Methane = Life on mars?

[BlameTheEx]

Confirmation that there is methane on Mars.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996669 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...4A83414B7F0000

It looks to me that the variation in concentrations proves that the methane is very short lived. A biological source is a distinct possibility.

We may be looking at a biological mass of 20 tons of bacteria. That's not a lot for the total surface of mars. Not that the bacteria is likely to be on the surface. It is probably subsurface, and living on chemicals.

[Stargazer]

I'm hoping that the methane is the product of biological processes, but we have to wait until we have more information regarding this. There are quite a few new interesting Mars missions in the planning for this and the next decade, including (from ESA): ExoMars, NetLander (French Space Agency, but could be combined with the ExoMars mission), Mars Sample Return, and (from NASA): Mars Science Laboratory, Mars Sample Return, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and perhaps others as well. Some of these missions will search for life, past or present. It should be interesting...

[paultrr]

If the methane source is subsurface and given our own planets release of such that figure on how much biomass could be way low. We also have relase of methane here from pockets that resulted from long decayed matter which is also possible on Mars.

On a personal note I hope it is a sign of present life. But the case is not settled yet and probably will not be for a while.

[Greenfly]

Does anyone find it unreasonable that scientists for many years religiously believed that Oxygen and a 20 degree climate was the ONLY place for organisms to emerge? If we developed in this environment it does not mean that life NEEDS these specific items in order to exist in the universe. Why should NASA's search for life need to be to surfaces bearing resemblance to our own earth. I remember hearing just before the year 2000 that Mars could only have held life if it once had an atmosphere rich in Oxygen and water flowing over the surface, now that they have seen Titan they are begining to think life could exist there too. I believe that life could exist in absolutely any place. Who made the rules that there needs to be an atmosphere? You could arrange the right sequence of molecules and make an organism that could exist on a rock on Pluto. Or another arrangement that could live in the acid clouds of Venus. I think there needs to be more free-thinking in our society as a whole. I say we take a lunar module-like aparatus, load it with a drill and sent it to Mars, no dinky little dirt collector. If we collect a 5cm diameter sample a mile or two deep on mars and send them to Earth, we could solve all our questions. I do not think Nasa would find it that hard to make a launch platform that could fire rockets carrying ore samples to Earth. lol, maybe i'm kidding myself.
Oh well, what do you think of my ideas?
JL.

[BlameTheEx]

Greefly

Very unreasonable!
Who were these scientists?
To the best of my knowledge scientific opinion has been that life did NOT emerge on earth in the presence of free oxygen. Free oxygen only exists on earth as a waste product of photosynthesis. It was only available AFTER life had taken a firm hold.

Nor was there ever the belief that a 20 degree climate was necessary. Conventional reasoning was that water was necessary. This limited the lower temperature to 0 degrees centigrade - but later thinking has taken on board the idea of natural antifreeze in the water. Salt is a good example. Liquid brine may well exist on Mars. The upper limit was held at the boiling point of water - 100 C, however that too has been under revision. The boiling point of water is dependent on atmospheric pressure. The heavy atmosphere of Venus as example would allow for higher temperatures. Venus is now dry but there is a theory that it might once have had oceans.

Why do you think that there is a rule that demands an atmosphere? There isn't. Life on earth almost certainly started in water, not air. The rule is one of liquids, not gasses. No liquid can exist on the surface of a body without an atmosphere, because liquids vaporise unless held under pressure. However that does not exclude liquids UNDER the surface. Bodies may have cores warmed by radioactivity or tidal stresses. There could be water locked under a surface of ice or rocks. That surface covering will provide the necessary pressure

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by BlameTheEx

Greefly


Why do you think that there is a rule that demands an atmosphere? There isn't. Life on earth almost certainly started in water, not air. The rule is one of liquids, not gasses. No liquid can exist on the surface of a body without an atmosphere, because liquids vaporise unless held under pressure. However that does not exclude liquids UNDER the surface. Bodies may have cores warmed by radioactivity or tidal stresses. There could be water locked under a surface of ice or rocks. That surface covering will provide the necessary pressure

Good explanation. I just saw the Blue Planet episode "the Deep" which is about the wide variety of life that survives at and only at the bottom of oceans, up to 6000 feet below sea level. Only about 4% of the ocean floor has been explored yet because it's so hard for us to get there. It's almost like finding life on another planet.

[Drakon1323]

What about the ice cap on mars? Would that not be an opportune place to do research along these lines?
On top of that, if methane is so prevelant in the cosmos, (relatively speaking) why the recent optimism linking it with life?
Is it just that its a link with the organic?

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

... It's almost like finding life on another planet.

In my opinion, it is the equivalent.
There are creatures down there that are wilder than we could imagine.
They dont need light and dont 'see'
Does anyone think that there are other senses than the '5' that humans have? Any speculations?

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Drakon1323

Does anyone think that there are other senses than the '5' that humans have? Any speculations?

If you are counting our 5 as being the standard vision, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, then yeah, even we have another one: equilibrium. Without using any of the 5 standard senses, we can tell whether we are upright, tilted, or upside down.

Another possibility - one I don't know if it actually counts as a separate sense - is body position, monitored by proprioreceptors. For example, one of the tests to see if you are drunk has you close your eyes and extend you arms, then try to touch the tip of your nose with your index fingers. You aren't using sight, smell, taste, equilibrium, or touch to do this, but rather information from receptors in your joints and muscles that convey their relative positions.

As far as other animals, sharks and some others sense electrical fields and lobsters and some others can sense magnetism.

[Turtle]

What about the sixth sense so many disdain to talk about scientifically? If it's not intuition, then at least I think intuition deserves counting as a sense.

[Tormod]

Or perhaps intuition is simply the unconscious use of experience?