21–30 of 36 posts
Not new. Seems like a repost. Also: "This article was originally published in our “Adaptation” issue in March, 2016." Someone is really pushing this guy's scientific (or literary) branding.
That said, usually they're a bit older than a year or so.
Not new. Seems like a repost. Also: "This article was originally published in our “Adaptation” issue in March, 2016." Someone is really pushing this guy's scientific (or literary) branding.
I suspect he is up for tenure review :P His proposals are not knew just spun differently. You can find critics from other physics/chemist regarding their suspicions as well.
>“Red,” for instance, is a translation of the phrase “620-750 nanometer wavelength.” only sometimes.
>“Red,” for instance, is a translation of the phrase “620-750 nanometer wavelength.” only sometimes.
Do you mean only sometimes, as in only when talking about electromagnetic waves? Or something else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…
But, what does life have to do with an earth like planet? And when you study the history of the earth you come to realize that life as we know it today is the result of countless events, some of them catastrophic. As I understand it, if you simply shifted the location of Antarctica, that would change ocean currents, this effect weather, and so one. Life as we know it today might not exist if it weren't for Antarctica…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, what does life have to do with an earth like planet? And when you study the history of the earth you come to realize that life as we know it today is the result of countless events, some of them catastrophic. As I understand it, if you simply shifted the location of Antarctica, that would change ocean currents, this effect weather, and so one. Life as we know it today might not exist if it weren't for Antarctica…
Our life planet data set is an N=1 so we are searching what we know. It is certainly possible life is found on non-Earth-like planets and isn't carbon-based, however we don't have any examples so we don't know what to look for. The initial search is focusing on Earth-like planets because we know the signs of life in that case. As for Antarctica, that may true but there would still be life, maybe not humans, on Earth.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…
But we have explored Mars and the moon!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we have explored Mars and the moon!
Perhaps in the way a holidaymaker considers themselves aware of other cultures! For real exploration we have to be living there. This is just because it focuses our attention, allows large numbers of people to be aware of their surroundings in a non-theoretical way.
That's why everything is decontaminated before blasting off to Mars :)
This theory reminds me a lot of the folding funnel. It used to be thought of as a paradox that a protein could fold in mere minutes if it needed to explore each possible configuration before arranging into its "correct" configuration. This paradox was solved with the theory of the folding funnel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_funnel ) which states that the potential energy surface is not flat, but rather it…
The wiki page still calls it a hypothesis, but also doesn't seem to have had substantial updates in a decade (where I define "substantial" as "an expert updated the information" - not a critique of the other types of edition that have happened). Is there any more recent material on this? An animated visualisation, perhaps?
Here's a nice visualization:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manajit_Hayer-Hartl/pub...
Not new. Seems like a repost. Also: "This article was originally published in our “Adaptation” issue in March, 2016." Someone is really pushing this guy's scientific (or literary) branding.
Yep. Some of the headlines are particularly egregious. https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=%22jeremy+england%22&qs=n... I suspect he is up for tenure review :P His proposals are not knew just spun differently. You can find critics from other physics/chemist regarding their suspicions as well.
I have a rule that people shouldn't post negative comments without including specific arguments and/or links. You just violated that rule.
