortcuts. Read up on the past mistakes of others or just ask the right questions on this forum. It is a lot friendlier and more tolerant than some others. The senior members are invaluable sources of help with learning.
-
The disadvantage of chemical sensors is you can never be sure weather it is chemical or biological in nature as explained above.
That's wrong on two counts.
You need to learn to spell "whether".
But much more importantly, the chemical clues are not- as you imply- specific to any particular life form.
Do you understand that any disequilibrium indicates the presence of life (or, at least- something weird).
For example, the Earth's atmosphere contains oxygen and also methane.
Over geological time the two compounds should have reacted.
Yet they are still both there.
It doesn't tell you where the two gases come from- but it does tell you that something is making at least one of them continuously.
Maintaining a non- equilibrium system is strong evidence of life.
The clever bit is that you can look at the atmosphere (or water etc) anywhere on the planet and find the evidence.
You don't have to tak a zillion samples of teh surface then carefully microtome them and mount them on slides so you can put them through an automated microscope and then search for heaven knows what because we don't know what a Martian looks like.
It's really bloody clever.
The guys at NASA are good at thinking of clever tricks like that.
Am I right in thinking you didn't understand that before?
But you can never tell where the methane came from. Was it a life byproduct or chemical reactions.
You argument about a what a martian looks like is absurd.when the microscope was first invented no one knew what bacteria looked like.
Thanks for answering my question- albeit accidentally.
Even after I explained it, you still don't understand it.
The point is that only life (of some sort) is a credible explanation for the disequilibrium.
to the extent to which this "You argument about a what a martian looks like is absurd.when the microscope was first invented no one knew what bacteria looked like." is true, we are taking it in turns to be absurd.
Do you understand that the microscopes that check chips know exactly what they are looking for (and are thus not the same as the first microscopes)?
It does not matter where the methane came from.
Something keeps making it (or it would have been destroyed)
Do you understand that?
If there's only oxygen- it might be what you call "chemical" and what real scientists call abiotic.
If there's only methane, it might be abiotic.
But there's no way that an abiotic system produced both in a stable system.
Can you understand that?
Now you are being absurd again.do chemical systems stay the same over time?.
you take a cup of water from the sea and its pure.have an hour later it contains toxins sludge from a factory due to currents.
The chemicals from the waste interact and produce new chemicals.is it due to life or chemistry?
Thus chemical analysis can never be definite.You failed to mention viking which were a joke due to interpretation.Just like religion.
And, once gain, you accidentally answer my question.
I asked "Can you understand that?"
And the answer is clearly "no".