NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by nsaspook, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,165
    http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

    [SIZE=+1]
    .
    [/SIZE]
     
  2. magnet18

    Senior Member

    Dec 22, 2010
    1,232
    124
    I don't understand the big deal about seed theory, life still had to originate from somewhere.
    More on topic, <insert skeptical comment showing conflicting values of hope>.
     
  3. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,677
    900
    There was similar excitement a couple of decades ago about something seen in a meteorite from Mars. Although you can't prove a negative, the final consensus was an abiotic artifact.

    The recent finding is exciting, but a lot more analysis needs to be done as the publisher freely admits.

    John
     
  4. Heavydoody

    Active Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    140
    11
    I like Dr. Schild's assertion that "no other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis." Now I am not questioning the report at all (especially since I haven't read it yet), but when you make rediculous claims you come off as a car salesman rather than an objective expert. I had to take a class on this recently (technical writing), and that may be why I noticed :)
     
  5. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    Human authory,because you are a member of a respected group
    that agrees with what you publish,what makes it true. Who,what when,
    and where. A reaction that can produce a result in real time proven facts.
    Like a disease and a cure with chemical drug that keeps people from
    death.
     
  6. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,677
    900
    @Loosewire
    It seems you are proposing that Dr. Hoover satisfy Koch's postulates. ;) That's unlikely to happen this year.

    On the other hand, the article is quite interesting. It is written in a style that is a bit more flamboyant than the style I am used to, but that seems to be common today. At a minimum, it is a nice review. I particularly appreciated the update on the Murchison meteorite.

    As for credibility based on associations, that has existed for a very long time. It is not always an accurate gauge of character, but it is the best measure we have until the work can be repeated in independent laboratories.

    John
     
  7. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    What about "Watson and his likes,will make these calulations be
    quicker and more accurate still depending the human element.
    What is the missing link with more computing power. John you
    know you stuff.
     
  8. Heavydoody

    Active Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    140
    11
    I just read it, and whatever else it might accomplish, this paper reveals my ignorance of the subject :) I am not sure if that should be exciting or overwhelming. Possibly both?
     
  9. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    If you saw the bacteria under microscope would it be alive,active.
    What is follis bacteria,do they have something to compare it with.
    There a lot questions that be asks about it to give better under
    standing. What conditions was it found in dry or moist,would that
    make a differents.One step questions.
     
  10. t06afre

    AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
  11. Heavydoody

    Active Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    140
    11
    Dude, that's the best laugh I have had in a while...somewhat alternative.
     
  12. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,677
    900
    I agree, but Carl Sagan was a bit alternative too with his billionssss and billionssss of stars thing. That did not diminish his legitimacy nor did Einstein's, Newton's, and Feynman's public profiles. It does raise a yellow flag, but let's see what the nerds come up with in the next year.

    I don't think anyone seriously doubts extraterrestrial life; what we are looking for the is the first proof of it.

    John
     
  13. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,165
    I don't think that's a bad thing if they are doing real science and pushing the limits of what's possible. It's doesn’t mean the conclusions are correct but I can see how it's one way to explain the finding.

    A search of the editor turns up lots of papers.
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?author=schild,r&nr_to_return=all
     
  14. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    People say this often, but I've had trouble actually finding any place where he says "billions and billions". Can you find any citations in books, articles, interviews or videos where he says this? I'm really curious, and I think that this just may be something falsely attributed to him from the Johnny Carson impersonation skits.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  15. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,165
    Correct, but he did say.

    http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/mr_x.html

    His scientific analysis is pure Sagan.
     
  16. spinnaker

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 29, 2009
    4,866
    990
    I have a question on how scientists recognize a fossil from something as tiny as bacteria.

    Is there a pattern of organisms? How are they so sure it is bacteria and not just some anomaly in the rock?
     
  17. Adjuster

    Well-Known Member

    Dec 26, 2010
    2,147
    300
    I wonder if the present welter of over you-know-what and other similar crank material will make genuine new science more difficult to be recognised in future?

    That said, I do not feel qualified to say much about the article that started this, except to say that perhaps other workers will be able to derive independent results which will lend support to it or otherwise - time will tell.
     
  18. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,677
    900
    He may not actually have said "billions and billions" in the strictest sense. I don't remember every word, and it is not important enough to try to look up. I did watch his shows on public television religiously, and he certainly referred to billions of galaxies, billions of stars in each, and untold billions of planets in various sequences and with various conjunctions and other connecting words. I find it less implausible than the existence of extraterrestrial life that at least once in his life, he said "billions and billions," perhaps while he was showering and the recorders were turned off. The term and his pronunciation of "billions" is certainly associated with him.

    John
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  19. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,677
    900
    That is a good point. You are in Pittsburgh and the science museum in Oakland has (or used to have) a wonderful exhibit in the children's section that challenged you to decide whether something was a fossil or a natural formation. That was quite difficult to do.

    More on point, chemicals can self assemble into geometric forms. DNA and peptides are just two examples. Such forms could form the nidus or framework for inorganic precipitates that would then take the same shape and be mistaken as arising from a biologic origin. In the case of such fossils as described in this report, the theories are based on finding various elements, elemental ratios, and complex chemicals that we associate with life on Earth.

    John
     
  20. magnet18

    Senior Member

    Dec 22, 2010
    1,232
    124
    Oh, I know a few.
    I really want to see how they react to it when it IS found.
     
Loading...