Searching for signs of life in other stellar systems

[jillery]

From:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/exoplanets-the-search-for-habitable-worlds-d350b0d4f0>

https://youtu.be/dnlG4lo0N60

"Scheduled for Jun 23, 2015 [4:30 EDT]
Thousands of exoplanets are known to orbit nearby stars, with further
evidence that every star in our Milky Way Galaxy has planets. Beyond
their discovery, a new era of “exoplanet characterization” is underway
with an astonishing diversity of exoplanets driving the fields of
planet formation and evolution, interior structure, atmospheric
science, and orbital dynamics to new depths. The push to find smaller
and smaller planets down to Earth size is succeeding and motivating
the next generation of space telescopes to have the capability to find
and identify planets that may have suitable conditions for life or
even signs of life by way of atmospheric biosignature gases. After
thousands of years of people wondering “Are we alone?”, we are the
first generation in human history to be able to make quantitative
progress in answering this age-old question."
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:43:58 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Tell it to Bill; he contends that planets are governed by QM
rules (they are nonexistent until observed).
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:21:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:43:58 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>From:
>>
>><https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/exoplanets-the-search-for-habitable-worlds-d350b0d4f0>
>>
>>https://youtu.be/dnlG4lo0N60
>>
>>"Scheduled for Jun 23, 2015 [4:30 EDT]
>>Thousands of exoplanets are known to orbit nearby stars, with further
>>evidence that every star in our Milky Way Galaxy has planets. Beyond
>>their discovery, a new era of “exoplanet characterization” is underway
>>with an astonishing diversity of exoplanets driving the fields of
>>planet formation and evolution, interior structure, atmospheric
>>science, and orbital dynamics to new depths. The push to find smaller
>>and smaller planets down to Earth size is succeeding and motivating
>>the next generation of space telescopes to have the capability to find
>>and identify planets that may have suitable conditions for life or
>>even signs of life by way of atmospheric biosignature gases. After
>>thousands of years of people wondering “Are we alone?”, we are the
>>first generation in human history to be able to make quantitative
>>progress in answering this age-old question."
>
>Tell it to Bill; he contends that planets are governed by QM
>rules (they are nonexistent until observed).

What evidence is there that they do?

In the same vein, what evidence is there that I exist between posts? I
am sure there is a clever pedantic name for that philosophical problem
but I am too lazy to look for it. No doubt somebody (more likely
manybodies) will tell me what it is.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:43:58 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'd be careful about those "biosignature gasses" ... the
only one that's fairly reliable would be oxygen. Methane
and ammonia CAN be created by living things, but they
are also naturally abundant. Titan has lakes of methane,
but no signs of any life. Lots of ammonia on Jupiter and
Saturn. Photochemistry can produce nitrogen di/tri-oxide
and ozone just as effectively as yer SUV engine.

The only good 'signs' are REACTIVE gasses - molecules
that can't help but reacting and disappearing in a given
environment. If all photosynthesis on earth stopped the
oxygen level would plummet to zero in a fairly short time.
It'd be like the anerobic 'good old days' again for organisms
with reductive metabolisms.

So, if we find a spectral signature for water vapor AND
oxygen it'd indicate a fair chance of life - "OUR kind"
of life anyway. Alien 'photosynthesis' might not create
free oxygen at all.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:12:51 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

Bits of them fall down on our heads every so often.

>In the same vein, what evidence is there that I exist between posts? I
>am sure there is a clever pedantic name for that philosophical problem
>but I am too lazy to look for it. No doubt somebody (more likely
>manybodies) will tell me what it is.

You could be an experimental advanced AI program for
all we know, NEVER actually existing as a "person".

Now as for our planets, if they didn't exist before the
wunnderful collective WE looked at them then they
wouldn't be there regardless. Planets create a
"gravitational history" ... affecting the orbits of other
planets. This can be backtracked. While QM can
bring the existence of a (small) thing into question
I don't think it can create both the thing AND all
the evidence of its complex history too.

Thing is, in the real world, everything is "observed".
No proton, no photon, can pop into existence without
immediately having interactions with other stuff ...
the atom that photon glances off of, perhaps the local
gravity well too, are "observing" the photon ... altering
its energy/path and being altered ... just as much as
a bit of photo film in a test apparatus.

[Bill]

Gee, Bob, no need to make stuff up. It may be that you've
been so eager to dispute my posts that you forgot to
actually read them.

Bill

[jonathan]

But even if we found plenty of distant biosignatures, and
we probably will, both are forever restricted to observing
each others past, we can't hope to communicate with them
even if they're just like us.

And the chances of that are slim to none, as the properties
of emergence mean lower forms of life can't possibly
comprehend or communicate with us, and likewise for
life above us.

We could only 'know them' like a gnat knows a windshield.

Have you seen the recent movie Interstellar? Pretty good
sci-fi about this very topic.




s

[jillery]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:15:37 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

I thought Sara Seager covered those points very well.

[jillery]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:35:04 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Nobody said anything about finding intelligent life, nevermind
communicating with it. Try to keep up.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:12:51 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:21:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:43:58 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>From:
>>>
>>><https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/exoplanets-the-search-for-habitable-worlds-d350b0d4f0>
>>>
>>>https://youtu.be/dnlG4lo0N60
>>>
>>>"Scheduled for Jun 23, 2015 [4:30 EDT]
>>>Thousands of exoplanets are known to orbit nearby stars, with further
>>>evidence that every star in our Milky Way Galaxy has planets. Beyond
>>>their discovery, a new era of “exoplanet characterization” is underway
>>>with an astonishing diversity of exoplanets driving the fields of
>>>planet formation and evolution, interior structure, atmospheric
>>>science, and orbital dynamics to new depths. The push to find smaller
>>>and smaller planets down to Earth size is succeeding and motivating
>>>the next generation of space telescopes to have the capability to find
>>>and identify planets that may have suitable conditions for life or
>>>even signs of life by way of atmospheric biosignature gases. After
>>>thousands of years of people wondering “Are we alone?”, we are the
>>>first generation in human history to be able to make quantitative
>>>progress in answering this age-old question."

>>Tell it to Bill; he contends that planets are governed by QM
>>rules (they are nonexistent until observed).

>What evidence is there that they do?

The same as the evidence that Last Thursdayism is false;
IOW, none at all. But since there cannot, by the definition
of "observe", be such evidence, the point seems moot. The
fact that the orbital parameters of Mars don't change when
we're observing Mars but not Jupiter are indicative of
Jupiter's continued existence, but hardly conclusive.

>In the same vein, what evidence is there that I exist between posts? I
>am sure there is a clever pedantic name for that philosophical problem
>but I am too lazy to look for it. No doubt somebody (more likely
>manybodies) will tell me what it is.

I don't consider it to be an actual problem at all; more of
something to discuss at 02:30 after a few (or more than a
few) beers. YMMV. ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:22:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:43:58 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>From:
>>>
>>><https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/exoplanets-the-search-for-habitable-worlds-d350b0d4f0>
>>>
>>>https://youtu.be/dnlG4lo0N60
>>>
>>>"Scheduled for Jun 23, 2015 [4:30 EDT]
>>>Thousands of exoplanets are known to orbit nearby stars,
>>>with further evidence that every star in our Milky Way
>>>Galaxy has planets. Beyond their discovery, a new era of

>>>?exoplanet characterization? is underway with an

>>>astonishing diversity of exoplanets driving the fields of
>>>planet formation and evolution, interior structure,
>>>atmospheric science, and orbital dynamics to new depths.
>>>The push to find smaller and smaller planets down to Earth
>>>size is succeeding and motivating the next generation of
>>>space telescopes to have the capability to find and
>>>identify planets that may have suitable conditions for
>>>life or even signs of life by way of atmospheric
>>>biosignature gases. After thousands of years of people

>>>wondering ?Are we alone??, we are the first generation in

>>>human history to be able to make quantitative progress in
>>>answering this age-old question."
>>
>> Tell it to Bill; he contends that planets are governed by
>> QM rules (they are nonexistent until observed).

>Gee, Bob, no need to make stuff up. It may be that you've
>been so eager to dispute my posts that you forgot to
>actually read them.

I have read them, which is why I posted that. Your
contention that the Earth is "unique", in *any* respect, is
confirmation that you reject the existence of anything you
can't directly see.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:35:04 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

....all of which is nice, and totally beside the issue of
life elsewhere; the issue was life, not intelligence.

>Have you seen the recent movie Interstellar? Pretty good
>sci-fi about this very topic.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:32:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:35:04 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
><WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>>

>>We could only 'know them' like a gnat knows a windshield.
>
>....all of which is nice, and totally beside the issue of
>life elsewhere; the issue was life, not intelligence.

Life includes the possibility of intelligence ... IQ is
a subset of life. Talk about "life" and you're also
allowed to talk about "intelligence". You like to pick
nits as a means to limit/control discussions, well,
pick THAT one.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:35:04 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, not very *effectively* anyhow .... huge time-delays
for radio/laser signals (and you'd have to hit the exact
window when the other planet USED those sorts of
communications technologies). Spaceships ... um, yea,
60,000+ years one-way. Besides, you KNOW what'd
be in our "first contact" probe ... a 10,000 megaton bomb.
The militarists would insist.

>And the chances of that are slim to none, as the properties
>of emergence mean lower forms of life can't possibly
>comprehend or communicate with us, and likewise for
>life above us.

We can't even figure out what the damned dolphins
are jabbering about ... and they're fellow mammals.

>We could only 'know them' like a gnat knows a windshield.

Only if they were drastically smarter than we were.
Otherwise it'd be the other way around. Any "smooth"
cultural interaction between humans and seriously
alien intelligences, well, let's hope THEY are very
practiced at it .....

>Have you seen the recent movie Interstellar? Pretty good
>sci-fi about this very topic.

Didn't like it that much actually .... SERIOUS
"Grandfather paradox" issues.

In the 1700s there was a semi-popular religion known
as "deism". A number of Americas founders subscribed
to it. The idea is that while there's a 'god' there's no
"personal god". Deists see anything of the IQ and
capabilities of a 'god' as being SO alien in nature that
it probably doesn't even know we exist. Trying to
contemplate that sort of a god is like a flea in Einsteins
hair trying to study relativity ... just totally, horribly,
impossibly out of its class.

An IQ of 1000 is not impossible - with some genetic
engineering and cybermimetic bioimplants anyway.
What would an IQ 1000 person think about ? What
sort of universe would they live in ? Would they even
consider todays regular humans to be 'sentient' ?
Notice them anymore than the bushes and rocks
we unthinkingly navigate around as we walk across
the lawn ?

[Bill]

I dropped the "unique" qualifier for life since so many here
are convinced that a complete absence of evidence for life
elsewhere means life must exist elsewhere. I've also noticed
that a lack of evidence is only meaningful when "proving"
the non-existence of "things" that contradict one's favorite
beliefs about what does exist.

Most of what is known about anything is directly dependent
on indirect evidence, yet treated as if the evidence has
been directly observed. We get to pick and choose when
indirect evidence is evidence and when it's not. Since the
logic is the same in every case, are the conclusions even
significant?

I reserve my enthusiasm for what I'm fairly sure is
important for genuine knowledge and remain skeptical of
everything else. Consider that most of what was sure and
certain knowledge 20 years ago is either obsolete or
irrelevant. I'm fairly sure that the same will be true 20
years from now.

Bill

[jonathan]

But without some kind of intelligent sign, there
won't be any proof of life elsewhere outside
our solar system. All the biosignatures in the
world won't prove anything at all.

[jonathan]

On 6/24/2015 1:34 AM, jillery wrote:


>
> Nobody said anything about finding intelligent life, nevermind
> communicating with it. Try to keep up.
> --

Blockhead!

[jonathan]

Dramatic license! It's still nice to see big budget
sci-fi is still kicking and not just another action
adventure movie.

To me the movie really pointed out the futility of
colonizing, that we better realize it's Earth or nothing
for humanity.

As in the movie, if they can't take all of humanity
with them, what's the point? If humanity can't make it
here, with the incredible bounty of Earth, it's absurd
to think we can make it anywhere else.

[jonathan]

~

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:56:13 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

That doesn't make sense even from you. One might argue that evidence
of intelligence is evidence of life, but not the reverse. The search
for life is independent of the search for intelligent life.

Based on your replies, it appears that you didn't actually watch the
podcast. Did you?

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:54:57 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I bet Sara Seager would just love you to tell her how to do her job.

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:05:13 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/24/2015 1:34 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Nobody said anything about finding intelligent life, nevermind
>> communicating with it. Try to keep up.
>> --
>
>
>Blockhead!

Two syllables, one from each of your working brain cells.
--

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:15:04 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>~


Yet another one of your content-free replies.
--

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/24/15 3:37 PM, Bill wrote:
>> [...]

> I dropped the "unique" qualifier for life since so many here
> are convinced that a complete absence of evidence for life
> elsewhere means life must exist elsewhere.

I have noticed that you think you are a god. In particular, you believe
that something becomes true just because you want it to be that way. A
case in point is the sentence above, which you have no evidence for, and
which you have been told many many many times is not true, and yet you
treat as true nonetheless.

Two things you need to learn (but will not) are: You are not a god, and
your belief is not true.

> Most of what is known about anything is directly dependent
> on indirect evidence,

No, not most of what is know. All of what is known. Got that? Every
last tiny bit of knowledge is indirect. Even the knowledge of whether
or not you are thirsty is indirect, depending on sense receptors and
awareness circuits which could be snafued by illness or trauma. All
that is known is known indirectly. And guess what? We still have
knowledge.

> We get to pick and choose when
> indirect evidence is evidence and when it's not.

It is all evidence. Some of it is better evidence than other. To
decide how good the evidence is, one needs to look at other evidence.
Of course, that does not apply to you, who, being a god, get to
determine whether something is good evidence or not simply by making it up.

> Since the logic is the same in every case, are the conclusions even
> significant?

I thought you had already rejected the whole concept of significance
(which is part of the statistics package). Significance only matters
for us mortals who are interested in getting stuff done. You don't need
to sully yourself with it.

> I reserve my enthusiasm for what I'm fairly sure is
> important for genuine knowledge and remain skeptical of
> everything else. Consider that most of what was sure and
> certain knowledge 20 years ago is either obsolete or
> irrelevant. I'm fairly sure that the same will be true 20
> years from now.

Whatever you want to be true will be true, I'm sure. However, the rest
of us will still need to deal with reality instead.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mmfeut$koa$1...@dont-email.me>

You do love lying about other posters and playing the drama queen,
don't you?

As I suspect even you realised (surely you can't be as stupid as you
deliberately make yourself appear, can you?), so many here are actually
convinced that a complete absence of evidence for life elsewhere *when
coupled with an almost complete absence of any ability to find them*
means the existence of life elsewhere is indeterminate.

> I've also noticed that a lack of evidence is only meaningful when
> "proving" the non-existence of "things" that contradict one's
> favorite beliefs about what does exist.

I've also noticed what a drama queen you are. Have you finished
stamping your foot yet?

> Most of what is known about anything is directly dependent
> on indirect evidence, yet treated as if the evidence has
> been directly observed. We get to pick and choose when
> indirect evidence is evidence and when it's not. Since the
> logic is the same in every case, are the conclusions even
> significant?
>
> I reserve my enthusiasm for what I'm fairly sure is
> important for genuine knowledge and remain skeptical of
> everything else. Consider that most of what was sure and
> certain knowledge 20 years ago is either obsolete or
> irrelevant. I'm fairly sure that the same will be true 20
> years from now.

Indeed. 20 years from now (or more probably, 200 years from now) we may
be in a position to say "we're pretty certain that there is enough
evidence for life out there" or "given how many places we've looked
without any success, we have concluded that it is highly unlikely that
there is any life out there".

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:37:54 -0400, the following appeared

You are, of course, entitled to continue to make such
erroneous claims regarding what others have posted. And
those others are entitled to consider you an unmitigated ass
for doing so.

HAND.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:56:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:32:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:35:04 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>><WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>We could only 'know them' like a gnat knows a windshield.
>>
>>....all of which is nice, and totally beside the issue of
>>life elsewhere; the issue was life, not intelligence.
>
>
> Life includes the possibility of intelligence ... IQ is
> a subset of life. Talk about "life" and you're also
> allowed to talk about "intelligence".

Of course. But jonathan's post (reproduced below) was about
nothing *but* intelligence, when the discussion was about
life:

[jonathan]

>But even if we found plenty of distant biosignatures, and
>we probably will, both are forever restricted to observing
>each others past, we can't hope to communicate with them
>even if they're just like us.
>
>And the chances of that are slim to none, as the properties
>of emergence mean lower forms of life can't possibly
>comprehend or communicate with us, and likewise for
>life above us.
>

>We could only 'know them' like a gnat knows a windshield.

[end]

He's correct, but noting that intelligence isn't guaranteed
was a given; as I noted, the discussion was about life, not
intelligence.

> You like to pick
> nits as a means to limit/control discussions, well,
> pick THAT one.

Wow. And all because I asked you who your post in another
thread was intended to respond to...

Or was my disagreement with you regarding the value of math
education in yet *another* thread a contributing factor?

You seem to have a rather unique idea of the meaning of
"nitpick".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:54:57 -0400, the following appeared

Not true; that's why they're known as "biosignatures".

>>> Have you seen the recent movie Interstellar? Pretty good
>>> sci-fi about this very topic.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 02:21:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:56:13 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:32:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:35:04 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>><WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>We could only 'know them' like a gnat knows a windshield.
>>>
>>>....all of which is nice, and totally beside the issue of
>>>life elsewhere; the issue was life, not intelligence.
>>
>>
>> Life includes the possibility of intelligence ... IQ is
>> a subset of life. Talk about "life" and you're also
>> allowed to talk about "intelligence". You like to pick
>> nits as a means to limit/control discussions, well,
>> pick THAT one.
>
>
>That doesn't make sense even from you. One might argue that evidence
>of intelligence is evidence of life, but not the reverse.

Probably. But possibly not; see below.

> The search
>for life is independent of the search for intelligent life.

I'd argue that the search for life is independent of the
search for intelligence, unless possible cybernetic
intelligence is classified as "life".

>Based on your replies, it appears that you didn't actually watch the
>podcast. Did you?
--

[Burkhard]

Which sort of brings us back to the issue to "trolling" - either you
truly believe that if you repeat that lie often enough, it somehow
becomes true, or you know that you are lying, which makes you a troll

[Bill]

Others, maybe even you, have argued that the lack of any
evidence for life elsewhere is not evidence that there is no
life elsewhere. Since Earth is the only place known to have
life it can't be unique because there, maybe, perhaps, could
be life elsewhere. This results in concepts like "evidence"
becoming meaningless. Anyone who pays any attention to any
of this will become an unmitigated ass since unmitigated
nonsense has become the standard version of reality.

Bill

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 02:21:13 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:56:13 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:32:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:35:04 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>><WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>We could only 'know them' like a gnat knows a windshield.
>>>
>>>....all of which is nice, and totally beside the issue of
>>>life elsewhere; the issue was life, not intelligence.
>>
>>
>> Life includes the possibility of intelligence ... IQ is
>> a subset of life. Talk about "life" and you're also
>> allowed to talk about "intelligence". You like to pick
>> nits as a means to limit/control discussions, well,
>> pick THAT one.
>
>
>That doesn't make sense even from you. One might argue that evidence
>of intelligence is evidence of life, but not the reverse. The search
>for life is independent of the search for intelligent life.

How so ? If our Mars rover encounters a Martian
in a three-piece suit in its path, is it supposed to
run him over ? :-)

Searches for life include a search for intelligent life.
Again one of those Venn diagram sort of things.

I suppose a search for intelligence need NOT include
any "life" at all though ... machine intelligences and
other non-biotic intelligences may be out there, and
in some ways might be easier to find.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:04:11 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 6/24/2015 6:53 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:35:04 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Have you seen the recent movie Interstellar? Pretty good
>>> sci-fi about this very topic.
>>
>> Didn't like it that much actually .... SERIOUS
>> "Grandfather paradox" issues.
>>
>
>
>
>Dramatic license! It's still nice to see big budget
>sci-fi is still kicking and not just another action
>adventure movie.

The shoot-em-ups ARE getting pretty old
at this point. However there are plenty of
SF movies that are not "Indiana Jones
in Space" ... they just rarely make the big
money.

Apparently there's a "five digit rule" - if the
movie is for people with three-digit IQs then
it can only make profits in the tens of millions,
but if it's for people with two-digit IQs then it
can make hundreds of millions in profit :-)

>To me the movie really pointed out the futility of
>colonizing, that we better realize it's Earth or nothing
>for humanity.

It was pretty Luddite in that respect ... something
else I didn't like about it. Earth IS gonna get used
up - sooner than we'd prefer to think - no matter
what. So it's either "out there" for us or just
another layer of fossilized bones in the mud.

>As in the movie, if they can't take all of humanity
>with them, what's the point? If humanity can't make it
>here, with the incredible bounty of Earth, it's absurd
>to think we can make it anywhere else.

Humanity COULD make it here quite nicely ... IF
there were only, say, 500 million humans. But
that mark has been vastly surpassed - and people
keep breeding as if the plagues are gonna get nine
out of ten children like in the old days.

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:12:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

...and selectively applied to boot.

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:26:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

These three searches are not mutually exclusive, but they are looking
for different things and require different strategies. Conflating
them only obfuscates the discussion.

>>Based on your replies, it appears that you didn't actually watch the
>>podcast. Did you?
--

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:37:54 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Apparently Bob thinks lying isn't a problem because he doesn't really
mean it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:32:19 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

If the entire history of Earth was compressed into a scale of a single
year, nothing even resembling a human appeared until around noon of
December 31, and technical civilization doesn't appear until the last
five seconds. It's reasonable to assume that technical intelligence
on other planets would take a similarly long time to evolve.

>>Based on your replies, it appears that you didn't actually watch the
>>podcast. Did you?

Well, did you?

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:43:55 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

Are you aware of what life was like the last time there were only that
many people in the world? Do you suppose it would be much better the
second time around?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:53:58 -0400, the following appeared

Correct; it isn't, especially given the fact that we haven't
really looked. Life elsewhere remains, as you have been told
repeatedly, an unknown.

> Since Earth is the only place known to have
>life it can't be unique because there, maybe, perhaps, could
>be life elsewhere.

Wrong *again*; Earth is not unique (other than in the
trivial sense of "we haven't found any life elsewhere
because we haven't looked elsewhere") exactly *because* we
don't know. To claim Earth is unique requires that we have
exhausted such a search with no results *or* that we have
some compelling reason to conclude that life *cannot* exist
elsewhere. Neither is true, so the Earth is not known to be
unique in that sense.

Of course, Earth *is* unique in one respect: It's the third
planet of the star known as Sol in the galaxy known as the
Milky Way; in this respect *every* planet is "unique" and
"unique" becomes meaningless.

> This results in concepts like "evidence"
>becoming meaningless. Anyone who pays any attention to any
>of this will become an unmitigated ass since unmitigated
>nonsense has become the standard version of reality.

Your continued inability to understand what's been said,
along with your cheerful acceptance of "no evidence for" as
equivalent to "evidence against", is fascinating, in its
way.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:51:06 -0400, the following appeared

"Bob"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:50:53 -0400, the following appeared

Point taken. I suspect that is "nitpicking", though...

>>>Based on your replies, it appears that you didn't actually watch the
>>>podcast. Did you?
--

[jillery]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:44:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Oops, how embarrassing! I meant Bill. My apologies.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:07:25 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:32:19 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 02:21:13 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>

>>>

>>>That doesn't make sense even from you. One might argue that evidence
>>>of intelligence is evidence of life, but not the reverse. The search
>>>for life is independent of the search for intelligent life.
>>
>> How so ? If our Mars rover encounters a Martian
>> in a three-piece suit in its path, is it supposed to
>> run him over ? :-)
>>
>> Searches for life include a search for intelligent life.
>> Again one of those Venn diagram sort of things.
>>
>> I suppose a search for intelligence need NOT include
>> any "life" at all though ... machine intelligences and
>> other non-biotic intelligences may be out there, and
>> in some ways might be easier to find.
>
>
>If the entire history of Earth was compressed into a scale of a single
>year, nothing even resembling a human appeared until around noon of
>December 31, and technical civilization doesn't appear until the last
>five seconds. It's reasonable to assume that technical intelligence
>on other planets would take a similarly long time to evolve.

Well there's the SETI problem in a nutshell - the TIMING
has to be impossibly exact. Alien entities have to be using
high-powered radio-wave transmitters exactly when WE
have the tech to receive and decode such broadcasts.
Planet 'X' could have beamed us a huge amount of info,
in, say, 1915, and we probably wouldn't have recieved
one bit of it ... or at most have put it down to 'static'.

100 years from now, we may not use radio waves anymore
or at least not broadcast them. Better tech may exist, some
new way of transmitting info or all our info may go over fiber
optics and never get sent out. Then we won't be listening
to radio broadcasts anymore and again any message
from beyond would go unheard. Some big war or plague
or global super-depression could unhinge tech-civ too,
back to homebrew crap radios again ............

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:10:59 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

THIS time we have knowledge and tech. Big difference
in the quality-o-life I'd suspect.

The big question is whether we get a handle on the population
before, or after, all the conveinient resources have been used
up. A few countries ARE experiencing a declining population,
the ones with the highest standards of living and best tech.

This has them alarmed because most national economies
are based on - DEPEND on - eternal "growth". The old Roman
empire (most empires actually) also depended on eternal
growth ... you had to conquer and hold more and more territory
so its resources could pay off yesterdays bills. Eventually
'growth' becomes unmanageable, impossible, and the whole
pyramid scheme implodes.

So, what we need are good reasons for people NOT to
over-breed, indeed to under-breed for several generations
until we get well below the one-billion mark. Some places,
well, you could probably just bribe them ... but in others
there's a whole deep cultural/religious thing involved.

So, alas, the population/consumption problem IS gonna
be solved ... the old-fashioned way. Billions are gonna
starve. Clean water will become too expensive. The
raw materials for tech will become too expensive or
simply unavailible. Wars will be fought over what
dribbles remain. Only a handful of rich 1st-world
countries will be able to cope - even if it means sifting
through their huge garbage dumps for rare materials.

[jillery]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:53:58 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

I can imagine only a few good (less bad?) ways for human population to
be reduced to half a billion. Even assuming the knowledge survives
that likely global holocaust, my impression is that number isn't
enough to support the infrastructure needed to support anything like
the current civilization.

> The big question is whether we get a handle on the population
> before, or after, all the conveinient resources have been used
> up. A few countries ARE experiencing a declining population,
> the ones with the highest standards of living and best tech.
>
> This has them alarmed because most national economies
> are based on - DEPEND on - eternal "growth". The old Roman
> empire (most empires actually) also depended on eternal
> growth ... you had to conquer and hold more and more territory
> so its resources could pay off yesterdays bills. Eventually
> 'growth' becomes unmanageable, impossible, and the whole
> pyramid scheme implodes.
>
> So, what we need are good reasons for people NOT to
> over-breed, indeed to under-breed for several generations
> until we get well below the one-billion mark. Some places,
> well, you could probably just bribe them ... but in others
> there's a whole deep cultural/religious thing involved.
>
> So, alas, the population/consumption problem IS gonna
> be solved ... the old-fashioned way. Billions are gonna
> starve. Clean water will become too expensive. The
> raw materials for tech will become too expensive or
> simply unavailible. Wars will be fought over what
> dribbles remain. Only a handful of rich 1st-world
> countries will be able to cope - even if it means sifting
> through their huge garbage dumps for rare materials.

[jillery]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:39:04 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

Ok, so you agree that the search for life is independent of the search
for intelligent life?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:53:44 -0400, the following appeared

Accepted, although unnecessary; I should have included a
";-)" since I was fairly sure it was an error (which I've
also made on occasion).

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:45:28 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

That would depend on who survived, and the circumstances of
the reduction. It could be accomplished in 4 generations
quite easily, with no holocaust and without preferential
treatment, if people were rational.

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:21:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

That's exactly what I meant by "a few ways". And how many people do
you expect can be rational about eliminating their descendants?

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:15:09 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

It's necessary for me. Unlike some people (hi Bill!) I acknowledge my
errors.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:44:04 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

No. If you search for "life" you are, by default, also
ready to find intelligent life. 'B' is a subset of 'A'.

However if you're searching for "intelligence" then
you don't limit yourself to only searching for "life"
as we understand it. Hell, wouldn't hurt to check
the internet-as-a-whole from time to time, see
if it's developed any interesting emergent properties
that might be autonomous "intelligence" :-)

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:45:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

That's actually a good point ... and I've never seen
any study into just HOW many people it takes to
make a quality civilization work. Kinda depends on
what's needed to achieve "quality" too ... a little tech
might go a long way in that direction - electricity,
med-tech, ag-tech.

The great empires of old - Babylon, Egypt, even Rome -
did not have HUGE populations. Yet the citizens lived
very well, relatively speaking. Food, water, sanitation,
education, 'culture', amusements and half-assed
doctoring too. What they lacked was scientific/tech
knowledge that'd have really given them leverage,
taking the 'relative' out of 'living well'.

So, in my OPINION, I'd say that a global population
of 500,000,000 would be enough to support several
high-quality civilizations and allow them to obtain
(and sustain) the necessary resources to keep
them going.

Now if the other 7 billion go down hard ... yes, that
does risk a new 'dark age'. However if the population
builds down smoothly, intentionally, then there would
be little to worry about.

BUT ... and this is a big but ... how the hell DO you make
an economy that does NOT depend on eternal 'growth',
that is NOT a sort of ponzi sheme ? It's a serious issue
with considerable bearing on what we're discussing and
even of relevance to todays nations. One driver of
unsustainability IS this need for constant 'growth' ... we
get too many people wanting, demanding, too much
stuff that just gobbles up availible resources like crazy.

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:56:45 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

Yes, some people enjoyed a life of relative luxury during Roman times,
but that lifestyle wasn't accessible to most people back then.

If world population was reduced to a half billion, I would expect
civilization to return to somewhat worse conditions than existed
around the turn of the first millennium; most people would spend most
of their time producing food; there would be no generally distributed
electricity, because not enough people could manufacture/maintain
electric generators; fossil fuels would be rare, likely limited to
local sources of coal; most trees would disappear within a few
generations; transportation and agriculture would revert to animal and
water power.

And I would expect a return to general feudalism and squabbling
autocracies. Of course, some people might think AOTA is a good thing.

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:40:55 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

>>Ok, so you agree that the search for life is independent of the search
>>for intelligent life?
>
>
> No. If you search for "life" you are, by default, also
> ready to find intelligent life. 'B' is a subset of 'A'.

Ok, reset. Even if B is a subset of A, that doesn't stop anyone from
searching for only A.

[jillery]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), trol...@go.com wrote:

[...]

>If you think they can not be rational about
>eliminating their descendants then it seems
>possible that they can not be rational about
>creating them either.


My impression is that most people can't be rational about eliminating
or creating their descendants. If so, that pretty much guarantees
that reducing the human population to half a billion would require one
or more "bad" methods to accomplish it, necessarily followed by X
generations, if ever, to recover from the effects.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:46:10 -0400, the following appeared

I'd say "limiting" rather than "eliminating". And the
answer, unfortunately, is "very few", since most people
aren't rational about such subjects and see no reason to
think past the end of their lives even if it means their
descendants will be subject to one of those holocausts.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:46:34 -0400, the following appeared

I try to do the same; like you, I consider it necessary in
civilized discussion.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2015-06-28 17:02:07 +0000, trol...@go.com said:

> Re: Searching for signs of life in other stellar systems
>
> jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:21:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:45:28 -0400, the following appeared

>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>

>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:53:58 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:10:59 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

> You know a short while ago I looked up the death
> penalty to see if South Carolina had it or not.
>
> Then I gradually looked up Canada, Mexico, and
> Texas on the death penalty.
>
> I am thinking I looked up the subject of murder and
> homicide about 20 years ago and found that about
> one percent of all people die of homicide and one
> percent suicide.
>
> Then I saw a page on Wikipedia showing the names
> of about 250 people executed by Texas from about
> 2000 to 2010. It also showed the people they
> had been convicted of murdering. Some of them had
> links to stories about them.
>
> What impressed me, was that all 250 or them, was
> only one 100,000th of the population of Texas.
> If you consider the people they killed in an
> unlawful manner as well it was still pretty
> small comparatively.
>
> If you compare Texas with various countries
> throughout the world, it seems relatively
> average. It has about the same population
> and land area of Afghanistan.
>
> The point. The number of people in Texas
> is huge, and the number of people in the world
> is larger.

>
> If you think they can not be rational about
> eliminating their descendants then it seems
> possible that they can not be rational about
> creating them either.

*
He: All Texas needs is more water and a better class of people.
She: Actually, that's all Hell needs!

earle
*

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 02:49:21 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:40:55 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Ok, so you agree that the search for life is independent of the search
>>>for intelligent life?
>>
>>
>> No. If you search for "life" you are, by default, also
>> ready to find intelligent life. 'B' is a subset of 'A'.
>
>
>Ok, reset. Even if B is a subset of A, that doesn't stop anyone from
>searching for only A.

It'd have to be awfully *deliberate* ... head-in-the-sand
style "exploration". "Shhh ! Weeer hunting mikrobes -
nevermind those Woles Woices" :-)

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 02:45:49 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

It's not accessible to "most people" now or ever.
"Luxury", by definition, cannot be the domain of
the majority, it's "over and above" comfort and
perks - a "one-percenter" thing. It's something
you can work towards if you find is psychologically
compelling.

As such I don't think it's relevant here. A "good" life
does not depend on yachts, private islands or hand-
made silk underwear. It's a life where you have
"enough" ... enough to usually feel satisfied, enough
money so you're not anxious about the immediate
future or little bumps in the economy, enough food,
a good-enough home, enough perks, enough access
to adequate doctors, education, and legal standing.

>If world population was reduced to a half billion, I would expect
>civilization to return to somewhat worse conditions than existed
>around the turn of the first millennium; most people would spend most
>of their time producing food; there would be no generally distributed
>electricity, because not enough people could manufacture/maintain
>electric generators; fossil fuels would be rare, likely limited to
>local sources of coal; most trees would disappear within a few
>generations; transportation and agriculture would revert to animal and
>water power.

Well here's what I was talking about, a few key differences
between "then" and "now". IGNORANCE was almost universal
"then". Technology, beyond mules and plows, just wasn't there.

A citizen of tomorrows 500m world has no more need to be
behind a mule than he does today. Technology will allow a
few percent to maximize food production and distribute it
as-needed. Actually, tomorrow-tech may require almost NO
people to be involved ... 99.9% robotic/AI ... from the plowing
and planting to the harvest and distribution. GoogleDrive-2065
will deliver to your doorstep ... if AmazonDrone-2065 doesn't
fly it in through your window first.

I also don't see much in the way if main electrical grids either.
Individual/neighborhood solar/wind/whatever plants feeding
much more efficient appliances than we have today.

Most factories will be 99.9% automated too ... from the
GoogleDrive machines scooping ore to the GoogleDrive
vehicles taking it to the smelters to the factory robots
turning it into finished products to to be GoogleDriven
to your abode.

If there's any real problem with that sort of tech-heavy
future it's not the sheer number of humans ... it's what
to DO with the humans, ANY humans. There won't be
many conventional jobs left, especially for regular Joes
with their average IQs and academic skills.

Tech/knowledge and superior large-scale organization
makes a "smaller" world work as well as any larger one
(without eroding the planet away into a barren mud-pile).
That's why 500m tomorrow would NOT be like 500m
yesterday.

>And I would expect a return to general feudalism and squabbling
>autocracies. Of course, some people might think AOTA is a good thing.

Oh, that's all been going on since forever ... it's a "people
thing" .... five, 500m or 50gigapersons, it'll be the same :-)

[jillery]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:14:55 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 02:49:21 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:40:55 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Ok, so you agree that the search for life is independent of the search
>>>>for intelligent life?
>>>
>>>
>>> No. If you search for "life" you are, by default, also
>>> ready to find intelligent life. 'B' is a subset of 'A'.
>>
>>
>>Ok, reset. Even if B is a subset of A, that doesn't stop anyone from
>>searching for only A.
>
>
> It'd have to be awfully *deliberate* ... head-in-the-sand
> style "exploration". "Shhh ! Weeer hunting mikrobes -
> nevermind those Woles Woices" :-)

Cute but incoherent. Apparently you're too busy watching cartoons to
watch the video I cited.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:43:14 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:14:55 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 02:49:21 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:40:55 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Ok, so you agree that the search for life is independent of the search
>>>>>for intelligent life?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. If you search for "life" you are, by default, also
>>>> ready to find intelligent life. 'B' is a subset of 'A'.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok, reset. Even if B is a subset of A, that doesn't stop anyone from
>>>searching for only A.
>>
>>
>> It'd have to be awfully *deliberate* ... head-in-the-sand

>> style "exploration". "Shhh ! Weeer hunting mikwobes -

>> nevermind those Woles Woices" :-)
>
>
>Cute but incoherent. Apparently you're too busy watching cartoons to
>watch the video I cited.

Videos won't save you ... hunt for "life" and you MAY
also encounter (maybe HOPE to encounter) intelligent
life along the way. :-)

I'm not sure why the distinction you're trying to draw is
so important. Will some govt agency fund "exploration
for life" but reject any request that has the word
"intelligent" in the text somewhere ???

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:36:34 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

I'm not sure why you're so determined to conflate two separate
projects requiring two separate methodologies.

[Burkhard]

Sorry for butting in. If I were a reviewer for a funding proposal that
claims to search for life and also mentions search for intelligent
life, but has a methodology that could only detect "non-intelligent"
aspects of life (say by looking for water together with signs that
biological activity changed the chemical make up of the atmosphere or
some such)I would be rather critical. Logically, they might try what you
are doing, but Gricean communication maxims show that you can be
deceitful while saying the literal truth, and this would be an example.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:48:50 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

I don't see any 'separation' ... project 'A' = project 'B'
for all intents and purposes. Now if your search for
life DOES turn up signs of intelligent life, then maybe
it's time for a Project 'C', optimized for finding out
just HOW intelligent the life may be.

[jillery]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:23:36 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

I accept you believe that. But, your beliefs notwithstanding, it's
simply incorrect.

> Now if your search for
> life DOES turn up signs of intelligent life, then maybe
> it's time for a Project 'C', optimized for finding out
> just HOW intelligent the life may be.

Once again, if our Solar System is typical, the chances of finding any
life anywhere but Earth are low enough. If the natural history of
Earth is typical, the chances of finding intelligent life elsewhere
are almost nonexistent.

As the Mars probes show, remotely distinguishing life from non-life is
hard, and the tests which attempt to do so are bulky and complicated.
Remotely distinguishing intelligence from non-intelligence is also
hard, and the tests which attempt to do are also bulky and
complicated. Also, the two use entirely different techniques and
methodologies. Given the limited resources on any practical remote
device, project planners are obliged to be selective about what they
include. You would more likely know these things if you had watched
the video I cited.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 11:47:33 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

The preliminary surveys of other solar systems suggests
that our system - and earth - ARE "atypical". We've got a
real nice deal goin' on here.

>As the Mars probes show, remotely distinguishing life from non-life is
>hard

Well ... IMHO there's something weird going on there.
They've been sending probe for decades, yet none of
them have been properly-instrumented "life detectors".
It's all topography and geology. Why IS that ? It's almost
as if they don't WANT to know.

> and the tests which attempt to do so are bulky and complicated.

Um .... ya know .... I don't think they WOULD be nowadays.

>Remotely distinguishing intelligence from non-intelligence is also
>hard

Agreed ... potentially anyhow. Truely alien life could be VERY
different in MANY aspects. Add IQ to the equation and, well,
maybe it'd be easy, maybe it'd be hard. We tend to judge IQ
by tech now ... even though our species hasn't had much
tech until just the last couple of centuries.

[jillery]

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 02:55:07 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

IIUC the surveys you mention can't suggest what you claim, because
they aren't capable of identifying Earth-size planets except those
around the closest stars.

>>As the Mars probes show, remotely distinguishing life from non-life is
>>hard
>
> Well ... IMHO there's something weird going on there.
> They've been sending probe for decades, yet none of
> them have been properly-instrumented "life detectors".
> It's all topography and geology. Why IS that ? It's almost
> as if they don't WANT to know.

Baseless assertions of conspiracies aren't persuasive.

>> and the tests which attempt to do so are bulky and complicated.
>
> Um .... ya know .... I don't think they WOULD be nowadays.
>
>>Remotely distinguishing intelligence from non-intelligence is also
>>hard
>
> Agreed ... potentially anyhow. Truely alien life could be VERY
> different in MANY aspects. Add IQ to the equation and, well,
> maybe it'd be easy, maybe it'd be hard. We tend to judge IQ
> by tech now ... even though our species hasn't had much
> tech until just the last couple of centuries.
>
>>and the tests which attempt to do are also bulky and
>>complicated. Also, the two use entirely different techniques and
>>methodologies. Given the limited resources on any practical remote
>>device, project planners are obliged to be selective about what they
>>include. You would more likely know these things if you had watched
>>the video I cited.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 04:31:12 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Inference isn't entirely invalid. Those probes are
ultra-expensive, the amount of tech we can pack
into them has become proportionally cheaper
(and smaller) over the decades. Ergo the latest
landers really *could* have carried the proper
equipment to really nail-down the "life on Mars"
question. They didn't - because somebody made
a decision, not because the capability wasn't there.

There's a stench to it ... can't say whether it's the
stench of the "Humans MUST be the only life in
the universe !" faction or the stench of the "Let's
dig-up Mars !" corporate-campaign-contributor
faction ............

[jillery]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:46:23 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

[...]

>>>>As the Mars probes show, remotely distinguishing life from non-life is
>>>>hard
>>>
>>> Well ... IMHO there's something weird going on there.
>>> They've been sending probe for decades, yet none of
>>> them have been properly-instrumented "life detectors".
>>> It's all topography and geology. Why IS that ? It's almost
>>> as if they don't WANT to know.
>>
>>
>>Baseless assertions of conspiracies aren't persuasive.
>
>
> Inference isn't entirely invalid. Those probes are
> ultra-expensive, the amount of tech we can pack
> into them has become proportionally cheaper
> (and smaller) over the decades. Ergo the latest
> landers really *could* have carried the proper
> equipment to really nail-down the "life on Mars"
> question. They didn't - because somebody made
> a decision, not because the capability wasn't there.
>
> There's a stench to it ... can't say whether it's the
> stench of the "Humans MUST be the only life in
> the universe !" faction or the stench of the "Let's
> dig-up Mars !" corporate-campaign-contributor
> faction ............

Apparently you think you know better than NASA what it takes to
remotely distinguish life from non-life. Please elaborate.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 01:14:04 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

In the Curiosity rover they finally included a couple
kinds of spectroscopes and a gas chromatograph,
although I've been unable to locate documentation
as to exactly what they *can* detect.

Alas it's "microscope" isn't very good and only has
one-megapixel resolution in B&W. 8 MP mil-spec
color camera sensors were cheap and availible before
the probe was launched. So why the crippled instrument ?

IHMO we have two factions involved ... the first is
commercial, people who want Mars to be dead so
they can dig-up the whole place for minerals. The
second would be the aerospace/scientific clique
who'd prefer as long a delay as possible - so there
can be as many expensive missions as possible -
before reaching any determination.

But I guess *money* matters would NEVER influence
any govt project ....... :-)

Oh well, just how I smell things ... I've got no deep
inside connections, just a history of overpriced
overcomplicated graft-contaminated govt contracts
to go by. At some point soon the Chinese are gonna
leapfrog over NASAs back and send a few purpose-
built life-detection probes. That'll just ruin everything :-)

[John S]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 8:46:52 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> From:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/exoplanets-the-search-for-habitable-worlds-d350b0d4f0>
>
> https://youtu.be/dnlG4lo0N60
>
> "Scheduled for Jun 23, 2015 [4:30 EDT]
> Thousands of exoplanets are known to orbit nearby stars, with further
> evidence that every star in our Milky Way Galaxy has planets. Beyond

> their discovery, a new era of "exoplanet characterization" is underway

> with an astonishing diversity of exoplanets driving the fields of
> planet formation and evolution, interior structure, atmospheric
> science, and orbital dynamics to new depths. The push to find smaller
> and smaller planets down to Earth size is succeeding and motivating
> the next generation of space telescopes to have the capability to find
> and identify planets that may have suitable conditions for life or
> even signs of life by way of atmospheric biosignature gases. After

> thousands of years of people wondering "Are we alone?", we are the

> first generation in human history to be able to make quantitative
> progress in answering this age-old question."

> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Lvv1f5Qu4

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 16:37:40 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

Perhaps you are unaware of the rather long lead time it takes in
designing everything that goes aboard a spacecraft. Perhaps you are
also unaware that people at JPL who actually do the work and run the
mission are intensely interested in finding signs of life on Mars. The
JPL website for the Curiosity Rover says explicitly "Curiosity's
mission is to determine whether the Red Planet ever was, or is,
habitable to microbial life.".

[VoiceOfReason]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 9:46:52 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> From:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/exoplanets-the-search-for-habitable-worlds-d350b0d4f0>
>
> https://youtu.be/dnlG4lo0N60
>
> "Scheduled for Jun 23, 2015 [4:30 EDT]
> Thousands of exoplanets are known to orbit nearby stars, with further
> evidence that every star in our Milky Way Galaxy has planets. Beyond
> their discovery, a new era of "exoplanet characterization" is underway
> with an astonishing diversity of exoplanets driving the fields of
> planet formation and evolution, interior structure, atmospheric
> science, and orbital dynamics to new depths. The push to find smaller
> and smaller planets down to Earth size is succeeding and motivating
> the next generation of space telescopes to have the capability to find
> and identify planets that may have suitable conditions for life or
> even signs of life by way of atmospheric biosignature gases. After
> thousands of years of people wondering "Are we alone?", we are the
> first generation in human history to be able to make quantitative
> progress in answering this age-old question."

Coming into the conversation late, I'm often puzzled by the way people hold to the Fermi paradox, that we should be seeing alien visitors stopping by on their way to a more interesting planet (or whatever...) or at least being able to see some of their old signals clogging up the airwaves. I think it's based on some massive assumptions that may not be accurate.

Starting with the hypothesis that life is inevitable given the right conditions, there are still a HELL of a lot more hurdles before getting to the point of intelligent, technologically-advanced life hot-rodding around the galaxy making a nuisance of themselves.

As others have pointed out in this thread, in a couple billion years of life on this planet, we've only been (relatively) intelligent and technologically advanced for a tiny portion of that time. Other groups of species like the dinosaurs got along just fine without advanced intelligence.

For that matter, is it really justified to think that the evolution of intelligence is inevitable, or just a rare, happy accident? Perhaps there's oodles of life all over the galaxy, but very few instances of relatively intelligent life.

Even with the intelligence thing, it's not assured that a given planet will have had the geological history we've had that gave us the fossil fuels for our technological advancement. What if we'd had no convenient Carboniferous Period to fuel us -- would we have been stuck in the technological equivalent of the Middle Ages for lack of fuel to advance the technology?

And even if, given all those things going the way of the happy accident, is it realistic to assume that interstellar travel is even possible, let alone desirable?

[jillery]

The way I understand the Fermi Paradox is that it addresses the
question of alien visitors similar to the question of time machines;
if they existed, they should already be here. Since they are not
here, that's strong evidence they don't exist. You identify above
some of the possible reasons why they might not exist.

[VoiceOfReason]

But even if they do exist, even if lots of them exist, I don't see it as at all inevitable that they would venture outside their own solar system. It could very well be that a number of civilizations more advanced than us have found that interstellar travel is either impossible or impractical.

[jillery]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason

By "don't exist", I referred to those practicing interstellar travel.
Of course that says nothing about the existence of stay-at-homes like
us. There could be civilizations around every star in every galaxy,
but if they don't travel, their existence has no direct effect on each
other.

[VoiceOfReason]

Ah ok.

[Öö Tiib]

Perhaps the sensors of instruments must be made robust.
For example exposure to more radiation and wide range of
temperatures (-100 to 70F ... -73 to 20 C) may cause some
challenges.

> IHMO we have two factions involved ... the first is
> commercial, people who want Mars to be dead so
> they can dig-up the whole place for minerals. The
> second would be the aerospace/scientific clique
> who'd prefer as long a delay as possible - so there
> can be as many expensive missions as possible -
> before reaching any determination.

Mars is far and so is not cheap to reach and so it can't
bet too profitable to use it for anything. There are likely
other, more profitable projects to spend money at.

> But I guess *money* matters would NEVER influence
> any govt project ....... :-)
>
> Oh well, just how I smell things ... I've got no deep
> inside connections, just a history of overpriced
> overcomplicated graft-contaminated govt contracts
> to go by. At some point soon the Chinese are gonna
> leapfrog over NASAs back and send a few purpose-
> built life-detection probes. That'll just ruin everything :-)

What it will ruin? Whoever explores some new part of our
solar system gains the information first. Even if actually
alive life form is found on Mars so what? It does not sound
like information that makes Mars lot more profitable place
to visit.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:14:55 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

I've got a 1 MP camera in a box somewhere around ... it
defintely pre-dates the design of any part of Curiosity. Oh,
and it's color, not B&W.

>Perhaps you are
>also unaware that people at JPL who actually do the work and run the
>mission are intensely interested in finding signs of life on Mars.

Somebody who FUNDS them all isn't.

>The
>JPL website for the Curiosity Rover says explicitly "Curiosity's
>mission is to determine whether the Red Planet ever was, or is,
>habitable to microbial life.".

And Lenin said he intended to create a 'workers utopia' ...

Frankly, that rover isn't designed to fulfill it's stated mission.
It HAS some HD cameras ... but they're for publicity shots
of the hillsides, not scientific work. Stick one of those
behind a 500X microscope if you claim to be "looking for
life".

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 17:08:58 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

This is written by somebody who obviously has never actually looked
through a 500X microscope to try to see anything interesting and,
especially, has never done what is required to prepare a sample for
analysis at 500X.

Here is a survey of the instrumentation on Curiosity Rover. The major
features involve sample collection and chemical analysis.
http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/

As to the cameras, the major camera is the Mastcam which "will be used
to study the Martian landscape, rocks, and soils; to view frost and
weather phenomena; and to support the driving and sampling operations
of the rover." The specs are at
http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/cameras/mastcam/

The secondary camera is the Hand Lens Magnifier. "Second only to the
rock hammer, the hand lens is an essential tool of human
geologists...MAHLI will provide earthbound scientists with close-up
views of the minerals, textures, and structures in martian rocks and
the surface layer of rocky debris and dust. ...MAHLI's main objective
is to help the Mars Science Laboratory science team understand the
geologic history of the landing site on Mars. MAHLI will also help
researchers select samples for further investigation."
Details (including the fact that it is a color camera) are at
http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/MAHLI/

The biological goals of the mission are clearly laid out in the
Wikipedia entry. These are chemical, not visual.
Biological
Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds
Investigate the chemical building blocks of life (carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur)
Identify features that may represent the effects of biological
processes (biosignatures and biomolecules)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)

You have a rather naive view of what goes into the project design, the
hardware design, and operation of a spacecraft. Full disclosure, my
own experience was as a staff member of JPL for the earliest Mars
Mariner system in 1961 working on the design of the CPU for that
spacecraft. It is old but I have tried to keep up with the process.

[jonathan]

On 7/5/2015 5:14 PM, RSNorman wrote:

>
> Perhaps you are unaware of the rather long lead time it takes in
> designing everything that goes aboard a spacecraft. Perhaps you are
> also unaware that people at JPL who actually do the work and run the
> mission are intensely interested in finding signs of life on Mars.

That's just not true, they deliberately designed the rovers
for an incremental exploration. The MER rovers were meant
to find water (not life), they didn't have anything that
could prove life. And MSL as you say is to search for
habitability, again not life.

Look it up! To the deep disappointment of many many
people MSL could land in the middle of a field of moss
and it has nothing that could confirm it's life.

Organic yes, habitable and so on, but unless pictures
are enough proof - which isn't proof to anyone unless
it 'walks or talks' so to speak.

The idea was the Big Discovery would have to wait for
their coveted sample return mission. This way Nasa
could milk the mystery for another 20 years.

Thing is...the sample return mission got CANCELLED.
So now, the discovery will have to wait at least
a decade or three...

TOO FUCKING BAD for the human race!

Thanks to a self-serving mission plan the discovery
if any has to skip...this generation.

That was and is UNFORGIVABLE!

I watched every rover press conference since
day one and even got to quiz the science panel.
Who btw were all geologists only, no other related
'ologists of any kind, I looked them all up.

These 'scientists' didn't even know that many concretions
on Earth are biologically mediated. I knew more about
concretions then they did.

I managed to brow-beat the Rover science head Squyres
into bringing in an outside scientist to peer review
HIS science team, and...he did. Look it up.

I also brow-beat Squyres into contacting Jack Farmer
to have at least one astrobiologist, a very noted
one to boot, involved and he did. Look it up.

I even resorted, and you're gonna love {hate} me
for this..

I faked one of the weekly Nasa rover press
releases, writing it the way I though it
should read, and released it. All of the
online space and science magazines ran with
the 'big news from Mars' without even
checking their sources first.

Oh my, they all had to print very embarrassing
retractions. Ron Baalke the Nasa press guy
at the time had to change how he released
everything. It was great!

What a sorry excuse science journalism
is these days, they'd print anything if
it was followed by a title.

That's all they do, reprint what they're
handed and say thank you, or Nasa et al
doesn't let them into the press conferences
and the journalists are out of a job.

Science journalism is pathetic.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:15:47 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

I've got one on the table across the room ... and some
microbiology education too boot.

500x-1000x really is better with an oil-immersion lens
admittedly. 400x is OK however ... blood cells appear
at a decent size and most bacteria are larger than that.
There are some cool sub-wavelength microscopy
methods nowadays though ... but that requires some
lasers. Most of it post-dates Curiosity's design stage too.

>Here is a survey of the instrumentation on Curiosity Rover. The major
>features involve sample collection and chemical analysis.
> http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/

Seen it.

They don't list what the instruments are actually designed
to detect - and what they won't. These aren't in a big
well-supplied lab after all, lots of corners had to be cut.

>As to the cameras, the major camera is the Mastcam which "will be used
>to study the Martian landscape, rocks, and soils; to view frost and
>weather phenomena; and to support the driving and sampling operations
>of the rover." The specs are at
> http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/cameras/mastcam/

The "publicity" shots .... gotta make Joe Taxpayer think
he's getting something for his money dontchaknow.

>The secondary camera is the Hand Lens Magnifier. "Second only to the
>rock hammer, the hand lens is an essential tool of human
>geologists...MAHLI will provide earthbound scientists with close-up
>views of the minerals, textures, and structures in martian rocks and
>the surface layer of rocky debris and dust. ...MAHLI's main objective
>is to help the Mars Science Laboratory science team understand the
>geologic history of the landing site on Mars. MAHLI will also help
>researchers select samples for further investigation."
>Details (including the fact that it is a color camera) are at
> http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/MAHLI/

HOW "close up" ? 400X ? Nope.

Again, it's mostly a geology tool .... and the geology data
is mostly for those who wanna dig up the planet at some
point in the future, turn it into a huge uranium or He3 mine.

>The biological goals of the mission are clearly laid out in the
>Wikipedia entry. These are chemical, not visual.
> Biological
> Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds

Kind of a LOT of those. I wonder which ONES those
instruments can, and can't, see ?

> Investigate the chemical building blocks of life (carbon,
>hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur)

Screw "building blocks" ... they're everywhere. I wanna know
if there are actual proteins, actual sugars, actual lipids ...
complex molecules, not just "3% sulfur".

> Identify features that may represent the effects of biological
>processes (biosignatures and biomolecules)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)
>
>You have a rather naive view of what goes into the project design

Yes, yes, you keep impressing us with your overwhelming
knowledge base .....

Yet you STILL think the machine is meant to "find life" ....

>the
>hardware design, and operation of a spacecraft. Full disclosure, my
>own experience was as a staff member of JPL for the earliest Mars
>Mariner system in 1961 working on the design of the CPU for that
>spacecraft. It is old but I have tried to keep up with the process.

Ah ... maybe you'd better take a refresher course on modern
chemical/molecular analysis technology. They could have
packed a *lot* more into that machine than they did - and
even more if they'd skipped the publicity-photo camera. Get
a 'Science' or 'Nature' journal and peruse the ads in the
back .... lots of seriously neat-o gadgets these days. Three
months 1961 work in three minutes ....

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:37:38 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You've hit (several) nails squarely on the head.

There's been a clear intent to stretch-out the Mars
program when, for at least 20 years, the capability
has been there for a *definitive* answer to Martian
life, past or present, in great detail. NASA/JPL
wanna stretch it out, the aerospace contractors
wanna stretch it out, some political elements
wanna stretch it out too (especially those who
get 'donations' from the aerospace contractors).

Now they've stretched it out until the BUDGET got
stretched to the breaking point ....

So, maybe it WILL have to be the Chinese who grab
all the glory/secrets.

And yes, modern science journalism is fer-shit ....
as is science TV and public science-Ed too. No
wonder we have to import so much talent from
abroad.

[jillery]

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 22:32:24 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

How many of those gadgets are capable of survivng a launch and then
operating in space? Equipment that fails in space is worse than
useless.

<http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Extreme_space/Surviving_extreme_conditions_in_space>

<http://tinyurl.com/ncmsz8z>

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 22:32:24 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>

You say you are familiar with microscopy. You are correct that 500X
really means the "high dry" objective. So what kind of specimen
preparation have you done in order to see things at that
magnification? Do you just smear dirt on a slilde and stick it under
the microscope? Have you ever tried taking you microscope sitting on
the table across from you outdoors, say on a camping trip to the
Arizona desert mountains and just scraping up samples in the dirt and
rock to see living things?

Furthermore even a 10 megapixel camera on a 500x microscope will have
a field of view of perhaps a 1.5mm x 1.5 mm. How many samples are you
going to go through before you find something of interest?

There are all sorts of nifty gadgets available in the fancy ads. Try
sending one through the temperature and vibration extremes of a space
ship launch and travel, wake it up after years of disuse, and have it
function perfectly without the attention of a service technician. And
when it breaks or malfunctions, then what do you do?

There do exist political and military pressures involved in the
planning, design, and carrying out of a space venture but nothing like
the ultra-cynical view you have.

By the way, most earthly bacteria are really much smaller than blood
cells. The resolution of a 47x objective is not really good enough to
see anything about them, certainly not enough to distinguish between
bacteria and specks. Of course bacteria stain differently from specks
but what stain are you going to take to Mars? And do you have the
opportunity to do wet lab techniques on the rover?

[Nick Roberts]

In message <i97rpa91g2tpckqnj...@4ax.com>

Another thing he's missed is the cost (in terms of mass and complexity,
not money) of ruggedising something to the standards that are necessary
to survive a rocket launch, a long journey through interplanetary
space, and then a descent onto the surface of Mars.

I use to be amazed at the expense (cash, this time) and simplicity of
military electronics. Until, that is, someone who actually built
ruggedized CPUs explained some of the problems to me, when it all
started to become clear.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:18:16 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

Kinda crude dude :-)

Besides, at 400+X the objective has to be less than
the height of the sand particles above the sample,
crunchy-scratchy ... you priced good objective
lenses recently ?

>Have you ever tried taking you microscope sitting on
>the table across from you outdoors, say on a camping trip to the
>Arizona desert mountains and just scraping up samples in the dirt and
>rock to see living things?

Nope. Not interested in hauling the heavy SOB around
and getting it dinged-up. Collect, return, view.

>Furthermore even a 10 megapixel camera on a 500x microscope will have
>a field of view of perhaps a 1.5mm x 1.5 mm. How many samples are you
>going to go through before you find something of interest?

On EARTH ? Exactly ONE. Life of some kind, or its remains,
are just *everywhere*.

>There are all sorts of nifty gadgets available in the fancy ads. Try
>sending one through the temperature and vibration extremes of a space
>ship launch and travel, wake it up after years of disuse, and have it
>function perfectly without the attention of a service technician. And
>when it breaks or malfunctions, then what do you do?

Oh I agree with you there ... if you're going to shoot anything off
on a rocket it has to be expressly designed for the rough ride.
I'm not suggesting you can buy an IR spectrophotometer from
a magazine ad and just launch it to Mars. However the various
bits that make it work CAN (usually) be re-arranged or
re-engineered a bit for the task. One of the reasons planetary
probes ain't cheap. You don't have to use last-decades tech.

>There do exist political and military pressures involved in the
>planning, design, and carrying out of a space venture but nothing like
>the ultra-cynical view you have.

I've learned that if there's any question about why or how
a govt project is done the way it is, follow the money. The
cynical view tends to be the correct view.

>By the way, most earthly bacteria are really much smaller than blood
>cells.

There's a HUGE size range.

>The resolution of a 47x objective is not really good enough to
>see anything about them,

Um ... what are you looking for ? If you just wanna see
the major details and characteristics then ordinary light
microscopy is pretty good ... been used for well over a
century for medical diagnostics and a thousand other
things. If you need to see DNA molecules, you'll need
a different kind of microscope. Hmm ... I wonder if you
can make an AFM that'd survive a rocket launch ...
... kinda delicate workings in those ...

>certainly not enough to distinguish between
>bacteria and specks.

Oh please .....

Try cleaning your lenses.

>Of course bacteria stain differently from specks
>but what stain are you going to take to Mars? And do you have the
>opportunity to do wet lab techniques on the rover?

Stains ARE nice ... but true Martian life would likely be
built mostly from 'unearthly' proteins/sugars/lipids (or
maybe have none of those at all). No such thing as
a 'generic life stain' :-)

Now LIVE Martian 'bacteria' would probably DO something
whereas mineral bits would just sit there. Dead/fossil
material could require extra equipment just to be sure.

Ya know, I think you *could* make a small SEM that'd
survive the ride, the emitter & detectors can all be
solid-state Commercial chip-making equipment could
handle it. Not "atomic resolution", but I'd hope for an
order of magnitude over light microscopy in something
the size of a cigar tube. That's enough to tell mineral
specks from something else.

Oh well, it's my opinion that everything needed to
positively confirm (almost) any kind of Martian
"bacterial" life could have been put into Curiosity
fer-sure. They didn't do it. That discredits the
"search for life" lable they've been using. IMHO
the purpose of Curiosity is to 'justify' a bunch
more robotic missions, putting lots of money
into certain pockets.

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:14:07 -0400, "Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

> Oh well, it's my opinion that everything needed to
> positively confirm (almost) any kind of Martian
> "bacterial" life could have been put into Curiosity
> fer-sure. They didn't do it. That discredits the
> "search for life" lable they've been using. IMHO
> the purpose of Curiosity is to 'justify' a bunch
> more robotic missions, putting lots of money
> into certain pockets.

<snip a seeming interminable back and forth to end with this statement
of opinion based on no credible evidence.>

I cannot deny that it is your opinion.