[kj] OT: New scientifical evidenc of Life on Mars

[Brendan Quinn]

I may be barking up totally the wrong tree actually, but I suppose one way
to help find out is through argument. I agree that you have to suspend what
you know to take on more information, but I don't think that means you have
to throw the baby out with the bong water.

 

  _____  

From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On
Behalf Of sade1
Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2008 11:53
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)
Subject: Re: [kj] OT: New scientifical evidenc of Life on Mars

 

   Pretty good, there (is that what Soundgarden teaches you?
<http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/14.gif> ). A lot of people don't 

address the skepticism as good as you did, so, that made for good reading.

 

 

... ... ... ... ... ... 


[looking at the current state of things..]

 

'Save me...

  save me from Tomorrow..

    I don't want to sail in this Ship Of Fools...'   

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Brendan Quinn <bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!) <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 10:35:42 AM
Subject: Re: [kj] OT: New scientifical evidenc of Life on Mars

Yeah but scientific knowledge is derived from more than experiences on our
planet, because we have probes in space sending back information, and we
receive radiation from other parts of the universe that tells us something
about it.in satellite receivers on earth and more accurate ones in space. We
pick up light radiation, x rays, gamma rays etc. We can use that to
understand the size and trajectories of various bodies, their age,
composition, interaction with other bodies, what's likely to happen to them
etc. And at the end of the day, we're part of the universe.we're not
separate from it in any way. I think there's a false dichotomy going on, or
a false separation. I'm not saying this info is particularly solid, and not
challenged, but I can't see why being located in one part of the universe
would make you think you can't understand how another part of it that's
right nextdoor works. As I said, if there's such a thing as black holes then
that's something completely new to us (probably), and we have no experience
with event horizons.so that's a 'new' form of physics, if it exists. (Unless
it turns out that we made accurate predictions about a) the existence of
black holes and b) how they work, in which case we extrapolated from our
existing knowledge of physics, and in effect we haven't altered our
understanding of the laws at all, they are consistent with how we expected
them to behave, under different conditions.) 

 

But Mars.why 'on earth' assume there's anything so different about it that
it's a deal changer to the laws of physics? I don't think it's unscientific
to make best guesses based on what we already know.esp when it's proven
right so far in terms of what we've found there (and how we got there).

 

We got to Mars based on an understanding of its trajectory (laws of
physics), we understand how strong its gravity is (physics), that it doesn't
have an electromagnetic field like earth does (physics), so it's not
protected from radiation, making it less likely that life as we know it
could survive (physics / biology / geology etc). I mean, I can understand
the argument that it has different physical properties, but different laws
of physics? To me that's like saying you can't understand one part of a
sandpit because you've only studied another part of it. Perhaps you wouldn't
have an understanding of how water effects sand because the part you studied
isn't wet and the other is.but that's still really just adding to your
information, not changing it. That's what different laws of physics means to
me.

 

  _____  

From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On
Behalf Of Jim Harper
Sent: Friday, 28 November 2008 22:39
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)
Subject: Re: [kj] OT: New scientifical evidenc of Life on Mars

 


Not wishing to sound arsey here, but I can't much reason *not* to believe
that Mars has any different rules of physics. The bulk of our scientific
knowledge is based solely on information gleaned on our planet. I think it
would be unwise- not to mention somewhat unscientific- to assume that
information can be used to accurately predict what conditions are like on
other planets...

--- On Fri, 28/11/08, Brendan Quinn <bq at soundgardener.co.nz> wrote:

From: Brendan Quinn <bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [kj] OT: New scientifical evidenc of Life on Mars
To: "' A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)'"
<gathering at misera.net>
Date: Friday, 28 November, 2008, 4:36 AM

I don't think there's any reason to believe that Mars has any different
rules of physics than earth.not in terms of our knowledge of its elements
(insofar as what we know about the elements, which is admittedly incomplete
at the quantum level, but we do know broadly how they work at the macro
level), and the energy forces that act on it (the electromagnetic radiation
it's subject to, the gravity it exerts and that is exerted upon it, and the
nuclear forces that hold its atoms together.).

 

We can predict it's trajectory through space with a high degree of accuracy
within x thousands / millions of years, based on our understanding of the
effects (not cause) of gravity.

 

And to me it seems logical to look for life on other planets based on
looking for artificial structures, whether they look like human faces or not
is irrelevant. I'm not defending the guy's methods or findings at all, just
saying that I think science is the best bet we have for finding evidence of
life on mars, and I don't think there's much bias involved in using the
scientific method as our main tool. Nor any reason to expect that the rules
of physics are any different anywhere else in the universe.we just don't
have a proper grasp of them yet (understatement).

 

Science is a self-correcting mechanism for seeing the world as accurately as
possible.

 

  _____  

From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On
Behalf Of sade1
Sent: Friday, 28 November 2008 06:08
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)
Subject: Re: [kj] OT: New scientifical evidenc of Life on Mars

 

  It seems a little too much projection of ourselves into deep space.  I'm
skeptical how 

a totally different paradigm from our own world here on earth can so neatly
be explained 

so early on by only our own scientifical principles and experiences, and
without even knowing 

more of Mars' possibly bizarrely different physics (and biology) rules and
principles.

 

That said, i'm staying tuned for more.

 

... ... ... ... ... ... 


[looking at the current state of things..]

 

'Save me...

  save me from Tomorrow..

    I don't want to sail in this Ship Of Fools...'   

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
To: gathering at misera.net
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:47:58 AM
Subject: [kj] OT: New scientifical evidenc of Life on Mars

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/820/LIFE_ON_MARS___New_Scientific_Ev
idence/



_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

 

_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20081129/d365712a/attachment-0001.html>