Europan Life In Doubt 327
ceejayoz writes "A newly discovered gas cloud around Jupiter, created by ion radiation hitting the surface of Europa, has cast doubt on possible life on the moon. Google News has more ..."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Europan Life In Doubt
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand
gas hrm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:gas hrm (Score:5, Informative)
They are indeed called moons, in addition to natural satellites. Our moon is usually referred to as the Moon, or Luna. Both proper nouns and capitalized as such.
There are similar parallels with the Sun and the Earth. A star can be called a sun, but ours is the Sun, or Sol. You can call dirt "earth", but the giant ball of it we're on is the Earth, or Terra.
All three have numerous names in all sorts of languages, but those are the ones used most commonly in English-speaking nations.
Consider yourself corrected.
Re:gas hrm (Score:2)
Europe (Score:5, Funny)
I guess I should probably get some sleep
Re:Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:2, Funny)
This isn't a really big thing though, it's not like a lot of people believed in Europan life in the first place.
doh! (Score:2)
Your misspelling of the word "Intelligence" makes for quite a funny posting.
Re:doh! (Score:2)
Re:Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, I read it as that too. And I was thinking : Dang! Just when I was about to move to Europe [slashdot.org]!
Radiation the reason... (Score:4, Informative)
"They conclude that the gas cloud both generates and attracts charged radiation particles and thus helps to maintain Jupiter's magnetosphere - the region influenced by the planet's magnetic field."
As for the Google news link which doesn't work, try this [google.com]
Re:Radiation the reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAX (I Am Not A Xenobiologist), but offhand I cannot really think why this should be so. So Jupiter's magnetic field knocks the sh*t out of the Europan ice crust and creates a vapour trail all along the Europan orbit, big deal.
Remember, Europa is one big Arctic Ocean, a frozen crust of water ice swimming on an ocean of unknown depth. I believe nobody ever intended to look for life on the ice-crusted, irradiated, cold surface of the planet, but rather on the ocean floor, where volcanic vents could sustain life just as they do on Earth [botos.com]. Down there, what little radiation gets through all that water may be even speeding up evolution with its mutagenic effect.
Indeed, the warmth generated by the irradiation of the surface may be great enough to create a heat gradient between the Jupiter side and the dark side of Europa, which in turn may help sustain life.
Re:Radiation the reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Europe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:2)
Actually Bush has known for ages where the button is but only recently has he worked out how to use it.
Luckily, he didn't use trial and error to figure it out.
Re:Europe (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:2, Funny)
A German doctor says, "That's nothing, we can take a brain out of one person, put it in another and have him preparing for war in four weeks."
The American doctor, not to be outdone, says, "You guys are way behind, we just took a man with no brain out of Texas, put him in the White House, and now half the country is looking for work, and the other half preparing for war."
Re:Europe (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Did anyone else think "American reading skills in doubt?"
Re: Reading skills (Score:2)
So I became a bit concerned about the talk of gas clouds, as in "Whatever is Saddam Hussein up to now?" Great was my relief to discover this had to do with the Jovian satellite instead. (Never mind some other small clues)
Perhaps I have been reading too much news recently.
Re:Europe (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:2)
However I was at www.cnn.com and reading about the France and Germany dealing with the war on Iraq. Perhaps its word association since I was still sub-consciously thinking about Europe. Their is a whole theory about this in the field of psychology that state your brain interprets things largely on your thoughts and feelings. It's the only way a human brain can make sense of what it see's. Perhaps you were also thinking about Europe or about the war with Iraq either consciously or sub consciously when you read the headline. I do wonder about those who see think a slashdot article has something to do with sexual content before they re-read it.
Re:Europe (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw this on Mr. Wizard once: He held up a card that said "Dog is Man's Best Fiend."
Some of you probably read that wrong; read it again to be sure.
You're used to seeing/hearing/saying "Dog is Man's Best Friend" that your brain may have assumed that was on the screen.
Your brain is wired to skip over mistakes like that... it helps you parse the sentence more efficiently!
Re:Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Your brain is wired to skip over mistakes like that... it helps you parse the sentence more efficiently!
Were you trying to say that "Dogs in the ass are a nice treat?" 'cause that's what I read....
Er, ok. yeah.
Re:Europe (Score:2)
At the time, I grabbed two bumper stickers and clipped them so that the composite sticker read "Wisconsin: You're among Fiends."
Only one driver caught it, and he was laughing too hard to drive when the light turned green.
Re:Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Europe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Europe (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't want another dangerous tiny, poor State sitting next to our alliies. In this case, it's Israel. Secondly, we want to slowly erode the powerbase of the Governments of the region, by demonstrating the benefits of social and economic freedoms that are often used as the core principles of the U.S. Thirdly, the business in Iraq was left half-assed because Bush senior caved to the U.N.'s whining, and refused to depose Saddam. We now have a perfectly good initiative in the population to toss Saddam and his regime out on their ear, and give them a good ol' fashioned hangin'. They've pushed the U.S. for more than a decade, and we finally have the political power to push him back. Those that oppose a war are a fairly small minority of the wing of the left that are generally NONE_TOO_BRIGHT. Post-Saddam Iraq is only going to be a better place. You have to be a pretty decently detached ding-dong to spout pacifist drivel and ignore the actual benefits to the people long-suffering under the current administration of Iraq.
Re:Europe (Score:2)
Re:Europe (Score:2)
Re:Europe (Score:2)
Yes, I read it that way, as well. It made sense, too. It confirmed what I'd suspected for a long time.
Not remarkable... (Score:5, Insightful)
We have bacteria which are capable of living in heavy radiation zones here on Earth after all.
Jim
Re:Not remarkable...as usual (Score:2)
Re:Not remarkable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if the radiation is strong, no one expects to find life on the surface. Life is likely to be found underneath the ice crust. The ice is believed to be tens of kilometers thick. Radiation level under the ice is likely to have no relation what so ever to the radiation level on the surface.
water cockroaches Re:Not remarkable... (Score:5, Funny)
And will someone tell the crickets that there are no female crickets inside my house.
Maybe I should persuade a lizard to live indoors.
Has Timothy been smoking crack ? (Score:2)
Because there is no relevance at all between this news article and the likelihood of life on Europa. For heavens sake Timothy, please read it next time !
So what you're saying is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, though, read the article. Google News's links basically repeat the New Scientist article's content without giving -any- analysis of why this means no life is possible. Heck, if there can be superconductors at that temperature, why not superaliens?
Ah darn (Score:3, Funny)
Well Fiddlesticks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Greek Humour (Score:5, Funny)
God damn it! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:God damn it! (Score:2)
(did I use the ; correctly?
Does It Get That Deep? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does It Get That Deep? (Score:2, Interesting)
the absorption spectrum of water is due to excitation of low energy vibrational states in the water molecule.
gamma radiation isn't stopped in the same way...
low energy gamma-radiation can ionize the molecules, higher energy radiation won't be stoppped as easily and will be able to penetrate deeply.
so you're right, but the reasoning is off
Re:Does It Get That Deep? (Score:2)
From what I know Europa got a 3 to 4 kilometers deep ice crust surroundng itself, which I would imagine take the brunt of the radiation.
Re:Does It Get That Deep? (Score:5, Informative)
low energy gamma-radiation can ionize the molecules, higher energy radiation won't be stoppped as easily and will be able to penetrate deeply."
In Catergory III and IV industrial irradiation facilities (water-shielded), 30 feet of water is sufficient to absorb all of the gamma rays emitted by cobalt-60 or cesium-137. In "swimming pool" style nuclear reactors, 40 feet of water absorbs all of the stray gammas and x-rays. On Europa, the ice is something like 100 *miles* thick. That'll stop even very-high energy cosmic radiation, protecting the liquid water layer where Europan life is thought to be, if it exists at all.
Link to Article (Score:5, Informative)
Article [upi.com]
And if you like Nebraska a lot (I don't care one way or the other) here's an article about it in the Omaha newspaper.
Omaha [omaha.com]
2001 (Score:2)
It could be possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Any life would not be on the surface! (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, the ionizing radiation has been known about for years [cnn.com] and is one of the major reasons why scientists thought there might be life!
Huygens (Score:5, Insightful)
> Cassini is on course to arrive at Saturn in July 2004, when it will deploy a smaller spacecraft called Huygens to study that planet.
No! Huygens [esa.int] will not be studying "that planet". It will land on Titan, a moon.
Re:Huygens (Score:3, Funny)
No! Huygens [esa.int] will not be studying "that planet". It will land on Titan, a moon.
If those bastards at NASA bring that thing back after it lands on titan, I'll rip their guts out. Ain't no slug riding on *my* back!
bad time to watch Star Trek (Score:3, Funny)
Why do we think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do we think... (Score:2)
This is where science seperates itself froma beleive or faith. Science has no evidence what so ever that life can exist in those conditions, in fact, it has evidence that it can not (put any known life in that situation and it dies). Thus science will say that "life can not exist". But that does not mean it is correct. I would even go so far as to say the most interesting problems/discoveries in history has been when science says "can not" and someone goes "bullshit" and proves it wrong (I know as a researcher that would always be my hope of doing that someday).
To use the religious analogy: there is no evidence that a christian God exists therefore nothing I do/say should depend on it. Good science (question everything) is done this way (along with other things). Personal beleive: God exists and decides what we do/do not know and nearly everything about our lives. The two do not cancel each other.
I would strongly guess that this is what nearly all the people involved beleive - evidence shows that life will not exist there. But they can greatly beleive that life does though, and continue looking (while some decry the wasted resources on looking for something that does not exist).
off topic: I have always wondered how would one cook one of the animals (seen crabs on tv) that live near the volcanic outputs?
Re:Why do we think... (Score:2)
I assume you mean that the evidence we have is that has evolved on Earth cannot exist there. But science can't extrapolate from that that NO life can exist there. And that is the problem that mainstream science has - that it is not willing to accept the POSSIBILITY of things outside what we have evidence for, ie that if something was not been witnessed before that it cannot exist. This view assumes that all of reality is mostly the same as what has been noted so far, but misses the point that what has been noted so far is only a very small, insignificant slice of what actually exists.
Another problem science has, which is especially evident when dealing with life itself, is that it refuses to investigate PURPOSE. Any attempt to add purpose to a discussion with a scientists results in being told that we are now talking about religion. And I agree - we ARE talking about religion, but that doesn't mean we are not also still talking about science. Without understanding purpose, science will only be able to descibe very limited features of our universe.
But I think there is hope in quantum mechanics, and other theories such as the 'holographic theory' (search on google).
But I'm wandering too far off-topic...
Re:Why do we think... (Score:2, Insightful)
That argument is completely wrong, any life will die if placed in an unsuitable environment.
A naked human will die rapidly in the Arctic, does that prove polar bears can't exist? A human will die rapidly underwater, does that prove fish can't exist?
off topic: I have always wondered how would one cook one of the animals (seen crabs on tv) that live near the volcanic outputs?
<g> a pottery kiln should do it, failing that a blast furnace? On second thoughts, maybe best served cold?
Re:Why do we think... (Score:2)
They're not saying its unsuitable for any life...they're just saying it's less suitable than they thought. And they're right. Chances of life are most definitely decreased due to Europa getting more more radiation than previously thought.
Since radiation has the ability to mess up molecular bonds, that means that some possible forms of life cannot happen.
But like you, scientists admit they have no clue what other life forms may be like. Thus chances of finding life of Europa simply have less chance, but not zero chance.
Re:Why do we think... (Score:2)
I don't see why "cryogenic temperatures and infinitesimal pressure with a rain of ionizing radiation" is any less hospitable than simply "cryogenic temperatures and infinitesimal pressure". Indeed, without an atmosphere and (I believe) a noticeable magnetic field, wouldn't we expect the surface to have been bathed in cosmic radiation anyway? Life on Europa, if it exists, is going to exist near oceanic thermal vents, safe behind a nice thick shield of ice. Surface radiation is irrelevant.
Re:Why do we think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Certainly they weren't present when life began in the rocky soup of the Earth, billions of years ago. When life began on the earth, the atmosphere was mostly hydrogen-rich gases, like methane, ammonia, and water vapor.
IIRC my science, gaseous oxygen is in many ways anethema to life... it's caustic. The only reason we breathe it is because the earliest forms of life gave off oxygen as a waste gas! As a result, the atmosphere became loaded with oxygen, so the animals that attempted to move on land had to adapt or die.
(The first two paragraphs are information from the second episode of Cosmos (now available on DVD!), One Voice In The Cosmic Fugue. The last paragraph is partially from that, and partially me dimly remembering an SF story with aliens who were revolted at humans breathing oxygen.)
Finally, let me say that astronomers are for the most part really really smart folks. Dare I say it, brainy eggheads. They are
- entirely well-researched and current on the science of the beginnings of life, and
- plenty smart enough to cover their asses with "maybes" and "it's possible" when they don't know for sure.
I didn't see the article where they claim this cast doubt on the existance of life on Europa... the New Scientist article didn't address it, and the Google link in the original article didn't work for me. But I bet what the astronomers said was accurate to the best of our current scientific knowledge.Re:Why do we think... (Score:2)
Division by Zero. (Score:5, Insightful)
They all fall victim to anthromorphism. We know of one place where life (or intelligence) exists, Earth. If we take Earth out of the equation, like we should as good,unbiased scientists, all we have evidence of a cold, harsh, sterile universe with no life in it. Occam's razor says that our conclusion should be that it's unlikely life could exist at all.
So really, the presence or absence of harsh ionizing radiation on the surface of Europa doesn't affect the chances of anything. Anyway, I'm willing to contribute some tax dollars to finding more info. (ideally in the form of incentives to private enterprise).
Re:Division by Zero. (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody expects intelligent alien life to be humanoid (although the observation of convergent evolution on Earth implies that it will be a likelier shape than, say, sentient avians). However, what we know of physics, astronomy and the observed rules of evolution tells us that in this universe, places where life-like molecular mechanisms can evolve at least to the single-celled (or equivalent) stage should be relatively abundant.
Mars and Europa are such places, that's why we should look there. Although I am baffled why you should mention corporate funding. How should any (probably microscopic) life-form likely to be found in the Sol system be suitable for commercialization? Corporations do look at the bottom line, you know.
Maybe we can create a "space-bubble" mass hysteria, just like the "dot-com bubble"... they'll throw billions after anything space-related!
Re: Division by Zero. (Score:5, Insightful)
> They all fall victim to anthromorphism. We know of one place where life (or intelligence) exists, Earth. If we take Earth out of the equation, like we should as good,unbiased scientists, all we have evidence of a cold, harsh, sterile universe with no life in it.
No, because the most general assumption that scientists make is, "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'll assume nature works elsewhere the same way it does here." Life here is an exercise in chemistry, and we see no reason to think chemistry isn't universal. Thus scientists are perfectly willing to accept the idea that the universe may be filled with life. (The logic is almost exactly the opposite of what you espouse. With only one data point, you take that datum as the tentative norm rather than discarding it as an outlier.)
> Occam's razor says that our conclusion should be that it's unlikely life could exist at all.
Ah, no, it doesn't say anything of the sort. The razor is advice against adding "pork barrel" riders to your explanations of what you observe in nature.
The magic of mirrors (Score:5, Insightful)
True enough. However, this only applies if the observer and the observed are distinct from each other (such as drawing colored balls from a hat). When the observer observes himself (or when he observes a phenomenon that is a pre-requisite for his own existence), the rules are different.
For example, if the observer draws one ball from the hat, and it's white, it is indeed a reasonable assumption (from that single datapoint...) to think that all balls are white.
However, if the observer plays russian roulette, and survives, it is not a reasonable assumption for him to think that all chambers are empty. Think about it: there is only one possible observation that the observer can make (because in the other case he would not longer be around to conclude anything at all...). Thus, if there is only one possible observable outcome, the observation doesn't supply any information at all, hence no conclusion can be drawn that couldn't already be drawn before the experiment.
Or for a less dangerous experiment: just stand in front of a mirror. Now watch your eyes. Notice anything strange?
Yes, your eyes appear to always look straight at the mirror. It's almost as if eyes were sth magical when looked at using a mirror. The explanation of the phenomenon is easy: in reality your eyes do stray from their observed position, however while they do so you obviously don't notice (because at that time you're looking at something else...), hence the only observations that you can make are those were you look straight at the mirror. You get a distorted view from reality, because all differing observations are automatically discarded due to the way the experiment is set up...
For all we know, life could be an extremely unlikely occurrance, but for obvious reasons we aren't able to observe the dud cases (a complete universe with not even one occurrance of life)
Or said more prosaically: if life did not exist, we wouldn't be around to discuss it.
Re: Division by Zero. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Division by Zero. (Score:2)
Does it? People seem to have a very poor grasp of both the actual razor and its usage. It's used for explanations that employ explanatory entities: not simply guesses about what might or might not exist.
Re:Division by Zero. (Score:2)
"It is vain to do with more that can be done with less"
That is, the best explanation for an observation is the simplest one that fully explains the facts given. But in this case we just have a set of observations about the environment around the Moon's orbit, and to extend these to support or contradict an indirect hypothesis is unjustified.
Re:Division by Zero. (Score:5, Funny)
Error in Article (Score:4, Informative)
Space.com often has errors in their articles (I usually email the article editor and they fix it), and in this case new scientist has it wrong!
Cassini is on course to arrive at Saturn in July 2004, when it will deploy a smaller spacecraft called Huygens to study that planet.
Um... Huygens isn't there to study Saturn, infact its not there to study ANY planets. Its there to study Titan, a MOON.
D.
European Life in Doubt? (Score:2, Redundant)
Poor use of language. (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be much better, clearer and honest to say that, "A newly observed [not discovered] gas cloud around Jupiter, created by ion radiation hitting the surface of Europa, [has cast doubt on possible life on the moon.] has interesting consequences for life on Europa".
Bacteria have been found living in nuclear reactors, sealed in caves for millions of years, and living in ecosystems fueled by volcanic vents. There is no reason why there might not be life on Europa. Any doubt about its being there is an illusion, thrown up by theories that have been demonstrated to be utterly false, or at best, very incomplete.
Re:Poor use of language. (Score:2)
Bacteria have been found living in nuclear reactors, sealed in caves for millions of years, and living in ecosystems fueled by volcanic vents. There is no reason why there might not be life on Europa. Any doubt about its being there is an illusion, thrown up by theories that have been demonstrated to be utterly false, or at best, very incomplete.
Any doubt about its being there is an illusion? Man, we don't have any evidence at all of life there! Get some perspective, please.
Re:Poor use of language. (Score:2)
There is no evidence one way or the other, so its illogical to doubt that life is there. There may or may not be life on Europa, and superimposing all of these terracentric preconditions and preconceptions on the subject is really rather silly and pointless.
Re:Poor use of language. (Score:2)
Why? "Discovered" means "observed for the first time." Saying that a thing which has just been seen for the first time is "newly discovered" is just fine.
Re:Poor use of language. (Score:2)
This impacts the way that people live every day, mostly in the field of medicine. People are denied medicine that works and are made to suffer needlessly because a small number rationalist adherents have not (or cannot) measure the effictiveness of these cures that lie outside of thier narrow bands of knowledge and experience. That is certainly not "just fine".
The same goes for Europa and exobiology. Because someone somewhere has now said that it is "doubtful" that life exists there, (based on a mile high submarine sandwitch of false assumptions) mission plans might be altered and we will not get to see Europa close up.
That, by any measure, is not "just fine".
Re:Poor use of language. (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not. Saying that it's a loaded word implies that you buy in to all of that revisionist, deconstructionist claptrap, which, if true, would disappoint me greatly. "Discover" means "to uncover," or "to see or know for the first time." That's all.
People are denied medicine that works and are made to suffer needlessly because a small number rationalist adherents have not (or cannot) measure the effictiveness of these cures that lie outside of thier narrow bands of knowledge and experience.
Um. What the hell? People are denied access to treatments that have not yet been proven to be safe and effective. Why? Because if they weren't our overburdened public health system would be even more overburdened by damn fools who poison themselves after reading on the Internet that a tea made from crab grass and apple cider can cure the common whatever.
In our system, doctors do not have the freedom to turn patients away. A doctor must treat any patient who shows up on his floor, regardless of their condition, their ability to pay, or whether or not they got themselves into this mess. Consequently, we place limits on what people may and may not do in the interest of keeping most everybody mostly healthy most of the time. If you don't like it, come up with another system that works. And don't give me any of that libertarian blah-blah-blah; I said a system that works.
Because someone somewhere has now said that it is "doubtful" that life exists there, (based on a mile high submarine sandwitch of false assumptions) mission plans might be altered and we will not get to see Europa close up.
Maybe, maybe not. If we're going to see the pretty fishies, we'd probably be wiser to spend our money on something else, because it's not too likely that there are any pretty fishies there to be seen.
And by the way, which assumptions are false, anyway? Since you seem to know better than everybody else, I mean.
Irrelevant to the life question (Score:3, Informative)
However, most serious proposals for life at Europa suggest that it exists within the liquid water interior of the moon, several kilometers beneath the surface. Radiation will not be a problem there.
These results are irrelevant to the question of life within Europa. The only way it could matter is if free radicals (aka "nasty chemicals") created by the surface radiation could somehow be carried back into the liquid interior.
By the way, if you or your institution subscribes to Nature, you can read the original article (which wisely says nothing about life) here. [nature.com]
hmmm (Score:2, Funny)
My Bad...sorry.
The articles simply don't mention life (Score:3, Interesting)
No change in probability (Score:3, Informative)
Why?
If it's all ionizing, then it won't penetrate very deeply; not nearly enough to hit the theorized liquid water.
Even if we are talking heavy non-ionizing bombardment, which could penetrate fairly deeply, Europa is practically tidally locked in its orbit, just as Earth's moon is. I say practically, because even if the theorized rotation occurs:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/HIIPS/Publicatio
the rate is 1 foot of motion every 17 years. It would not be hard for a large population of somethings to keep the bulk of the moon between itself an Jupiter, even if by accident.
-- Terry
miles deep (Score:3, Informative)
As the monolith said... (Score:5, Funny)
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS
EXCEPT EUROPA
(ACTUALLY, ON SECOND THOUGHTS,
YOU'RE WELCOME TO THAT ONE AS WELL.)
(Obligatory filler to defeat the Slashdot all-caps lameness filter.)
alert (Score:4, Funny)
Researchers on Europa (Score:5, Funny)
NEWSWIRE f5:37:g4
Researchers on Europa today concluded that there is no possibility of life on any of the planets in a closer orbit to the sun than Jupiter. "The intense radiation emitting from the hottest known object in our solar system, the sun, would clearly fry any organism that attempted to evolve. Additionally, the sun gives off tremendous amounts of radiation that would surely prove poisionous to any organization not killed by the heat."
When asked if the atmosphere that surrounds the third planet would be protection from such radiation, the researcher responded, "Almost certainly that thin atmosphere would not be sufficient. It allows light to penetrate, and light itself is the disturbing factor in this scenario."
In other news, the government of Wqty used the science budget previously set aside for extra-Europa life detection to kill Europans on Jupiter-side. "My God! Do you know that the government of Ghyt kills it's own people? How could we pass on an invitation like that?"
David Bowman quote... (Score:2)
Re:David Bowman quote... (Score:2)
Looks like someone set up Europa the bomb.
Stupid lame humor aside, the underlying articles are about the presense of an intense band of ionized particles in Europa's orbit, caused by and causing parts of Europa's water-ice surface boiling off because of particle bombardment. Then somehow the boffins or press types leap to the conclusion that Europan life is suddenly less likely. I don't see the connection, since Europan life could easily form deeper in the water. That would protect it from energetic particle bombardment.
I don't get how we go from "surface ionization" to "no life at all".
The original article (Score:4, Informative)
That's all. The rest is journalistic hype.
Scientists who marginalize life ... (Score:2)
So many things happened in such a precise order, under precise conditions, with the precise amount of luck or Godly intervention (call it what you will).
The funniest asumption, to me, is when "scientists" give these theories, like is often tossed around in the movie, "Contact" and was used lightly by Carl Sagan, "If just one .... and just one ... and just one .... then there are billions of planets with life." Well, it appears as if the Earth were actually a lottery. Anyone who is scholarly knows that the lottery really has no odds. There are odds on a winning number, but there are no odds that you will pick the right number on the right day!
Same goes for our life here. What are the odds of this planet being being exactly the right size, with exactly the right moon with exactly the right sun, exactly the right distance, with exactly the chemicals forming on it's surface, with exactly the right environmental changes over exactly the right time, with exactly the right amount of extinctions and things to evolve/be created?
Re:Scientists who marginalize life ... (Score:3, Informative)
Astrobiology is just one small step above wild speculation - one step above because it is at least informed speculation. In fact our observations, even of planets in our own solar system, have merely scratched the surface. So you are right that those who think life is common and arises just about anywhere are really just guessing. However, you are also just guessing. Even our understanding of how life arose on Earth is sketchy, so any assumption that a particular set of steps or conditions is required is just wild speculation.
Nice link (Score:2)
What next - "Google [google.com] has more"?
It's official.... (Score:4, Funny)
It is official; A new study confirms: Europa is dead.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered moon's chances for having life when UPI Deputy Science and Technology Editor Phil Berardelli confirmed that the possibility of life on Europa just got worse given a huge magnetic gas cloud around a former darling of extraterrestrial life seekers. Coming on the heels of the recent shuttle disaster (after which no consolation messages were detected coming from the icy moon), this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The possibility of life on a moon of Jupiter is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in a recent "Which moon of Jupiter do you think is a most likely hope for extraterrestrial life?" slashdot poll.
You don't need to be a Berardelli to understand Europa's predicament. The hand writing is in the data: Europa's chance of hosting life faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for life there, because Eurpoa is dead. Things are looking very bad for Europa. As many of us are already aware, Europa's chance for hosting life continues to lose scientist mind share. Red ink flows like a river of blood (and when hasnt it?)
Europa's likelihood as a host of extra-terrestrial life is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core adherents. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time promotors of Europan life theories, planetary geologists Some_Scientist#1 and Some_Scientist#2, only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: the chance that there is life on Europa is basically zero.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
The Europa-favoring planetary geologist Hu Everr said that there are 7000 people that believe in life on Europa. How many adherents to life on Europa now remain? Let's see. The number of geologist versus crackpot posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 believers in Europan life. Pro-Europan life posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of such posts. Therefore there are about 700 Europan life adherents. A recent poll put Europa at about 80 percent of the moons-of-Jupiter-life crowd. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 astronaut wannabes. This is consistent with the number of "I'll go!" Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of radiation, gigantic magnetic doughnuts, and so on, study of life on Europa is going out of fashion and is being taken over by Russian scientists who send up craft to test other troubled theories. Now life at the core of the Sun is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that belief in life on Europa has steadily declined in mind share. The theory is waning quickly and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the idea is to survive at all it will be among space dilettante dabblers. The probability of life on Europa continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Europa is dead.
Fact: Europa is dead.
Lousy editors! (Score:3, Informative)
Nowhere in the original article does the author talk about the implications for life on Europa. It's just the UPI folks who tried to spice it up, and of course got it all wrong.
For the record, scientists have always known the radiation environment on the surface of Europa is very intense; but the assumption has always been that if there were life on Europa it would be buried many kilometers deep in the ocean, which acts as a shield.
Once again, I wish the skills of critical thinking and basic science were taught better in schools...
somewhere in the ether (Score:2)
I believe that phrase was by the submitter, and the [ahhh hemmmmm] editor was asleep, as usual. ceejayoz writes "...[clip]...has cast doubt on possible life "
In other news, we just received word from the 25th century, and the word is.... 90% of the
Re:whoops (Score:3, Funny)
did anyone else misread "Science: European Life In Doubt"?
Sigh. From now on, could only people who didn't read it as 'European' post to tell us about it?
Re:Moderators please use your noggin! (Score:2)