exchemist

I presume the inverse square dependence of the non-gravitational component of acceleration is because radiation intensity falls off with the square of distance, hence so will the rate of boil-off of gases likewise. Is that how it works?

As @pinball1970 indicates, It is in fact notoriously hard to come up with an exact definition of what is necessary for something to be considered "alive". So your idea of a passing down of "life" from one generation to the next is a bit simplistic. At the start of life there would probably have been various biochemical systems with some of the properties we now associate with life, including, at some point, a highly imperfect ability to replicate in some way. But we don't know how it took place. That's why people are researching abiogenesis.

Yes these chemical details are presumably how they estimate the rate of colonisation and the types of organism (e.g sulphate reducing bacteria) involved. But my original question remains: why is this significant? They could be suggesting that it could be hydrothermal systems created by meteorite impact, rather than by vulcanism, that provided the conditions for abiogenesis. That was my speculation in the fifth post in the thread. But they don't say. Maybe we just take it for what it is and move on.

You are becoming a pain in the arse. You have already been told to post these questions in Homework Help but seem to be ignoring that. You post very brief, unclear questions, with insufficient context for a proper detailed response. And you give no acknowledgement to the responses you receive, and thus give no clue to the responder as to whether the response has been useful to you or not. It is all one-way traffic, with us doing the work and nothing coming back from you. This is a discussion forum, not a homework answering service.

Yes but that is "colonisation", i.e. by existing life forms. And who cares if crashed meteorites on other planets may be similarly colonised, by life forms that happen to exist there? It would be amazing if that did not happen and the crash sites remained forever sterile. This seems to have bugger all to do with abiogenesis. So I'm left wondering why any of this is of much interest. Regarding Phys Org itself, what I'm saying is that it seems it does not "comment" at all in its "articles". These articles are simply regurgitated press releases, from the organisation announcing the results of the research. That's why they are quick. There are no authors for these articles and apparently no journalistic input. They don't employ any reporters. They simply republish collections of the days' press releases. The quality of each piece is thus 100% due to whoever at the institution drafted the press release. Sometimes these are good and at other times lousy, drafted by some PR person with no science training. I'm not dismissing its usefulness. Timely reporting of the day's press releases is handy. But we should recognise it for what it is.

I've had a look at this poster's previous contributions and note that a couple of years ago he claimed that a number of phenomena, including the "anomalous" (if you discount the various outgassing hypotheses) acceleration detected with Oumuamua, could be explained by something called "Relativistic Resistance" to movement (RR for short), of which he is an exponent. I'm not sure if this was his idea or comes from somewhere else. I couldn't find anything on the subject in a quick web search. I wonder if this thread is a disguised attempt to resurrect that idea, in the context of 3I/ATLAS, as one of its claims is apparently that an object in free fall will spontaneously decelerate, due to this RR. : https://scienceforums.net/topic/132976-alternative-to-relativity-split-from-a-problem-to-the-theory-of-relativity/#comment-1254887 Looks pretty wacky to me, but seems to fit the general tone of the discussion (and the eventual outburst of crankspeak).

But Borisov didn't show anomalous behaviour and so far there doesn't seem to be, from what you have told us, much evidence of 3I/ATLAS doing so either. I had a quick look at the Wiki article on it and there's nothing there about anything anomalous. It's a comet, unusually big, and outgassing a rather interesting - but far from unexpected - cocktail of substances including cyanide and nickel. And it's on a high eccentricity hyperbolic path through the solar system. That's it, isn't it? So why is it crucial to figure out "quickly" what's going on? Nothing's going on, surely? There is no "public excitement". You have made that up. There is practically nothing in the media about 3I/ATLAS. Barely anybody has even heard of it, much less started worrying about aliens. (Apart from Avi "Frontal" Loeb, apparently. But he's awa wi the faeries, so we can discount him.) Maybe it's just me, but you give me the impression of tap-dancing around some belief that you are reluctant to own up to explicitly. My impression is reinforced by this paranoid stuff about "arrogant, dogmatic scientists" with "downvoting machine guns", which is classic crankspeak. Not having a sound scientific basis for their notions, cranks attack science when it exposes the shortcomings in their thinking, often trying on the Galileo Gambit as a defence. I do hope this is not where you are going. Do you, then, have a hypothesis to propose, for some unusual behaviour you either think you see already, or expect to become manifest, during 3I/ATLAS's passage through the solar system? If so what is it, please? If not, what is this thread about?

I'm getting confused. Is this thread about Oumuamua now? I thought it was about 3I/ATLAS. Why the digression?

Yes the giveaway is the - suddenly - atrocious spelling in the last line. 😆 That’s the only bit our poster wrote in person, apparently.

No thanks.

What do you mean by vertical and horizontal? Do you mean normal and parallel, respectively, to the ecliptic?

Look up CO and tell us how the bonding works.

Hoho I get those too. They have data on us being old and hope dementia has set in, enabling them to scam us out of our saving with worthless and overpriced loft insulation projects. (They often make out there is government "survey", or new regulations to be complied with - all balls of course.) But yes indeed, they do increasingly use computer-generated voices for these cold calls. They are not (yet) very clever though, because if your responses deviate too far from the script they are expecting they cannot react. I do things like comment, conversationally, on their accent to ask what part of the country they are from. That buggers up the computer-generated scripts and makes it obvious if they are not real people. Real people usually like to tell you where they're from, I find. P.S. I recall a fake warning email about surveys, that circulated among the women in the Shell head office when I was working there. It went like this. "If a man comes to your front door and says he is doing a survey and asks to see your bum, DO NOT SHOW HIM YOUR BUM. This is a SCAM. All he wants is to see your bum. I wish I had known this yesterday, I feel so stupid and cheap."

Enough.

Look, this is the internet. We do not know who we are dealing with. You have played a devious game here, inserting chunks of AI text without telling us. People that do that kind of thing must expect to arouse a degree of suspicion.

Yeah that's why I've stopped helping. We get nothing back.

Suitably vague. Along with your IT experience, your crane driving at Chatham and all the rest.

What protest was that?

By the way, who’s the Gagool lookalike in your OP? Looks older than God’s dog.

He’s answering your question about where they get their empirical evidence. From their own machine.

No.

Ah but you are not taking into account the explanatory power of the No True Scotsman gambit. Most of these Christians, you see, are not true Christians. The true Christians are just those belonging to whichever wacky sect is making the prediction.🤪 They even have a term, “churchian”, for people who go to church but don’t subscribe exactly to the specific set of beliefs that they do. These sects are all based on the exclusionary principle ( not Pauli’s 😁) , often excluding people by defining “chosen people” in a conveniently narrow way.

I've learnt something here. I had no idea birds photosynthesise vitamin D from UV just as we do. How does that work, seeing as they are all covered with feathers? Reptiles I can understand as they have bare skin, or just scales that are presumably translucent. But birds?

Love it! 😄

Maybe the post itself has gone but not the title, for some reason.