There is Life On Mars

With regards to the ice in the crater.... well surface water without heating would freeze would it not?? what im saying is that the pictured water could ( Not is) be heated by geo thermal events. I agree the whole of mars doesnt have surface water, but i do think there is warm surface water till it freezes or is evaporated.

Thos pictures to me sure as heck look like trees and water to me.

Till we set foot there we will never know for sure because for one thing the goverments never gonna tell us if there is are they????

Is it just me or do the 'trees' just look like fractal patterns? We can see the same patterns in our blood vessels and other biological structures. For example, "The fractal structure nature has devised works so efficiently that, in most tissue, no cell is ever more than three or four cells away from a blood vessel. Yet the vessels and the blood take up little space, no more than about five percent of the body." Just thought that fact was interesting.

But observing a fractal pattern on other planet doesn't seem that far-fetched. Here's a www.umanitoba.ca..." target="_blank" class="postlink">link that lists a few fractal applications in science, including some that are soil and landscape related.

The pictures are interesting but I don't think they are close to conclusive proof. And using statements like...

A geological phenomenon vaguely similar to this doesn't quite exists.

... doesn't help the credibility of the argument.

Originally posted by cedargrove
Is it just me or do the 'trees' just look like fractal patterns? We can see the same patterns in our blood vessels and other biological structures. For example, "The fractal structure nature has devised works so efficiently that, in most tissue, no cell is ever more than three or four cells away from a blood vessel. Yet the vessels and the blood take up little space, no more than about five percent of the body." Just thought that fact was interesting.

But observing a fractal pattern on other planet doesn't seem that far-fetched. Here's a www.umanitoba.ca..." target="_blank" class="postlink">link that lists a few fractal applications in science, including some that are soil and landscape related.

The pictures are interesting but I don't think they are close to conclusive proof. And using statements like...

A geological phenomenon vaguely similar to this doesn't quite exists.

... doesn't help the credibility of the argument.

Fractals are far more wide-spread than just "biology".

Look at Minerals...a mineral of quartz may be microscopic, or it may be several feet across. This is a fractal and in fact it is far more obvious than biological fractals. So geologically speaking a fractal is rather common. Take for example a hill and a mountain. A hill may be less than 1,000 feet above some arbitrary elevation but a mountain may be infinately high, but as we see with Olympus Mons and Hawaii they are vastly different in scale but relatively similar in structure.

So in short, the universe itself is a fractal complex (I invent that term for the sake of this argument; meaning a structure built of smaller structures of similar shape or design) and so not knowing the scale of what we are looking at we can be looking at a huge volcanic complex that is fractured by faulting and shaped by erosion, or we may be looking at some smaller feature created by meteoric impacts at a few meters scale.

This is why I detest when people just post a picture without its source.

Originally posted by Jack of Scythes
I know the information isn't easy to find. I had heard a radio interview several years ago on coast-to-coast, hosted by Art Bell. He spoke with Arthur C. Clarke while he was in India.

Again, he lives in Ceylon/Sri Lanka. That is NOT India. Yes, it is NEAR India, but it is its own country and while it was under British rule it was governed seperately of India. Sure, maybe he was visiting India, but that certainly doesn't mean he resides there! Please do yourself a favor and read previous post of mine that explained that for you.

The crux of getting proof about this is that the past shows are archived, but you have to be a member of the show's streamlink to have access to it. A simple search engine would bring up the interview.

Hey... Wait a minute... *scrolls up a few lines and rereads* You just said that "the information isn't easy to find." Now "a simple search engine would bring up the interview?" Which is it!? Nothing like a big ol' contradiction... I'll get to some more of those in a little bit though.

There was a rumor that finding life on Mars was Clarke's motivation to write "2001: A Space Oddessy".

Oh, a rumor!? Wow! Well that's some serious source right there! Geez, why didn't you say that before? And here I am questioning you. What was I thinking!? [/largest public display of sarcasm ever]

Also, keep in mind that the novel 2001: A Space Odyssy was published in 1968. More on that one in a bit too, though.

Now, onto those aforementioned contradictions...

You start off this thread by saying, "Arthur C. Clarke ... was part of the NASA team that lauched the first Mars Surveyor back in the 1970s." Well, there are quite a few things wrong with that statement. Please, allow me to prove you wrong with a simple thing called "logic."

Part One - Arthur C. Clarke worked for NASA

I have read about a dozen of biographies on Clarke. Of the ones that I have read none have stated that he actively worked for NASA, or any other space agency, for that matter. If you could provide on that could disprove that, I would be glad. For my effort though, here are a few with no mention of NASA whatsoever:

Arthur C. Clarke: A Who2 Profile
The Arthur C. Clarke Foundation Biography
Arthur C. Clarke Biography
A different Arthur C. Clarke Biography
Arthur C. Clarke Biography and Works

In fact, only one even mentions NASA. That is the Arthur C. Clarke - Biography. It states, in a timeline of Clarke's life.

1995 - Awarded the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal

Now, isn't that odd? If he worked for NASA, I'm sure at least one of his many biographies would have mentioned it. Don't you? By the way, these were found through the simple search engine search of Arth ur C. Clarke Biography.

Part Two - Your Mars Probe Discrepencies

You stated that the (paraphrase) "first Mars Surveyor probes were launched in the 1970s." I found that most interest, for a myriad of reasons.

Firstly, the Mars Surveyor series of probes are relatively new. They began in 1997 with the Mars Global Surveyor. It is still in orbit around Mars and in use to this day. Follwing this came the Mars Surveyor '98 program. It was composed of two probes, which were launched seperately. They were called the Mars Surveyor '98 Orbiter and Lander, renamed to be the Mars Climate Orbiter and the Mars Polar Lander, respectively. Both probes were lost due to technical errors. Then in 2001 came the Mars Surveyor 2001 Orbiter, which was renamed 2001 Mars Odyssey. It was also supposed to have a companion rover mission, but that was canceled due to financial problems and because of the failures of the previous two probes. 2001 Mars Odyssey is in Mars orbit still to this day, studying the polar ice caps, clouds, and dust storms. More importantly, it acts as a communications relay to and from Earth for the current Mars rovers. So there is no way those were the probes that were launched in the 1970s. Also, in the a forest on Mars website, it says that the images were taken by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC), which is onboard the Mars Global Surveyor. So, since these images had to have been taken in the past 9 years, how could Clarke have used them as his muse for 2001: A Space Odyssey?

I feel that you may have the name confused with another set of probes, so I'll cut you some slack on that. Before I explain though, a quick overview of NASA's missions to Mars.

The first of NASA's probes to Mars was Mariner 3, which failed to seperate from its launch vehicle. Launched in 1963, it is currently in a Solar orbit. Later that year Mariner 4 was launched, which had a quick flyby of the planet and provided us with the first clos-up image of another planet. So obviously the first probes to Mars from NASA were not sent in the 1970s.


This is one of the images it took. Compared to the tree images of a forest on Mars, the resolution is horrible and I cannot see any possible evidence of life in that image. So obviously the images from this probe could not have spurred Clarke's writing of 2001: A Space Odyssey. For more Mariner 4 images you could view the Mariner 4 Mission Page.

Then came a a five year hiatus of NASA Mars probes before the Mariner went to Mars again with Mariners 6 and 7. These probes also had a quick flyby of the Red Planet. They included better experiments and cameras, but still nothing that would provide the resolution of those tree images, especially for a flyby mission.


Here is an image taken from the Mariner 6 probe. No signs of life there, either! In fact, it looks more like the desolate surface of the Moon.


Here is an image of the disc of Mars as seen from the Mariner 7 probe. This is just to show the improvements in camera technology since the Mariner four probe.

Since the images are stored on now-obsolete media their availability is very limited and I was unable to find a mass collection online.

Now we enter the 1970s, finally. In 1971 two more Mariner probes, numbered 8 and 9. Mariner 8 failed on launch and reentered Earth's atmosphere to be burned up over the Atlantic Ocean. Mariner 9 though was the first probe to orbit another planet. It orbited at a distance of about 900 miles and took the highest resolution images to date. They were at a resolution of 100 meters per pixel. The probe mapped about 70% of the planet's surface and discovered Olympus Mons, the Valles Marineris (named for the probe), and many other new things. This is still nothing compared to the MOC images, which have a resolution of up to 1.5 meters per pixel. Here is a collection of images taken by Mariner 9: Mariner 9 Mission Page.

Then, we have another hiatus. Following this we come to the probes I feel you are refering to as the Mars Surveyor probes. These would be the Viking 1 and 2 orbiter and lander probes. Both arrived to Mars in 1976. The landers were the first human built probes to land on another planet. The resolution of the probes was 150 meters per pixel, with possibly 8 meter resolution in selected areas. So still not quite to the same resolution as the MOC images that supposedly show life. For more infomation and images you can visit the Viking Project Information page.

So, now that I've decimated your statements about Clarke and your comments about the probes would you be able to refute any of that? Can you find any information that is contradictory to anything that I've said?

[edit on 2/22/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by iori_komei
it's planetary core is cold and dead

Keep in mind that that's in a geological manner. If you got down deep enough the pressure of the above soil and atmosphere would be enough to generate heat. This is one reason why it's hypothesized that Mars has underground aquifers.

Originally posted by MadGreebo
With regards to the ice in the crater.... well surface water without heating would freeze would it not?? what im saying is that the pictured water could ( Not is) be heated by geo thermal events. I agree the whole of mars doesnt have surface water, but i do think there is warm surface water till it freezes or is evaporated.

There arn't any geothermal events that could heat the water, though. And no, the main reason the water is frozen is because it was probably deposited there through glaciers. The crater is near the north pole (at 70.5 degrees of northern lattitude) and is shielded from Sunlight. Since Sunlight never falls upon the ice, it doesn't sublimate (go straight from a solid to a gas).

Thos pictures to me sure as heck look like trees and water to me.

That's all fine and well, but does it mean that they actually are trees?

Originally posted by cedargrove
The pictures are interesting but I don't think they are close to conclusive proof. And using statements like...

A geological phenomenon vaguely similar to this doesn't quite exists.

... doesn't help the credibility of the argument.

Agreed!

Stratrf_Rus, your thought on fractals are... different. I would suggest doing some research on them before making such bold statements. Here, I'll even get you started.

Dictionary.com - fractal
Wikipedia - fractal

I'm curious now to see what Mr. Scythe's response will be to CMDR's very well put together and researched post will be.

(I'm not brown nosing by the way, it was just a good post is all, and since I can't vote for CMDR for any site awards, well I figure this is a good replacement.)


I knew I'd get something wrong with my p;ost, thanks for making things more clear for me and everyone CMDR.

EDIT:
Fixed spelling and added second part to post.

[edit on 2/22/2006 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by iori_komei
it's planetary core is cold and dead

Keep in mind that that's in a geological manner. If you got down deep enough the pressure of the above soil and atmosphere would be enough to generate heat. This is one reason why it's hypothesized that Mars has underground aquifers.

Originally posted by MadGreebo
With regards to the ice in the crater.... well surface water without heating would freeze would it not?? what im saying is that the pictured water could ( Not is) be heated by geo thermal events. I agree the whole of mars doesnt have surface water, but i do think there is warm surface water till it freezes or is evaporated.

There arn't any geothermal events that could heat the water, though. And no, the main reason the water is frozen is because it was probably deposited there through glaciers. The crater is near the north pole (at 70.5 degrees of northern lattitude) and is shielded from Sunlight. Since Sunlight never falls upon the ice, it doesn't sublimate (go straight from a solid to a gas).

Thos pictures to me sure as heck look like trees and water to me.

That's all fine and well, but does it mean that they actually are trees?

Originally posted by cedargrove
The pictures are interesting but I don't think they are close to conclusive proof. And using statements like...

A geological phenomenon vaguely similar to this doesn't quite exists.

... doesn't help the credibility of the argument.

Agreed!

Stratrf_Rus, your thought on fractals are... different. I would suggest doing some research on them before making such bold statements. Here, I'll even get you started.

Dictionary.com - fractal
Wikipedia - fractal

1) Pressure typically "lowers temperature" for all intents and purposes by raising the freezing temperature. Thus it doesn't "generate heat".

Rather, internal heat within the crust (both of Earth and Mars) is due to radioactive elements (almost exclusively).

2) Fractals (in the most basic sense) are simply reoccurring structures found in nature. Minerals are the best examples and were a large support to the argument of fractals in mathematics. Anything after that is about as useful as Theoretical Math (which is absolutely useless).

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
1) Pressure typically "lowers temperature" for all intents and purposes by raising the freezing temperature. Thus it doesn't "generate heat".

Who was/is your science teacher? Either they're not doing a good job teaching, or you're were not/are not doing a good job listening. Temperature is directly related to pressure.

Luckily for you, and anyone else who thinks otherwise, I found this nice little Java Applet that can help you understand the basics of how pressure and temperature are related.

Kinetic Molecular Theory: Pressure-Temperature Relation

If you don't want to click the link, then riddle me this: If lower pressure means lower temperatures, why is it so cold in the upper atmosphere?

Rather, internal heat within the crust (both of Earth and Mars) is due to radioactive elements (almost exclusively).

While I couldn't find anything to back up what you said there, I did find a USGS website saying that pressure is involved.

The Dynamic Earth from USGS

Below the crust is the mantle, a dense, hot layer of semi-solid rock approximately 2,900 km thick. The mantle, which contains more iron, magnesium, and calcium than the crust, is hotter and denser because temperature and pressure inside the Earth increase with depth.

So from the evidence I've provided the pressure and temperature would directly effect the possibilities of there being liquid water on the surface or below it.

[edit on 2/23/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Anything after that is about as useful as Theoretical Math (which is absolutely useless).

Benjamin Disraeli said, "I make it a rule only to believe what I understand."

Charles Caleb Colton responded, "he that will believe only what he can fully comprehend must have a very long head or a very short creed."

Theoretical math is completely useless? Things like the Hilbert Class Field, nonlinear analysis and feedback control, Bibliometrics, the Hamming Bound, and Fractal research? Then what on earth did all of these math geniuses waste their time on? Years of school, years of research, years of application of said theoretical mathematics, and all of it completely useless. You would think that people so smart would have known better than to waste their lives on a useless field. You would also think those supposedly smart people who took those mathematicians’ research and applied it to real technology and expanding their research into other fields. Don't they know their inventions don't really exist?! The fools...

Don't say extremely complex scientific theory is completely useless. It isn't. Even if you can't see the applications it could be used for, they're there. Before we had a power grid, scientists still researched electricity. Before we had swords, researchers researched metallurgy. Before we had telescopes, researchers researched optics. Before we had nuclear energy, scientists researched particle physics. Don’t say extremely complex scientific theory is completely useless.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
The sand is a lot less dense than the sand on Earth. On top of that, so is the atmosphere. This allows for sand to be taken into Mars' upper atmosphere instead of being blown relatively close to the surface like on Earth. So erosion wouldn't happen as quickly.

Yeah, but still. After a billion or two years? I could rub a diamond with a feather and wear it down after a billion years.

Actually... Cmddr
You were being needlessly rude (before starting to actually contribute)... and in some circumstances wrong...
Mods are supposed to be helpful? yes?

The website that was refered was amaturish sure... but it did bring up some points that I too am curious about (and could be debated if people would get past what country asimov moved to)

Those trees are surely some form of life, as they expand, and contract with the season... but then again...I could be wrong. No need to be snooty about it though...
the observation comes from logic (incomplete as it is)

Then we have the obvious flat areas, that look like lakes...
Could they not be like lake vostok, and look frozen from above, but warm below? Or perhaps be frozen dry ice?

Regardless... there is something to these, that goes way past a wrongful assumption of what country Asimov moved to... so why dont we drop that little argumentative tidbit, since it matters NOT ONE IOTA...

also, we can drop any science that proves trees cant live on Mars... of course they cant... but something looks like it can.. what iss it?



[edit on 23-2-2006 by LazarusTheLong]

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Actually... Cmddr
You were being needlessly rude (before starting to actually contribute)... and in some circumstances wrong...
Mods are supposed to be helpful? yes?

Even so, he has recognized that and corrected it. Why point that out publicly now? How does that contribute

The website that was refered was amaturish sure... but it did bring up some points that I too am curious about ... No need to be snooty about it though...
the observation comes from logic (incomplete as it is)

That website, and several others, are all analyzed in the link I provided to another thread discussing exactly that subject in detail. If you'd like answers about those formations, I encourage you to read through that thread. Some very interesting stuff was illuminated there. (side note: Those are some frickin' huge trees if they are, in fact, trees)

Regardless... there is something to these, that goes way past a wrongful assumption of what country Asimov moved to... so why dont we drop that little argumentative tidbit, since it matters NOT ONE IOTA...

It was the premise behind starting this entire thread!!!

Originally posted by Jack of Scythes
Greetings Fellow Believers,

Arthur C. Clarke, the author of "2001: A Space Oddessy", was part of the NASA team that lauched the first Mars Surveyor back in the 1970s. Photos taken by that orbiter caught his attention, and he announced that there were objects that looked like stunted trees at the poles.

His observation was first laughed at. After he persisted, he began to get death threats. India offered him asylum if he paid for the construction of a university. Arthur C. Clarke is still there.

Is there life on Mars? Yes. Are there ruins on Mars? Yes.

Sometimes it is more shocking when fact overcomes belief.

How does it not matter?

[edit on 2/23/06/23 by junglejake]

To completely dismiss the possibility of life on mars would be foolish. There is nothing yet 100% conclusive, but when you look at the circumstantial evidence it’s hard to avoid the conclusion. When you look at instances like these ( #6 ) and the existence of surface water-ice, which does have liquid water along it’s edge. Very small amounts.

I even heard somewhere that a probe passed Earth while gathering momentum to travel farther out of the solar system. During its flyby it scanned Earth for conclusive evidence of life, and returned a negative response. We have Methane in the atmosphere just like Mars. It’s possible that the methane is being produced through geothermal activity, but unlikely. Of course coming to the conclusion that life exists based of some random info found on a web page is a bit foolish in itself.

Finally had some time to do the research... (and follow the links, thanks)

so essentially, considering the original poster was incorrect about asimov...
this is a duplicate, where neither thread came up with a solution or answer regarding the trees...

Ok, well,
then let me offer another stab at the proverbial question.
I think they are martian trees... not microbes*...
Not like earth trees... not by a long shot...
these may even be colony sytems of critters (maybe microbes) that form like coral does here... but uses the wind as a medium.

It would explain why they "grow" with the seasons, and only appear after long warm periods...
it would also account for the methane...

microbal colony "trees" would require none of the rigid contraints for "plants" as we know them, nor for animals of higher order.

And we know microbes come in all sizes and types, and survival abilities...

the reason I discount NASAs viewpoint that they are just microbes on the surface, is the obvious "height" they attain.
only 3 dimensional objects could cast the shadows those do.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
1) Pressure typically "lowers temperature" for all intents and purposes by raising the freezing temperature. Thus it doesn't "generate heat".

Who was/is your science teacher? Either they're not doing a good job teaching, or you're were not/are not doing a good job listening. Temperature is directly related to pressure.

Luckily for you, and anyone else who thinks otherwise, I found this nice little Java Applet that can help you understand the basics of how pressure and temperature are related.

Kinetic Molecular Theory: Pressure-Temperature Relation

If you don't want to click the link, then riddle me this: If lower pressure means lower temperatures, why is it so cold in the upper atmosphere?

Rather, internal heat within the crust (both of Earth and Mars) is due to radioactive elements (almost exclusively).

While I couldn't find anything to back up what you said there, I did find a USGS website saying that pressure is involved.

The Dynamic Earth from USGS

Below the crust is the mantle, a dense, hot layer of semi-solid rock approximately 2,900 km thick. The mantle, which contains more iron, magnesium, and calcium than the crust, is hotter and denser because temperature and pressure inside the Earth increase with depth.

So from the evidence I've provided the pressure and temperature would directly effect the possibilities of there being liquid water on the surface or below it.

[edit on 2/23/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

I don't have a "science teacher".

I had a series of Geological and Geological Engineering Professors who specialized in Sedimentology//Stratigraphy//Structure//Tectonic Theory and Remote Sensing to name a few. Another was a Geochemist who retired as a Petroleum Geologist.

Etc.

USGS (no offense to those bone heads) are mappers...and know only as much about Geology as you are willing to find for yourself (which means you didn't do a good enough search).

A search for heat flow in the Earth's crust using Yahoo yielded this from the USGS and a search for "heat source of Earth's interior" reveals this.

That article covers the statement that they don't rule out formational heat energy but we've pretty much concluded that all the current heat energy is due to radioactive elements and no longer due to formational heat energy.

Pressures has nothing to do with it.

From old notes (I'll find you a source later if you still require one):

Heat comes from:

Original Heat (formation)
Radioactive decay
Gravitational Energy (pressure)

Bear with me here before you go ooh ooh ooh

Strain energy (inclusive of gravity and other stresses) is about 3-10x10^11 W or 2-3% of total.

Gravitational Potential is 7x10^9 or 1,000th of Strain Energy.

Together they don't even account for 4% of the Heat energy in the Earth.

Radiogenic heating is accountable by observation for 50% (no less) heat flow and is thought to produce more around 60% heat flow...and is theorized to be as much as 100% (no other heat sources but Radiogenic, including formational heat).

So from the evidence and arguments I've presented you're flat out wrong and probably reading some USGS site for highschoolers.

Well I know it is:

This URL links to the source page and this "book" is a children's book and has nothing to do with what is really going on.

You are taught that Tectonics is due to mantle convection but that's not true.

Tectonics is due to slab-push and slab-drag and has little to do with convection but more to do with a crossing point of densities of the lithosphere and asthenosphere.

And thus highschool teaches you that pressure is the source of heat...but that is wrong...and I've just explained how so.

Oh and cmdrkeen the atmosphere is not a constant or even exponential gradient from the surface to space from hotter to colder.

The atmosphere has layers which have varying temperatures.

And to the person arguing that these are trees or "coral" like objects.

Please argue about what chemical process creates them...Coral is created by an abundance of Calcium Carbonate in our Oceans...so ... where are these "plants" getting their nutrients and how do they use them?

PS

Seismic measurements of heat flow within the planet interior at various depths creates a relative 3-dimensional map of the interior of our planet.

It is now known there are huge (possibly subducted slabs) areas that are "cooler than normal" and thus proves that mantle convection is not really a mechanism.

Density is more of the driving force.

Turning our attention to Mars the theorized reason for a lack of Martian tectonics is a significant difference in Crustal and Mantle densities (they are more differentiated and someday Earth will become more differentiated).

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Stratrf_Rus]

Did you guys know that if you correct the RGB settings on Mars photographs the sky will turn blue and you will see alot of green and water on the ground?

It doesnt work on photo's of other planets...they are messing with the RGB, and yes i do think that the alternative 3 video was real... pretty good if you can hoax that, completly with a monster moving through the bushes and a view from inside a spacecraft, back in those years.

Also what i saw in that video was the same environment and colours that you see on Mars photographs if you restore the RGB settings

Originally posted by Enkidu
Yeah, but still. After a billion or two years? I could rub a diamond with a feather and wear it down after a billion years.

Good luck with that! Just to make my point clear, Mars's atmosphere is only about 1% as thick as that of the Earth's. What does that mean? The dynamic pressure is much less, so a 100 km/hour wind on Mars is only equal to that of a 10 km/hour breeze here on Earth.

Source: The Case for Mars, Robert Zubrin, Touchstone Publishing 1997.

Interestingly enough, the foreward was written by... You guessed it, Arthur C. Clarke. The funny thing is, it starts off with, "My name is Arthur C. Clarke, and I am speaking to you from the island of Sri Lanka, once known as Ceylon, in the Indian Ocean, Planet Earth." Funny, eh?

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Actually... Cmddr
You were being needlessly rude (before starting to actually contribute)... and in some circumstances wrong...
Mods are supposed to be helpful? yes?

If you feel I'm in the wrong, please feel free to file a gripe against me. There's really no need to try and incite drama on the boards. Thanks!

the observation comes from logic (incomplete as it is)

So if it's incomplete, how is that logic...?

I see a blue crayon. The sky is blue. Therefore the the sky is made of blue cryaon.

That's some logic, but it's obviously incomplete. But it's still valid, right?

Regardless... there is something to these, that goes way past a wrongful assumption of what country Asimov moved to... so why dont we drop that little argumentative tidbit, since it matters NOT ONE IOTA...

As JungleJake said, it was the entire premise for starting the thread... So now does it not matter?

Also, we're talking about Arthur C. Clarke, not Isaac Asimov. Different people, mate.

also, we can drop any science that proves trees cant live on Mars... of course they cant... but something looks like it can.. what iss it?

The point of the thread was asking if they were trees... So why should we not provide evidence that trees cannot exist on Mars? ?sdawkcab tib a taht t'nsI

these may even be colony sytems of critters (maybe microbes) that form like coral does here... but uses the wind as a medium.

So why are these or other forms of this life found all around the planet? And, as asked, where is this life getting its food supply from?

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
So from the evidence and arguments I've presented you're flat out wrong and probably reading some USGS site for highschoolers.

You're right. You did. Good job!

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Oh and cmdrkeen the atmosphere is not a constant or even exponential gradient from the surface to space from hotter to colder.

The atmosphere has layers which have varying temperatures.

I don't believe I ever said that the atmosphere had any sort of an exponential gradient (though I did make those posts awhile ago and just got back from a vacation, so I may be wrong), but there is a rule of thumb used for aviation. That is that for every 1000 feet in altitude the temperature drops by 5 degrees. And, sure, every so often you can get a temperature inversion, but the average temperature is still going to get colded from the surface on up. Why is that though? Pressure.

Originally posted by Dutch_Rick
Did you guys know that if you correct the RGB settings on Mars photographs the sky will turn blue and you will see alot of green and water on the ground?

Define what you mean by the word "correct," please.

[edit on 3/6/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by Dutch_Rick
Did you guys know that if you correct the RGB settings on Mars photographs the sky will turn blue and you will see alot of green and water on the ground?

It doesnt work on photo's of other planets...they are messing with the RGB, and yes i do think that the alternative 3 video was real... pretty good if you can hoax that, completly with a monster moving through the bushes and a view from inside a spacecraft, back in those years.

Also what i saw in that video was the same environment and colours that you see on Mars photographs if you restore the RGB settings

No; you're messing with the RGB and don't know what you're doing.

I can make Earth's sky look purple prove me wrong blunderbuss!

You are ruining the image by making-up some RGB value....you can't do that; you have to use color temperature to fix it.

Geeze.

Originally posted by whitelightwolf
there is apparently a Mole on there too. After watching the Alternative 3 video, I'm not sure what to believe. If that was hoax...or if it was real, and the russians really did go to Mars.

'Alternative 3' was a British-made tv sci-fi show.