Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Definitive Evidence" For Ancient Lake On Mars

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the nor-any-drop-to-drink dept.

Mars 102

TheSync writes "Eurekalert reports on 'definitive evidence' for an ancient water lake on Mars. A UC Boulder research team has discovered evidence of a shoreline on Mars of a 3 billion year-old lake 80 square miles in area and 1,500 feet deep (roughly the equivalent of Lake Champlain). Images came from the HiRISE instrument on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Water carved a 30-mile-long canyon that opened up into a valley and forming a large delta during a time when Mars is generally believed to have been cold and dry. The lack of additional, lower shorelines, shows that the lake dried up very quickly. Of particular interest are the deltas adjacent to the lake. On Earth, deltas rapidly bury organic carbon and other biomarkers of life, making the Martian lake bed and delta a prime target for future searches for past life on the planet."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (-1, Troll)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28390877)

This isn't news to those of us who investigate NASA cover ups of alien life. Look at this [enterprisemission.com] picture of what I call a "space shrimp".

NASA used the rock grinder on the rover to destroy this invaluable fossil!

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (2, Informative)

ammit (1485755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28390949)

403 Permission Denied You do not have permission for this request /_articles/03-08-2004/images/Crinoid%20Martian%20Fossil.jpg Yes that does look suspiciously like a shrimp....

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (2, Funny)

dtml-try MyNick (453562) | more than 5 years ago | (#28390979)

403 Permission Denied

And a thorough job they did...

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391005)

This isn't news to those of us who investigate NASA cover ups of alien life.

Errrm? Are you serious?

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (1)

Xistenz99 (1395377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391023)

FAIL: Look at this [enterprisemission.com] picture of what I call a "space shrimp".

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (3, Informative)

miowpurr (1004277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391051)

Um, no. Read this http://drydredgers.org/martian_crinoid.htm [drydredgers.org] to see the photo.

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392097)

Of course, fossils are three dimensional, so if it had been a fossil, grinding a few tenths of a millimeter into it would have revealed detail, not destroyed it.

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28395691)

***Of course, fossils are three dimensional***

Sometimes. Often remains of critters that do not have hard parts are smooshed flat and are preserved as a film.

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28393469)

From da link: "Even here in our local area many specimens are collected that "look like" something else. Sedimentary structures and broken pieces of larger fossils often look very much like other legitimate fossils."

ZOMG! That's not a crinoid fossil, that's a broken piece of a dinosaur fossil! Definitive proof of a Martian T-Rex!

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28396451)

there's a martian totem pole of some kind/fossilized medicine man? in the bottom right corner as well!

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391481)

Space shrimp? I'd rather have some space burgers instead. Damn, I'm starving

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392039)

Rofl... NASA tries everything in their power to proof life. Even the most rediculous "evidence" is brought up by NASA to indicate water and past life on mars. FAIL!

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392871)

Ignoring the large glaring errors, let's look at the practicality of the situation:
If NASA had proof of intellegent life on MArs, they would get a blank check to get there.
I is in NASAs best interest to NOT have a cover-up.
It's also in the governments best interest not to ahve a cover up.

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28394407)

While I agree it is in NASA's best interest to not have a cover up, why would it also be in the government's best interest?

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28393951)

exactly and for the same reason microsoft has been covering up stable releases of windows for years. there is a whole shadow line of secret windows releases that only the Illuminati and obama have access to. the version they sell to the sheep consumers has the disk scratched up first before shipping.

Re:NASA has been hiding life on Mars for years (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397775)

NASA used the rock grinder on the rover to destroy this invaluable fossil!

Dear World,

Please stop referring to our rovers as fossils.

Thanks,

NASA.

Counter-proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28400239)

Unfortunately, that image has been very thoroughly debunked. Look at this [google.dk] picture from which yours originated. It's rather shocking.

First or second or third post! (-1, Offtopic)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 5 years ago | (#28390891)

[Redundant comment here]

Sweet pics (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28390941)

Seriously, wouldn't it be neat if there was new evidence of water on Mars based on hi res pictures and someone would actually link to said pictures? That would be neat-o.

Don't get me wrong, Defrosting Spots Over Polygonal Ground sounds interesting and all, but...

Re:Sweet pics (5, Informative)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391055)

Seriously, wouldn't it be neat if there was new evidence of water on Mars based on hi res pictures and someone would actually link to said pictures? That would be neat-o.

Don't get me wrong, Defrosting Spots Over Polygonal Ground sounds interesting and all, but...

Here you go, on the NASA site since 2003:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/nov/HQ_03364_MGS_delta.html [nasa.gov]

Re:Sweet pics (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392099)

Here you go [nasa.gov]

Old news? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28390961)

A three billion year old lake? Geez slashdot, can't you be any quicker with your stories?

Re:Old news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391059)

But then it wouldn't be a three billion year-old lake anymore.

Re:Old news? (3, Funny)

No2Gates (239823) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391219)

Hey mom, me an Billy are going swimming. we'll be back in about 12 years, ok?

Re:Old news? (1, Flamebait)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#28393129)


God made a lake on Mars 3 billion years ago.

2,999,994,000 years later he made earth.

lolz

Can we send rovers there please? (4, Interesting)

CosmicRabbit (1505129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28390989)

So knowing how on Earth water and life are so intrinsically associated, this seems like the perfect spot to send a future rover mission. In the past we got some inconclusive results from biochemical analysis of the soil in more arid zones of the red planet. Perhaps on this spot we can be more lucky?
Also, the proof of early existence of liquid water on the planet also hints at a denser atmosphere and warmer temperatures on those times. This is very promising!

Re:Can we send rovers there please? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391247)

This is in fact one of four sites being surveyed for the next rover mission.

Re:Can we send rovers there please? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28393145)

I still think that the best spot to send a rover to would be the most hazardous of all places to do so. That is to the bottom of the deepest part of the largest and deepest canyon on the planet, the Valles Marinaris. This canyon is deeper than the Earth's Grand Canyon. It is known that the bottom of the Grand Canyon has a microclimate all its own, wetter and warmer considerably than that of the plateau surface above it. At six miles deep, consider our own planet. The atmosphere on our planet has a pressure density at six miles above it that is not much thicker than that of Mars at it's 'mean sea level'. That is why climbers of Mt Everest need oxygen to survive for long, and at 29000 feet this is thousands of feet LOWER than the elevation distance from floor to rim of the Valles Marinaris! For this reason I state that pressure density of the Martian atmosphere at the bottom of the Valles Marinaris will be more dense than any other place on that planet. Add to this that winds on the surface of the plateau above probably have limited interchange with the air on the bottom and the inescapable conclusion is that even the composition of the atmosphere on the bottom may be quite different from that outside the canyon. If there is any surface water or flowing water on the planet it will very likely be in sheltered pools on the bottom of the Valles Marinaris. If there is refugee life on this rock, that is also the most likely place. Human visitors should be warned, however, that life even here may be ravenously hungry so should take precautions. That said, this valley should also be protected from contamination from visiting spacecraft lest the bugs it finds be our own. That further said, it is possible that assuming panspermia of sorts, life here could have originated on Mars in the first place, especially seeing Earth itself underwent several episodes of global glaciation like Mars today. How do we know that during our own global glaciation that we were not a 'red planet' as well, with red dust from volcanic eruptions covering our own water ice. So their bugs may look like OUR bugs and fool at least some of our scientists for honest reasons into thinking that contamination had taken place.....somehow. Other less scrupulous 'patho-skeptik' so called 'scientists' would probably take the same position knowing the opposite to be true for more sinister reasons: "If life was found outside Earth, then religion ON Earth would maybe fail under logical testing and cause religious wars so better to deny the fact as long as plausible deniability exists....these individuals, knowing the truth, would fiercely oppose any serious Martian exploration; or "If life was found indigenous to Mars, then this would be against the 'prevailing so called wisdom or party line' that establishment scientists were supposed to follow if they wanted to keep their careers"! Either one of these kinds of so-called 'scientists', and there are probably others that I have not thought of, in great numbers or influence could and would try to set us back progresswise for many years. They have done so before, and religious of various stripes have usually been at the bottom of it.

The above post, in a readable form (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28402699)

I still think that the best spot to send a rover to would be the most hazardous of all places to do so. That is to the bottom of the deepest part of the largest and deepest canyon on the planet, the Valles Marinaris. This canyon is deeper than the Earth's Grand Canyon.

It is known that the bottom of the Grand Canyon has a microclimate all its own, wetter and warmer considerably than that of the plateau surface above it. At six miles deep, consider our own planet. The atmosphere on our planet has a pressure density at six miles above it that is not much thicker than that of Mars at its 'mean sea level'. That is why climbers of Mt Everest need oxygen to survive for long, and at 29000 feet this is thousands of feet LOWER than the elevation distance from floor to rim of the Valles Marinaris!

For this reason I state that pressure density of the Martian atmosphere at the bottom of the Valles Marinaris will be more dense than any other place on that planet. Add to this that winds on the surface of the plateau above probably have limited interchange with the air on the bottom and the inescapable conclusion is that even the composition of the atmosphere on the bottom may be quite different from that outside the canyon.

If there is any surface water or flowing water on the planet it will very likely be in sheltered pools on the bottom of the Valles Marinaris. If there is refugee life on this rock, that is also the most likely place. Human visitors should be warned, however, that life even here may be ravenously hungry so should take precautions.

That said, this valley should also be protected from contamination from visiting spacecraft lest the bugs it finds be our own. That further said, it is possible that assuming panspermia of sorts, life here could have originated on Mars in the first place, especially seeing Earth itself underwent several episodes of global glaciation like Mars today. How do we know that during our own global glaciation that we were not a 'red planet' as well, with red dust from volcanic eruptions covering our own water ice? So their bugs may look like OUR bugs and fool at least some of our scientists for honest reasons into thinking that contamination had taken place..... somehow.

Other less scrupulous 'patho-skeptik' so called 'scientists' would probably take the same position knowing the opposite to be true for more sinister reasons: "If life was found outside Earth, then religion ON Earth would maybe fail under logical testing and cause religious wars so better to deny the fact as long as plausible deniability exists.... these individuals, knowing the truth, would fiercely oppose any serious Martian exploration; or "If life was found indigenous to Mars, then this would be against the 'prevailing so called wisdom or party line' that establishment scientists were supposed to follow if they wanted to keep their careers"!

Either one of these kinds of so-called 'scientists', and there are probably others that I have not thought of, in great numbers or influence could and would try to set us back from progressing for many years. They have done so before, and religious of various stripes have usually been at the bottom of it.

Re:Can we send rovers there please? (1)

metaforest (685350) | more than 5 years ago | (#28400269)

The main problem I see with trying to find evidence of life on Mars is that it lost its Mojo so long ago. Short of bacterial fossils I do not think that much will be found.

3.5By ago, Earth had lots of single celled soup. Why would Mars be any different. It takes a long time to go from SCO(Single Celled Organisms, not a pariah to FOSS) to MCO and eventually to Vertebrates.

If anything resembling a virus or SCO is found I'd be amazed, if they find higher order life I'd suspect the sources.

$0.02.... thats all it's worth.

Definite Evidence (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391019)

How is definite evidence different from regular evidence?

Re:Definite Evidence (2, Insightful)

MadLad (1331393) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391061)

Definitive (adj.): supplying or being a final or conclusive settlement.

Which proves beyond doubt that of which it is evidential.

As opposed to ye olde ordinarey evidence which merely contributes to the probability that something is likely.

Re:Definite Evidence (2, Insightful)

davidangel (1337281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391101)

Um, why not just call it "PROOF" then?

Re:Definite Evidence (2, Insightful)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391339)

Because "proof" doesn't sound as self-important as "definitive evidence", silly! Don't you know that scientists need to use longer words and phrases than the rest of us to be taken seriously?

Re:Definite Evidence (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391559)

Hmm? Proof is stronger than definitive evidence. I doubt any scientist would say proof without a real sample of water. Scientists like to use hedge words, because they are accurate and because you know you're always partly wrong.

Re:Definite Evidence (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397331)

Why is your chicken crossing the road?

Re:Definite Evidence (1)

ID000001 (753578) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391867)

I always thought proof is the same as evident.

Re:Definite Evidence (1)

hoooocheymomma (1020927) | more than 5 years ago | (#28394079)

I think that the purported "definitive evidence" of the lake's existence would be a step toward eventual "proof" that the body of water existed.

So I think "proof" would consist of the evidence, and some accompanying logical arguments that tie it all together.

Re:Definite Evidence (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391225)

How is definite evidence different from regular evidence?

It is different from supposed evidence. Remember, we have not gotten their yet, so until someone pulls up something wet there are varying degrees of "evidence".

Lake champlain? (1)

allawalla (1030240) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391105)

is somewhere around 435 square miles, and 400 feet deep. In which way are the two alike?

Re:Lake champlain? (2, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391785)

I believe they were talking about volume, though they didn't specify.

Champlain is 30% larger than this lake by volume, but this lake is about 80% the size of Champlain by volume. Using the second figure, with a bit of hyperbole you can say "roughly equivalent". They like to do that kind of crap when describing stuff on Mars and other earth-ish sized solar and planetary satellites.

Not the most accurate description, but it gives a rough idea of volume at least.

Re:Lake champlain? (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397165)

I don't understand.
How many football fields is this?
How many Libraries of Congress fit in this lake?
Standards! We must follow standards, or how else can we communicate?!

Re:Lake champlain? (1)

ArieKremen (733795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392213)

But Martian gravity is lower. When you normalize by the accelecration due to gravity the numbers will work out.

Re:Lake champlain? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392301)

...and, more importantly, did the Mars lake have a monster [wikipedia.org] ?

Blah blah blah, wake me when they prove it. (5, Funny)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391151)

I used to get excited about all of these Mars jazz... when I was a kid; after every other Popsci mag I used to read blathered about new evidence for life/water/robots on Mars, I started getting tired of it. Years later, they're still blathering about it; frankly, I'm tired of it. Come back when you splash land a rover into a giant pool of water which is then eaten by Mars sharks, then I'll be more enthushtaotiblastic.

Re:Blah blah blah, wake me when they prove it. (5, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391495)

then I'll be more enthushtaotiblastic

Dude, you're bitching about the fact we haven't encountered Martians yet, but you're speaking their fucking language.

Gorblobberschnart, man, relax... the martians are there, "they" just don't want us to know about them. ("They" meaning various 3- and 4-letter government agencies).

Re:Blah blah blah, wake me when they prove it. (0, Redundant)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391673)

^ Quickly comrades, mod him down so on one will know the secret truth!

Re:Blah blah blah, wake me when they prove it. (2, Funny)

catbertscousin (770186) | more than 5 years ago | (#28395677)

then I'll be more enthushtaotiblastic

Dude, you're bitching about the fact we haven't encountered Martians yet, but you're speaking their fucking language.

Not only that, but he left out the second 'e'. "Enthushtaotibelastic" means excited and interested, "enthushtaotiblastic" is a form of shark sushi. Honestly, people, this is first year stuff in Kiiwohl School. Grammar matters on Mars - if he'd said that to the local Gringkel, he'd be a steaming plate of enthushtaotiblastic now.

Re:Blah blah blah, wake me when they prove it. (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391781)

Come back when you splash land a rover into a giant pool of water which is then eaten by Mars sharks

The Mars sharks eat the pool of water? Then I suppose they tell the probe "Take us with you, man, 'cause we ain't got no water left! And besides, we'll shoot you with our frickin' laser beams if you don't!"

It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391177)

For some dumb reason University of Colorado at Boulder is called CU Boulder, not UC Boulder. I just moved to Boulder and get corrected all the time by people.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391889)

For some dumb reason University of Colorado at Boulder is called CU Boulder, not UC Boulder. I just moved to Boulder and get corrected all the time by people.

It's called Colorado University, not the University of Colorado, so it would be kind of dumb to flip the acronym. That and you'd create a bit of confusion with the massive University of California system, which goes by UC.

Also, this isn't a big deal. Calm down.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

bobs2pacsvegaswirled (578500) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391933)

Actually it is the University of Colorado. Several regional schools follow the same switch in abbreviation including KU, MU, NU, and OU. Each are the "University of" their respective states.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (4, Insightful)

2short (466733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392151)

"It's called Colorado University, not the University of Colorado, so it would be kind of dumb to flip the acronym. "

Almost as dumb as correcting people about things you have no knowledge of and are, as it happens, wrong about. The University of Colorado goes by CU. Colorado State University goes by CSU. "Colorado University" doesn't go by anything, because it only exists in your head.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#28394793)

Actually, Colorado State University has not gone by CSU since mid 90's. It wants to be known as ColoState. The problem was the CSU is used by California State University.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

2short (466733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28395203)


The top Google hit for "CSU" is www.ColoState.com, but the content of that page uses "CSU" extensively (and never mentions "ColoState"), so I don't know how badly they "want" to be known as ColoState. They call themselves CSU, just like everyone else.

What's the point of "ColoState" anyway? It's not short enough compared to including the "rado".

"The problem was the CSU is used by California State University."

So they've learned from their CU brethren that the key to looking like a nationally prominent school is to deferentially proclaim your inferiority complex regarding a California school? I can see how CSU people would think that way, but really there is no such confusion. If people say "CSU" in Colorado, they are talking about Colorado State. Outside Colorado if people are talking about Colorado State, they can say the whole name; it's not going to come up enough to warrant abreviation.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398701)

The choice was made back in mid 90's. The university keeps trying to go to it, BUT, others fight it. Basically, ColoState is new coke. The top ppl push it for a marketing ploy, but just about everybody fights that. That stuff happens all the time. "Invesco field at Mile High" name replaced Mile High Stadium, and other name for it; Diaphragm stadium. Oddly, it was the employees of Invesco that pointed it out and nick named it due to the same waviness and curvature of one.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

2short (466733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28445795)

I was just responding to your statement:

"Actually, Colorado State University has not gone by CSU since mid 90's."

This is false. It has gone by CSU all along, and continues to do so, including in all marketing materials I can find.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

strikethree (811449) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408351)

"Almost as dumb as correcting people about things you have no knowledge of and are, as it happens, wrong about. The University of Colorado goes by CU. Colorado State University goes by CSU. "Colorado University" doesn't go by anything, because it only exists in your head."

I am honestly trying to be kind here. UCCS is the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. There is also a campus for Colorado University that exists in Colorado Springs. I say this as a resident of Colorado Springs.

Respectfully,

strike

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28393749)

For some dumb reason University of Colorado at Boulder is called CU Boulder, not UC Boulder. I just moved to Boulder and get corrected all the time by people.

It's called Colorado University, not the University of Colorado, so it would be kind of dumb to flip the acronym. That and you'd create a bit of confusion with the massive University of California system, which goes by UC.

Also, this isn't a big deal. Calm down.

I drive by the campus sign on Broadway in Boulder (while trying not to hit pedestrians and bicyclists that jump in front of you) everyday on my commute to/from work, it clearly states University of Colorado.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392447)

It could be worse. "CERN" is short for "European Organization for Nuclear Research". Even when you account for the French-English word order flips (the french version is "Organisation Europeenne pour la Recherche Nucleaire"), it still doesn't quite work.

This was part of a plot by Werner Heisenberg to spread uncertainty, no doubt... :p

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28393211)

Because they were originally a council, not an organization, and didn't want to give up their cool acronym.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28393243)

Probably to avoid confusion with University of California.

Re:It is CU Boulder not UC Boulder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28393649)

You must be new there. Anyone who has spent any time in Boulder can tell you the CU stands for Cuntus Unconscicous.

For real. Keep your powder dry - and remember that if your date has hit the point where she is snoring in a pool of her own vomit you should interpret that as 'NO.'

evidence of lake != lake of water (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391227)

So where is the evidence that the lake was made of water? could be any liquid really... epic fail

Re:evidence of lake != lake of water (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391663)

Back in college I used to dream of an ethanol lake. I bet heaven has one.

Re:evidence of lake != lake of water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28392709)

Sure--it's between the stripper factory and the beer volcano.

Re:evidence of lake != lake of water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28392899)

Maybe. But we do know that there's a beer volcano.

Re:evidence of lake != lake of water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391747)

Stop using epic fail.

Re:evidence of lake != lake of water (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391909)

  1. 2 Anonymous cowards walk into a bar,
  2. Anonymous Cowards tells Anonymous Coward to stop using epic fail.
  3. But by doing so, has just used it.
  4. So they both implode.
  5. PROFIT involving Natalie Portmans pair of hot grits.

/. is broke as fuck (1)

Reasoned Mind (1554009) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392105)

Anonymous Coward is dead. Long live Anonymous Cowardon.

Re:evidence of lake != lake of water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28392311)

I agree.

Using "epic fail" is indeed epic fail.

Oh shit!

Re:evidence of lake != lake of water (1)

pdxp (1213906) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392215)

It could've been ammonia, just like on the ironically-named planet Eau [wikipedia.org]

If it's definitive evidence... (2, Interesting)

HuckleCom (690630) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391297)

Why are we still putting quotes around 'definitive evidence' ?

Re:If it's definitive evidence... (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391407)

I 'don't know'.

Re:If it's definitive evidence... (2, Insightful)

Robin47 (1379745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391513)

Because it's 'alleged' definitive evidence?

Re:If it's definitive evidence... (2, Insightful)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392043)

Because it's a direct quote "from the article".

Translation to standard units (1, Informative)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391363)

"Eurekalert reports on 'definitive evidence' for an ancient water lake on Mars. A UC Boulder research team has discovered evidence of a shoreline on Mars of a 3 billion year-old lake 207 square Km in area and 457 m deep (roughly the equivalent of Lake Champlain). Images came from the HiRISE instrument on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Water carved a 48 Km-long canyon that opened up into a valley and forming a large delta during a time when Mars is generally believed to have been cold and dry. The lack of additional, lower shorelines, shows that the lake dried up very quickly. Of particular interest are the deltas adjacent to the lake. ON Earth, deltas rapidly bury organic carbon and other biomarkers of life, making the Martian lake bed and delta a prime target for future searches for past life on the planet."

Re:Translation to standard units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391435)

But kelvin-meter is not a unit of length.

Whose standard would that be? (2, Funny)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391477)

Oh, you mean, "Standard Units" for scientists or countries that don't use the imperial system.

Re:Whose standard would that be? (1)

Ractive (679038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391645)

Yes, Scientists outside Myanmar, Liberia, and the United States. Which are the only countries that do not state the metric system as their official system of measurement.

Re:Whose standard would that be? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392205)

I can't speak for Myanmar or Liberia, but its been a few decades since I've seen a scientist in the USA use the Imperial System.

Construction and the engineering to support it is still done in archaic units. Manufacturers in the USA have to build what the world will buy, which is largely metric.

Re:Whose standard would that be? (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391759)

No, these are really standard [wikipedia.org] .

scientists or countries that don't use the imperial system

Oh, you mean the whole world? The imperial system was abandoned decades ago.

Re:Whose standard would that be? (1)

feandil (873841) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391851)

which is pretty much the whole word, except for backward USA

Re:Whose standard would that be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398227)

which is pretty much the whole word, except for backward USA

When someone else in the "whole word" can get something to Mars in one piece, then maybe we'll use their units.

Re:Whose standard would that be? (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28393351)

Oh, you mean, Standard Units" for scientists or countries that don't use the imperial system.

You know, socialists.

UC Boulder (3, Informative)

bobs2pacsvegaswirled (578500) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391535)

All of the original Big-8 schools without a "state" in their names reverse their initials. Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma are CU, MU, NU, and OU respectively. There is no UC Boulder. It is CU Boulder.

Re:UC Boulder (1)

bobs2pacsvegaswirled (578500) | more than 5 years ago | (#28391553)

forgot the University of Kansas: KU.

Re:UC Boulder (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28391703)

And UC Berkeley reverses it twice, for extra effect.

Re:UC Boulder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28393301)

University of Michigan is U of M not MU. University of Texas is UT not TU (except in College Station TX).

How do they know ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392265)

... its a shoreline? By the old boat launches and bait shops?

UC Boulder is CU Boulder (1)

caveratpaul (1344881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392649)

Just a note that the University of Colorado at Boulder is abbreviated as CU not UC.

Re:UC Boulder is CU Boulder (1)

pluther (647209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28394809)

Why? Was the founder dyslexic?

Funny; at this point, I would rather NOT find life (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#28392867)

there. The reason is because Mars CAN be terriformed by plummitting a a few ammonia based asteroids from further out as well as a couple of ice based asteroids. It obviously would not occur overnight, but, once vasmir occurs, I would not be surprised to see us sending exploratory missions to locate resources on these asteroids. BUT, once life is discovered there, the west will not proceed with that (though I suspect more than a few other countries would push for it regardless of the life).

Why isn't there erosion over 3 billion years? (1)

fullgandoo (1188759) | more than 5 years ago | (#28393387)

There is some atmosphere on Mars and 3 billion years is a long time. Shouldn't all signs of an ancient shoreline have eroded by now? What am I missing here?

mod do3n (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28393807)

of rEality. Keep [goat.cx]

there was life on mars (1)

ldcroberts (747178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28395081)

Way too long ago to matter tho. Initially they sent a rover to earth and found no life here then, and that it was uninhabitable for them, so they went off to another planet far far away. The rover they sent here contained bacteria from their planet, some of which adapted and became the first forms of life here - thus we are all descended from martians. Not many of them left to go to this new planet - many of them didn't believe the planet was going to end, and the birthrates dropped there so the population dwindled. The remaining few battled among themselves to make it onto the escape ship but even then they didn't believe that birthrates would be any better. The trip to the new planet was so long that the only chance of success involved breeding during the journey, so those left behind never knew whether it succeeded or not. Once they got to the new planet, it wasn't habitable enough for them, it was close, but within 5-10 years they all perished of stress and fatigue. Many bacteria were successful on their new planet and changed the course of history there - killing off whole species and creating new species. In the same way that the later invasion of earth from an extra solar planet killed off the dinosaurs here. The neanderthals were alien to earth, and when they arrived they changed the course of primate evolution here - allowing humans to rise, but ultimately couldn't adapt to this environment. I'm sure I could make up more stuff but at the end of the day does it really matter?

Infinite loop (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28396943)

Define "Definitive".

Liquid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398593)

Why is this definitively water? Wouldn't any flowing liquid leave a similar deposit? Would a molten sulphur (or something) flow do the same?

Could be any liquid. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28437865)

You know, like methane, or anything that is liquid at those temperatures.

But is *absolutely MUST be water*!!!!1!!11one, mustn't it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?