Is There Life on Mars

Back to my original question: if not trees, then what? There doesn't seem to be any other plausible explanation...yet

Some non-biological phenomenon perhaps not yet clearly understood.

That is a much more plausible explanation than trees.

To make the claim that they really are trees will need a lot more evidence than just a passing resemblence from orbit.
 
Mark said:

Back to my original question: if not trees, then what? There doesn't seem to be any other plausible explanation...yet.

Straw man. "Trees" is not a plausible explanation. Those things do not look like any trees we know of.

- They are up to a mile wide, at least an order of magnitude larger that any trees we know of.

- They do not cast a shadow that indicates a hight corresponding to their width, all trees we know of grow to a hight that is comparable to their width.

- They grow in an extremely arid climate, no large trees we know of grow in arid climated, quite the opposite, in general the tougher the conditions, the smaller the trees.

So, compared to our knowledge from Earth about "trees", these structures do not fir on a sigle point except for a cursory structural similarity.

We can of course fabulate that "trees" on Mars are radically different from those on Earth, but then we have no reason to assume that these structures in particular are Mars trees.

Hans
 
Think about this for a moment-

A NASA scientist or a top exobiologist really considers that the images show some lifeform.

Next logicall step?

Get to the press, get funding and send a probe there as soon as possible.

Are we seeing this?

So, what's the logical conclusion?

- A cover-up? No. What sort of cover-up would release the pictures?

- All those specialists missed such obvious thing? I don't think so.

- Those are most likely non-biological structures. I think I'll stick with this one.
 
MRC_Hans said:
- They are up to a mile wide, at least an order of magnitude larger that any trees we know of.

- They do not cast a shadow that indicates a hight corresponding to their width, all trees we know of grow to a hight that is comparable to their width.

- They grow in an extremely arid climate, no large trees we know of grow in arid climated, quite the opposite, in general the tougher the conditions, the smaller the trees.
To play Devil's advocate a bit, but I remember from the documentary series Living Planet that trees in the Artic often grow flat on the ground, often under a layer of snow. That's true of species that grow normally in more moderate climates. Assuming trees on mars are competing against eachother on sunlight, they most likely won't compete in height as the ground would be warmer, but in surface area close to the ground.

I guess if there are trees on Mars, they would look very much like that. Unless David Attenborough has been lying to me about those artic trees.
 
How big were those trees?

However, I'm not saying that it cannot be trees. I'm saying that it is not the most likely interpretation.

Hans
 
CurtC said:
It's more than that it makes more sense - it's the null hypothesis, and anyone saying that it's biological has to come up with extraordinary evidence. To me, the idea of trees on Mars is only slightly more plausible than the idea that there is a face on Mars. I guess that's why I was willing to label ACC and others woo-woo for even giving that idea consideration.

Did you ever see that web site (the author posted on this board a while ago) where someone said that he saw really tiny spaceships zooming about in the photos from the Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface? I'll look around for that again - maybe he's a believer of trees on Mars now.

Once again, I think trees are unlikely. But I can't think of a better explanation right now, based on the photos. Can you? Without calling anyone names?
 
Mark said:


Once again, I think trees are unlikely. But I can't think of a better explanation right now, based on the photos. Can you? Without calling anyone names?

From the link posted from Bad Astronomy earlier in this thread:

Because the martian air pressure is very low--100 times lower than at Sea Level on Earth--ice on Mars does not melt and become liquid when it warms up. Instead, ice sublimes--that is, it changes directly from solid to gas, just as "dry ice" does on Earth. As polar dunes emerge from the months-long winter night, and first become exposed to sunlight, the bright winter frost and snow begins to sublime. This process is not uniform everywhere on a dune, but begins in small spots and then over several months it spreads until the entire dune is spotted like a leopard.

The early stages of the defrosting process--as in the picture shown here--give the impression that something is "growing" on the dunes. The sand underneath the frost is dark, just like basalt beach sand in Hawaii. Once it is exposed to sunlight, the dark sand probably absorbs sunlight and helps speed the defrosting of each sand dune.

Seems as viable as the "trees" hypothesis.

OTOH, from the BBC today:

Europe Probe Detects Mars Water

Is encouraging in terms of the possibility of life on Mars in general, particularly this bit:

Mars Express confirmed Odyssey's suspicions about the south pole.

"We have already identified water vapor in the atmosphere," scientist Vittorio Formisano said. "We have identified water ice on the soil on the south polar caps."

Graham
 
Graham said:


From the link posted from Bad Astronomy earlier in this thread:



Seems as viable as the "trees" hypothesis.

OTOH, from the BBC today:

Europe Probe Detects Mars Water

Is encouraging in terms of the possibility of life on Mars in general, particularly this bit:



Graham

I believe the argument against this was that the "trees" are appearing in colder, less exposed areas first.
 
Mark said:


I believe the argument against this was that the "trees" are appearing in colder, less exposed areas first.

Sorry, I don't follow you . . .
 
Graham said:


Sorry, I don't follow you . . .

I'll have to find the article (Space.com, I think). But it basically said that the "trees" were most prominent in areas that were receiving less sunlight, which would seem to indicate they are not the result of thawing.

For the record, again, I don't really think they are trees. But they could be and they definitely warrant a closer look, I think, whatever they are.

Edited to add:
Ah...here we go: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/clarke_mars_banyon_010709-2.html
 
Yes, they could be trees, but the fact that they are mostly prevalent in the colder areas does not support that thesis.

At present, we have no idea what those things are. They can be:

1) Trees.

2) Other biological formations.

3) Crystalline formations of some mineral.

4) Geological formations.

5) Optical or phototechnical artefacts.

6) Something else.

The probability of viable life-forms existing on Mars is certainly above zero.

Hans
 
Mark said:


I'll have to find the article (Space.com, I think). But it basically said that the "trees" were most prominent in areas that were receiving less sunlight, which would seem to indicate they are not the result of thawing.

For the record, again, I don't really think they are trees. But they could be and they definitely warrant a closer look, I think, whatever they are.

Edited to add:
Ah...here we go: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/clarke_mars_banyon_010709-2.html

Oh right, sorry I didn't understand what you meant.

Actually, the photos from the artic or wherever it was in the original link didn't look anything like the Mars patterns anyway.

It's a good demonstration of the dangers of nterpreting satellite photos without sufficient supporting evidence/experience though.

Graham
 
Graham said:


Oh right, sorry I didn't understand what you meant.

Actually, the photos from the artic or wherever it was in the original link didn't look anything like the Mars patterns anyway.

It's a good demonstration of the dangers of nterpreting satellite photos without sufficient supporting evidence/experience though.

Graham

I'll tell you one thing, if I see a hammock stretched between 2 of them, I'll be convinced for sure!
 
Mark said:


I'll tell you one thing, if I see a hammock stretched between 2 of them, I'll be convinced for sure!


I'm pretty sure one of them is cut into the shape of a swan . . . :)

BTW, do we know what sort of height these pictures are coming from?

How much detail would be visible from that height on earth?

Graham
 
According to NASA

Over the sixteen months after orbit insertion, aerobraking and thrusters will slowly convert the original elliptical capture orbit into a nearly circular 2 hour polar orbit with an average altitude of 378 km

It now strikes me though that it would be meaningless to compare the images to ones taken from an earth satellite unless you knew the details of their cameras etc.

I did find this interesting site though:

View From Sattellite

Pick a satellite (pretty much any satellite) and it shows you the view of earth! Pretty cool, IMO.

Graham
 
Graham said:



I'm pretty sure one of them is cut into the shape of a swan . . . :)

BTW, do we know what sort of height these pictures are coming from?

How much detail would be visible from that height on earth?

Graham

Good questions. I am sure the answer is somewhere on JPL's or NASA's sites.

If I remember correctly, these things are pretty darn big...

I'll try to find out for sure.
 

Back
Top Bottom