71–80 of 152 posts
"Images"? Really? What is happening to language? It took a photo! Imagine someone saying: "I went to Paris and imaged the Eiffel Tower".
NASA has images like that. They also have images formed after extensive post-processing, or merges of several images, or from frequencies other than light, or computer rendered from map data, or etc etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a map of mars landings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_landing#Image_map_of_Mars_... They are separated by hundreds/thousands of miles.
Devil's advocate: those are of the successful landings, it doesn't include the other Mars "landings" that were unsuccessful or unintentional. Such as Beagle 2, MPL, MCO, Deep Space 2, Mars 2, and Mars 6. Here's a full list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_M... Most of the impact sites of those objects are known except for a few. MCO's impact point is unknown and whether or not Beagle 2 hit…
And the most likely alternative is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't. If aliens exist and are able to travel to our vicinity, we're probably screwed as a species.
I love (sarcasm) how a supposedly technologically superior and enlightened species of non-earth intelligent beings would only be out to destroy or punish us, according to science fiction and a lot of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is nice with alien is that we really don't know. So the sentence above tells much more about your pessimism than about aliens.
I tend toward a similar pessimism. Hawking has said that we need only look at the history of inter-species relationships on our planet (let alone race relationships) to get a hint of what exopolitics might look like. He goes on to mention that in terms of the search for alien life, we'd do best to keep our heads low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
religions have an uncanny ability to either ignore scientific facts or bend their religion to fit with the facts. Remember that originally it was thought that the Earth was in the center of the universe because God had put it there. When the facts changed religion was eventually bent to acomodate the facts. Science changes and religion adapts.
Religious tradition and dogma changes yes, but their "holy" books can't rewrite themselves. Interestingly the bible doesn't make any comment to suggest there is no other life in the universe. In fact it does refer to extra terrestrial life; God sent "angels", literally translated "messengers", to the earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested as to why you'd assert that so confidently. Is it perhaps the more comfortable of the two possibilities?
> Is it perhaps the more comfortable of the two possibilities? The more plausible of the two (Occam's razor). Even though it's highly unlikely to stumble on a spacecraft wreckage on Mars. It is even more unlikely for this to be an alien tech. Though, I do admit, I want it to be :)
"Images"? Really? What is happening to language? It took a photo! Imagine someone saying: "I went to Paris and imaged the Eiffel Tower".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems extremely unlikely. If a few dozen planes crashed on Earth (on land), how likely do you reckon you'd be to ever run across significant debris from any of them just by randomly driving around?
If Earth were devoid of vegetation and instead uniformly rocky, running into a sliver of a downed plane might've been far more probable. Especially with volunteers scouring every taken image for anything that doesn't look like a rock.
I don't think anybody is confusing the likelihood of finding a piece of a plane due to not looking at the picture well enough. It's a question of if there would be anything in that picture to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't. If aliens exist and are able to travel to our vicinity, we're probably screwed as a species.
I love (sarcasm) how a supposedly technologically superior and enlightened species of non-earth intelligent beings would only be out to destroy or punish us, according to science fiction and a lot of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devil's advocate: those are of the successful landings, it doesn't include the other Mars "landings" that were unsuccessful or unintentional. Such as Beagle 2, MPL, MCO, Deep Space 2, Mars 2, and Mars 6. Here's a full list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_M... Most of the impact sites of those objects are known except for a few. MCO's impact point is unknown and whether or not Beagle 2 hit…
> Even so, the chances are astronomically low that Curiosity has managed to stumble upon the wreck of another spacecraft. And the most likely alternative is?