RationalDude: And how exactly do you know for certain that all these happened?

Because I interact with humanoids who existed there and now here on other dimensions beyond 3rd.

There are a lot of what looks like artificial structures on mars. One her moons, Phobos, behaves much liKe an artificial satellite.

Also, back around 1975, a Russian probe named Phobos 2 was lost shortly after it had detected and sent back photos of a moving shadow that approached it from the surface of the planet..

There has also been photographed, a ring of giant subterranean glass tubes that run around the entire planet.
Although NASA maintains that these may naturally occurring geological formations, others see it as a remnant of an advanced civilization that may have existed millions of years ago.

^^^
A picture of a monolith at Phobos, one of the moons of Mars,
and,
the last picture taken by the Russian Phobos 2 sattellite shortly before it lost transmission and presumed lost.

plaetton: There are a lot of what looks like artificial structures on mars. One her moons, Phobos, behaves much liKe an artificial satellite.

Also, back around 1975, a Russian probe named Phobos 2 was lost shortly after it had detected and sent back photos of a moving shadow that approached it from the surface of the planet..

There has also been photographed, a ring of giant subterranean glass tubes that run around the entire planet.
Although NASA maintains that these may naturally occurring geological formations, others see it as a remnant of an advanced civilization that may have existed millions of years ago.

Ofcourse without a doubt, Mars inhabitants were millions of times more advanced in science and metaphysics than we are presently, these are people who could teleport to deep space. Apart from Mars, there are other planets in the Galaxy with advance life form and they explored deep space same way we explore our solar system. The only way we can make real progress on deep space exploration is to discover renewable radiation-type fuel that can propel our aerial vehicles for years without depletion. And although our bodies survive only on oxygen we can factor how to manufacture oxygen while on the move. The good thing is that, the Mars people are us but we lost everything when we landed here and we conquered the wild beasts and dominated everything so far and adapted to the earth environment albeit with failing organs in less than a decade.

Billyonaire:

Ofcourse without a doubt, Mars inhabitants were millions of times more advanced in science and metaphysics than we are presently, these are people who could teleport to deep space. Apart from Mars, there are other planets in the Galaxy with advance life form and they explored deep space same way we explore our solar system. The only way we can make real progress on deep space exploration is to discover renewable radiation-type fuel that can propel our aerial vehicles for years without depletion. And although our bodies survive only on oxygen we can factor how to manufacture oxygen while on the move. The good thing is that, the Mars people are us but we lost everything when we landed here and we conquered the wild beasts and dominated everything so far and adapted to the earth environment albeit with failing organs in less than a decade.

My own theory differs. I believe that our ancestors DNAs were shuttled here from Mars in a specially designed space modules, where they clash-landed in the ocean just like they were intended. Then our DNAs sipped into the ocean and then evolution of man started in it's gradual from, until we eventual evolved to Homo Sapiens, but I believe we haven't finished evolving just yet. Our Martian forefathers were highly evolved and able to maximize their brain capacity/potential. Where as we only use 20% of our brain, they were able to use 80%. I believe we will not be able to conquer space like they once did until we evolved to the form we are supposed to be; Sidha Stage IV UC

No wonder Nigeria is a dumping ground for foreign religions, people rather believe fantasies, myths and legends that basic scientific facts and realities.

The fantasies of life on mars had been in existence since Galileo invented the telescope and people began viewing the red planet. All kinds of myths had been built around that fantasy. But actual scientific data suggests life could possibly not have evolved on mass. Never mind what some science journalist write to try and sell their magazines to uninformed population. Mars's gravity is too weak to retain liquid water on its surface and adequate gaseous water in atmosphere. Its atmosphere is too thin to retain essential gases. Without an atmosphere harmful radiation from the sun would destroy any organic compound formed on its surface.

Then i am still talking of mars being too small to sustain life and someone is talking about photos, which is much smaller than mars and even smaller than our own moon. Photos virtually has zero atmosphere and extremely low gravity. Even our moon is a far more favourable candidate for life than photos. If you like you can show sky scrappers on phobos, it cannot change the laws of physics and biology, life cannot survive on phobos.

Nigerian government needs to declare a state of emergency on science education, we are being left behind by the rest of the world.

Let me just provide a brief explanation how size of a planet and its surface temperature relates to its ability to support life.
As we have generally agreed, the presence of liquid water and an atmosphere among other factors are essential for life. Now water has a narrow range of temperature for remaining liquid (0 - 100'C on earth).
Now about atmosphere, the type and amount of gases an atmosphere can retain depends on its gravity which in turn depends on its size. Hydrogen is the lightest gas and it is only massive planets like jupiter, saturn and uranus that can retain Hydrogen in its atmosphere, but the hydrogen usually combine with nitrogen to form Ammonia. That is why these giant planets have a thick atmosphere containing massive ammounts of ammonia. On earth the gravity is not enough to retain hydrogen, so all hydrogen released into its atmosphere escapes into space. Same thing with the next heavier gas Helium. but with water vapour with is only 18 times heavier than hydrogen (H2O), a significant amount is retained in the atmosphere which falls down as rain under favourable conditions. On mars water vapour would not fall down as rain but escape into space. Same thing with the next heavier gases like N2 ( 28 times heavier than hydrogen), O2 (32 times heavier than hydrogen), CO2 (44 tmes heavier than hydrogen) and others. On earth these gases are retained in the atmosphere. Without an atmosphere to provide protection and essential life giving gases, life would be impossible.

I hope you people can understand why Mars cannot support life due to its size. if you cannot get it, then there is nothing more I can say, I have tried my best to educate you.

Billyonaire and co,

This isnt what we nigerians need now, we havent developed enough economically to seek this kind of knowledge; leave this path for the developed societies, and concentrate your times on fashioning practical ways by which nigeria caan come out of the economic doldrums and despondency, she finds her self.

mobuch:

Billyonaire and co,

This isnt what we nigerians need now, we havent developed enough economically to seek this kind of knowledge; leave this path for the developed societies, and concentrate your times on fashioning practical ways by which nigeria caan come out of the economic doldrums and despondency, she finds her self.

10 million likes...
Make una leave my planet matter o..

@wirinet:if life on mars is a fantasy,could u please tell us what the curiousity rover is currently doing on mars? Abi u never hear of that one?

Ranchhoddas: @wirinet:if life on mars is a fantasy,could u please tell us what the curiousity rover is currently doing on mars? Abi u never hear of that one?

what curiosity is doing on mars is readily available on the internet.

Goals and objectives

As established by the Mars Exploration Program, the main scientific goals of the MSL mission are to help determine whether Mars could ever have supported life, as well as determining the role of water, and to study the climate and geology of Mars.[11][12][12] The mission will also help prepare for human exploration.[12] To contribute to these goals, MSL has eight main scientific objectives:[16]

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)

Geological and geochemical

Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and mineralogical composition of the Martian surface and near-surface geological materials
Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and soils

Planetary process

Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) Martian atmospheric evolution processes
Determine present state, distribution, and cycling of water and carbon dioxide

Surface radiation

Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, including galactic and cosmic radiation, solar proton events and secondary neutrons

As part of its exploration, it also measured the radiation exposure in the interior of the spacecraft as it traveled to Mars, and it is continuing radiation measurements as it explores the surface of Mars. This data would be important for a future manned mission.
Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)

Even though this wikipedia articles reflect the biases of the authors, it still shows the difficulty in proving even microbial life ever existed on mars.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

wirinet:

what curiosity is doing on mars is readily available on the internet.

Goals and objectives

As established by the Mars Exploration Program, the main scientific goals of the MSL mission are to help determine whether Mars could ever have supported life, as well as determining the role of water, and to study the climate and geology of Mars.[11][12][12] The mission will also help prepare for human exploration.[12] To contribute to these goals, MSL has eight main scientific objectives:[16]



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)

Geological and geochemical

Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and mineralogical composition of the Martian surface and near-surface geological materials
Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and soils

Planetary process

Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) Martian atmospheric evolution processes
Determine present state, distribution, and cycling of water and carbon dioxide

Surface radiation

Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, including galactic and cosmic radiation, solar proton events and secondary neutrons

As part of its exploration, it also measured the radiation exposure in the interior of the spacecraft as it traveled to Mars, and it is continuing radiation measurements as it explores the surface of Mars. This data would be important for a future manned mission.
Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)

My good friend Wirinet,
I am surprised at you.
I posted links to articles on yesterday's headline news about the Mars Rover discovering soil and rock samples rich in water, as well as in phosphates (an important ingredient of organic life).
Somehow, you neither acknowledged or addressed it. You completely ignored it as if I had pulled it out of my hat.

Just over thew past year or so, The Rover has photographed what scientists and geologists have identified as ancient riverbeds, gullies, canyons and ocean floors.

You keep harping this thing that Mars is too small to hold water. I really don't know where you got that theory from , because I have never come across it, despite searching all over yesterday.

The scientific community accept that Mars once had water on it's surface , and possibly biological life eons ago .
That is the very impetus that is driving the urge to explore mars.

Think about it for a moment. This Rover is , I think the third unmanned terrestrial probe to mars. There have been many many Satellite probes From Russia, The USA and The UK.

Right now, Almost every industrial nation has one type of Mars program or another.
Why do you think that is so?

The Mars Rover was specifically built and sent to Mars to find evidence of life on Mars.

It has been noted that Mars appears to be resting on it's side , so to speak, off what is supposed to be it's original orbital bearing.
This is suggestive that it might have been knocked off it's original orbital track at some remote time, perhaps by an asteroid.
If that was the case, such an event would have caused it's atmosphere to deplete and its oceans evaporate into space.

We are curious to know what really happened to Mars, our nearest neighbor.

plaetton:
My good friend, you surpris me greatly.
I showed you a link to several news articles from yesterday's headlines about the mars rover discovering soil with abundant water content, with abundance of phosphates(a necessary ingredient for organic life), and you conveniently ignored it. This was just yesterday's news.

Ancient waterbeds, canyons, etc have photographed and analyzed, and you still calling it fantasy.
Na wa.
Mars Rover was specifically built and sent to Mars to look for evidence of life.
If you are not listening to scientists on this subject, then I wondering where you get your facts from.

I have never ever heard, have searched all over to see where it is categorically stated that mars is too small to hold water on it's surfacepl give me your referencees. I will be happy to upgrade my knowledge.
No matter the type of fantasy I may have about Mars, I cannot ignore the hard scientific and visual evidence before me.
So far, everything paints a picture of a dead planet that was once probably brimming

I have never argued that mars does not have water, what I have maintain is that mars does not have liquid water. it had always been known that mars has a large reservoir of water, but all of it is in the form of solid water (ice), all locked beneath the surface and in the polar ice caps. As soon as the ice melts to liquid, it will evaporate and escape into space. The canals and so called river beds were as a result of liquid water brought to the surface by meteor imact or massive volcanic eruptions, the water would flow only for brief periods of time until it evapourates and escape the planet. There is no hydrological cycle on mars that allows liquid water to be retained on the surface for long periods of time.

please show me where any mars rover has discovered liquid water on the surface of mars.


I remember that mars has an angle of inclination similar to earths - abour 23 degrees ( I might have to confirm this), but I am certain mars is not resting on its side. the only planet resting on its side is uranus. There is the same argument that the earth must have been knocked into its present 23.5 degrees by an asteroid impact. The earth had been impacted by many massive asteriods in the past.

The Mars Program was designed in the 70's and then most scientists were convinced on the possibility of life on mars, and so the program was biased towards looking for signs of life. but now the most important issue is to study the conditions to make a man landing possible. people like carl sagan and other planetary biologist have foreclosed the possibility of finding life on mars and are searching outside the solar system.

wirinet:

I have never argued that mars does not have water, what I have maintain is that mars does not have liquid water. it had always been known that mars has a large reservoir of water, but all of it is in the form of solid water (ice), all locked beneath the surface and in the polar ice caps. As soon as the ice melts to liquid, it will evaporate and escape into space. The canals and so called river beds were as a result of liquid water brought to the surface by meteor imact or massive volcanic eruptions, the water would flow only for brief periods of time until it evapourates and escape the planet. There is no hydrological cycle on mars that allows liquid water to be retained on the surface for long periods of time.

please show me where any mars rover has discovered liquid water on the surface of mars.

We don't disagree as to the present conditions on Mars. My point, and probably where we disagree, is that you are discounting the fact that the conditions in Mars most likely was far far different in it's past.

And that is what our obsession and curiosity with Mars is all about:
Its past.
Aside from being a concerned neighbor, we need to know if it's past are in anyone way related to us, and also our future.

If for example, Mars suffered a planet-busting catastrophic even in its past, then why should we not also worry about such an event that threatens the extinction of 7 billions souls.

So , we desperately need to know what happened to Mars.

And before you start going on about fantasies, study the Phobos, one of the moons of Mars. That moon is so odd in shape and in its motion that it has attracted a lot of interests over the years. Most unofficial sources liken it to an artificial satellite.
Follow the facts to wherever they may lead, no matter how improbable or uncomfortable it would appear.

wirinet:

I have never argued that mars does not have water, what I have maintain is that mars does not have liquid water. it had always been known that mars has a large reservoir of water, but all of it is in the form of solid water (ice), all locked beneath the surface and in the polar ice caps. As soon as the ice melts to liquid, it will evaporate and escape into space. The canals and so called river beds were as a result of liquid water brought to the surface by meteor imact or massive volcanic eruptions, the water would flow only for brief periods of time until it evapourates and escape the planet. There is no hydrological cycle on mars that allows liquid water to be retained on the surface for long periods of time.

please show me where any mars rover has discovered liquid water on the surface of mars.


I remember that mars has an angle of inclination similar to earths - abour 23 degrees ( I might have to confirm this), but I am certain mars is not resting on its side. the only planet resting on its side is uranus. There is the same argument that the earth must have been knocked into its present 21.5 degrees by an asteroid impact. The earth had been impacted by many massive asteriods in the past.

The Mars Program was designed in the 70's and then most scientists were convinced on the possibility of life on mars, and so the program was biased towards looking for signs of life. but now the most important issue is to study the conditions to make a man landing possible. people like carl sagan and other planetary biologist have foreclosed the possibility of finding life on mars and are searching outside the solar system.

I stand to be corrected.
It is indeed Uranus that is resting on it's side.

mobuch:

Billyonaire and co,

This isnt what we nigerians need now, we havent developed enough economically to seek this kind of knowledge; leave this path for the developed societies, and concentrate your times on fashioning practical ways by which nigeria caan come out of the economic doldrums and despondency, she finds her self.

Seek Ye first the Kingdom of the Gods, and all other things shall be added unto thee - Billyonaire 3:16

wirinet: Even though this wikipedia articles reflect the biases of the authors, it still shows the difficulty in proving even microbial life ever existed on mars.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

Point made but your points fail to take into consideration things like fossil record which exist on mars

Now consider this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120221-oldest-seeds-regenerated-plants-science/

Proper way to verify any life found on mars dont you think?

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Is it possible that life can exist in far different way than we know of? Say, living organisms surviving on Nitrogen instead of Oxygen and CO2?
Why i ask is because we tend to assume that for something to be called life, it has to survive based on our own conditions of survival. . . Any answers here?

Ray McBlue:


My own theory differs. I believe that our ancestors DNAs were shuttled here from Mars in a specially designed space modules, where they clash-landed in the ocean just like they were intended. Then our DNAs sipped into the ocean and then evolution of man started in it's gradual from, until we eventual evolved to Homo Sapiens, but I believe we haven't finished evolving just yet. Our Martian forefathers were highly evolved and able to maximize their brain capacity/potential. Where as we only use 20% of our brain, they were able to use 80%. I believe we will not be able to conquer space like they once did until we evolved to the form we are supposed to be; Sidha Stage IV UC

Thats a huge myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

Mr Troll: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Is it possible that life can exist in far different way than we know of? Say, living organisms surviving on Nitrogen instead of Oxygen and CO2?
Why i ask is because we tend to assume that for something to be called life, it has to survive based on our own conditions of survival. . . Any answers here?

Very interesting point of view....why must we expect the mode of survival of extraterrestrial life to model life on earth? Obviously they may survive based on their own evolutionary conditions

Consider Extremophiles for example

Extremophiles

Until very recently it was thought that life could develop only under "normal" conditions, i.e., with neutral pH (around 7), with low ionic strength (similar to that of blood plasma), at temperatures around 37°C, at normal atmospheric pressure (corresponding to altitudes up to several kilometres) and in the presence of oxygen. Obviously thses limits were basically anthropocentric and the result of considering our species as the centre of the Universe.
War against microbes

Human beings have always been at war with microbes, mainly to prevent food spoilage and diseases. This is the reason why people became obsessed with finding what would prevent microbial growth.

To preserve food we have learned to use salt (ionic strength), both high and low temperatures, pH (pickling), drying and irradiation. As a consequence we have found that although most organisms are unable to develop or remain viable in those conditions, some are exceedingly stubborn, resisting extreme conditions, or even requiring them for optimal growth.
Discovery of extremophiles

Organisms that develop and thrive under extreme conditions are known as extremophiles. Here are some important weblinks to comprehensive information about this fascinating field of research:

An introduction to Extremophiles,
An introduction to the Archaea Domain,
A popular overview,
Life in extreme environments, and
Classification of Extremophiles by Habitat and Physiology (with many links).

At the beginning of the 20th century the salt fish industry suffered a devastating economic disaster when all the salt cod was spoiled by halophiles (salt loving microbes) present in the marine salt used for its preservation.

The discovery of chemolithotrophic acidophiles (acid lovers, some of them able to grow at negative pH) in the mid-1940's explained the cause of pollution from acid mine drainage associated with the mining industry, a problem of grave environmental concern.

The discovery of hyperthermophiles (heat loving microbes) had to wait until Thomas Brock isolated some of them in the geysers and fumaroles of Yellowstone National Park in the United States during the 1960's.
The hunt for extremes

At the beginning of the 1980's, the hunt was on in microbial ecology to find the most extreme of the extremophiles. As a result we found microorganisms in oceanic black smokers that can grow at 113°C in a pressure cooker, or at temperatures below 0°C in polar ice. Others thrive at negative pH (concentrations higher than 1M sulfuric acid) in copper mines, or high pH (over 12) in soda lakes. Some live under enormous pressure at the bottom of the oceans (over 1100 bars), or are able to survive extremely high doses of radiation in nuclear power facilities. And others survive dried out in the form of viable dormant endospores for millions of years, or in rock matrices several kilometers under the surface of the Earth, etc., etc. ...
What we may learn from extremophiles

What use are extremophiles?

Although for many years they were considered a problem (halophiles and thermophiles for food conservation, acidophiles for ground water contamination), scientists became interested in finding the limits of life and the mechanisms associated with their extreme behaviour. In addition, possible technological applications are being explored for biomining, enzymology at high temperature or low moisture levels, bioremediation, etc.

Recently extremophiles have earned an important place in Astrobiology: the search for life in the universe. Indeed, the possibility that life can develop at extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, pH, high radiation or low moisture levels has increased the chances of finding life elsewhere in the universe, in systems with conditions completely different from our planet Earth.

http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/Extremophiles-04-04-01.html

dp

Mr Troll: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Is it possible that life can exist in far different way than we know of? Say, living organisms surviving on Nitrogen instead of Oxygen and CO2?
Why i ask is because we tend to assume that for something to be called life, it has to survive based on our own conditions of survival. . . Any answers here?

Good question Mr. Troll.

Listen, when I was small, I used think that the igbo race was the center of the universe and that any human being that was not Igbo, was lacking something, was incomplete.

I also used to think that anyone who did not eat Eba everyday could not survive .lol
Infact, I thought that white people had pale skins because they did not eat Eba.

My point is that it is common for humans to define life only in terms of our likeness and our own environment.
I disagree.
I am confident that there are life forms in the outer galaxies that are Silicon-based as opposed to our own Carbon-based life.

Methane gas might perform the same function as oxygen in another planet or galaxy.
In fact, there are forms of bacteria that survive on methane gas here on earth.

plaetton:

Good question Mr. Troll.

Listen, when I was small, I used think that the igbo race was the center of the universe and that any human being that was not Igbo, was lacking something, was incomplete.

I also used to think that anyone who did not eat Eba everyday could not survive .lol
Infact, I thought that white people had pale skins because they did not eat Eba.

My point is that it is common for humans to define life only in terms of our likeness and our own environment.
I disagree.
I am confident that there are life forms in the outer galaxies that are Silicon-based as opposed to our own Carbon-based life.

Methane gas might perform the same function as oxygen in another planet or galaxy.
In fact, there are forms of bacteria that survive on methane gas here on earth.

There is life in many other planets. And there are beings more advanced than us in other planets. We are not alone in the multiverse, its a very big world. I do not want to delve into 4th dimensional sightings and encounters both within and outside our immediate earth because a lot of people will dismiss it as hogwash, so I have learnt to keep things to myself. Let's wait for science to proof what we already know.

[size=18pt]Human-like Life Could Exist on Newly-discovered Planet[/size]

A newly-discovered Earth-like planet could very well contain continental features where normal human-like life could exist. Or it could be more of a water world with an ocean containing life forms similar to dolphins.

That’s according to Dr. Alan Boss, of the Carnegie Institution for Science, one of the researchers involved in discovering the new planet.

This past Monday, NASA announced that its Kepler space telescope confirmed the first planet orbiting a star in its “habitable zone,” the region where liquid water could exist on a planet’s surface.

Some scientists described this planet, known as Kepler 22B, as “Earth-like” with a star similar to our sun.

Located some 600 light-years away, Kepler 22B is about 2.4 times the radius of Earth. And while scientists don’t yet exactly know if the planet is predominantly rocky, gaseous or liquid composition, its discovery has excited scientists who now say we’re now one step closer to finding other Earth-like planets throughout the cosmos.

If it is truly made of rock, as some speculate, Dr. Boss says it might look something like our own Earth with probably a fair amount of water on it as well.


While Kepler 22B is larger than Earth, its orbit of 290 days around a sun-like star resembles that of our world. The planet’s host star belongs to the same class as our sun, called G-type, although it is slightly smaller and cooler.

Because of it star’s cooler attributes, Kepler 22B’s orbit is much closer to it in order to be habitable. Dr. Boss says, with an atmosphere similar to ours, Kepler 22B’s surface temperature would be close to 72 degrees Fahrenheit, like a “rather pleasant day on Earth, a nice spring day.”

Dr. Boss credits the 2009 launch of NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope with the discovery. He calls Kepler, “NASA’s most important mission to try to find planets around other stars.”

The Kepler mission does this by staring at a field of 150,000 stars – in the constellations of Cygnus and Lyra – and watching to see if any of those stars “blink”.

According to Dr. Boss, if the telescope finds a star blinking repetitively, it can sometimes be inferred that there is something passing in front of it, such as a planet orbiting around the star.



Boss says this dimming of the star can be hard to detect, which is why observations must be made from space rather than from an Earth observatory.

The Kepler team has identified 48 other planet candidates, which can be found in their star’s habitable zone. Further investigation needs to be done before any can actually be confirmed discoveries.

Dr. Boss joins us this weekend on the radio edition of “Science World.” He gives us an insider’s view of the remarkable discovery, as well as the search for habitable alien worlds.

I think from the answers given to my question that it is in fact not wise to dismiss the notion that life cannot exist in Mars because its conditions are not earth like. . .
Nevertheless, let us not jump the gun and start making wild assumptions. Only Billionaire has such leeway

Learning some interesting and new things here.

Mr Troll: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Is it possible that life can exist in far different way than we know of? Say, living organisms surviving on Nitrogen instead of Oxygen and CO2?
Why i ask is because we tend to assume that for something to be called life, it has to survive based on our own conditions of survival. . . Any answers here?

Mr Troll, My answer to the above question is a NO. it is not possible for life to exist is too far a way we are used to. This is mainly because the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe. Yes living organisms can use other gases for oxidation of their metabolization processes, but it must be an oxidizing gas or reducable to an oxidizing gas. Nitrogen is out of the question. other gases like Co2. even on earth anearobic bacteria breath CO2 instead of O2.

You have to have a concise definition of life to understand that it cannot deviate much from what we already know. Life is a self duplicating process capable of independent eistence. There is only one arramgement of molecules known that can achieve that feat.

Mr Troll: I think from the answers given to my question that it is in fact not wise to dismiss the notion that life cannot exist in Mars because its conditions are not earth like. . .
Nevertheless, let us not jump the gun and start making wild assumptions. Only Billionaire has such leeway

My assumptions are wild to you, I am confident that Earth became alternative to many humanoid race after the destruction of Mars. I have also no doubts that certain humanoid species existed on Earth prior to invasion and construction of the Pyramids by the martians, but all am saying is, Mars is a lost civilization caused by her advanced inhabitants. Earth can suffer same fate if we do not stop producing Nuclear Weapons and Electromagnetic weapons.

A single mistake from Psychotronic and Electromagnetic weapon will cause earthquakes, shake the earth out of range of its magnetic poles and destroy the atmospheric magnetism and let the oxygen out, if we lose oxygen, if the gas dissipates in high volume to space, we will all be dead in a few hours, and I mean, all of us on earth.

plaetton:

Good question Mr. Troll.

Listen, when I was small, I used think that the igbo race was the center of the universe and that any human being that was not Igbo, was lacking something, was incomplete.

I also used to think that anyone who did not eat Eba everyday could not survive .lol
Infact, I thought that white people had pale skins because they did not eat Eba.

My point is that it is common for humans to define life only in terms of our likeness and our own environment.
I disagree.
I am confident that there are life forms in the outer galaxies that are Silicon-based as opposed to our own Carbon-based life.

Methane gas might perform the same function as oxygen in another planet or galaxy.
In fact, there are forms of bacteria that survive on methane gas here on earth.

I have pointed out that it would be difficult for life to be based on silicon. it cannot form uncountable long chain organic compounds and definely it cannot form a long self duplicating molecule like carbon. I said if life could be silicon based then it would have been easier for life on earth to be based on silicon instead of carbon, since silicon is the second most abundant element on earth.

Yes some bacteria are known to oxidize hydrogen in methane so yes oxygen is not essential to life.

@Billionaire, like i said you are very much entitled to your facts. Don't just expect us to indulge you. Lets wait for science to discover what you already know

@Wirinet, my Nitrogen example was just that, an example. Nevertheless, aren't you making an assumption based on our limited knowledge of the universe? It seems quite presumptuous to argue that life as defined by us and as exists on planet earth should be the basically the same everywhere else in the universe. How much do we know about the universe?

Mr Troll: @Billionaire, like i said you are very much entitled to your facts. Don't just expect us to indulge you. Lets wait for science to discover what you already know

@Wirinet, my Nitrogen example was just that, an example. Nevertheless, aren't you making an assumption based on our limited knowledge of the universe? It seems quite presumptuous to argue that life as defined by us and as exists on planet earth should be the basically the same everywhere else in the universe. How much do we know about the universe?

If life defined by us is presumptuous, then how would you define life?

All the physical constants are the same throughout the universe. The mass of the electron, proton and neutron is constant, the charges of these particles are constant. the atomic weight of all the elements in the periodic table are constant. The speed light in a vacuum is constant, etc. in fact physics depends on constants. So why would the laws governing other parts of the universe be significantly different from ours.