Genady

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So -- No purpose? No gain in knowledge? All that effort and expulsion of Earth resources into space - just because it's what plants do?

OK then

The purpose is:

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

The point is, to give life a chance to go on after there is no more chance on Earth.

Whose knowledge? Humans are a tool, not a goal in this idea.

Plants and other forms of life on Earth do it while restricted to Earth. The idea is, to remove this restriction.

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So we can learn about it. Otherwise, what's the point? Humans value life - one and off, some life, erratically -  that doesn't make life valuable to the universe. It's just more hubris, pretending it's all here for us. 

The point is, to give life a chance to go on after there is no more chance on Earth.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Yes, and no. Same poster, but unlike before details are being provided in the thread. (unsure why a new account was needed; the old one has been deactivated)

Let’s focus on the discussion and not these trivialities

 

There is nothing to discuss anymore, is there? The OP has conceded:

6 hours ago, BestChance said:

I was wrong. Sorry. Thank you for your attention.

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

How do you learn it? Even supposing such a hospitable planet is found, how many centuries would it take for the microbes to travel there, and how long before they report back?

Why report back?

1 hour ago, SEKI said:

The most important point of my model is introduction of cohesive force.
I am sorry, it is to dirty the traditional mathematically beautiful theory, which is to be only approximately true.

Predictions of this model should then differ from QM, and this difference should be testable experimentally. What are such predictions?

On 1/22/2022 at 9:22 AM, SEKI said:

In the following, a novel quantum model is to be proposed that has a mechanism for wavepacket reduction.

Is it unitary?

When I have come up with the idea / question in the OP and with its name, Reverse Panspermia, it was new to me. However, after a search on the Internet it turned out to be not so new.

For example, "A German physicist envisions giving life a leg-up by sprinkling planets with microbes from robotic spacecraft." (Genesis project – a plan to seed life on other planets (cosmosmagazine.com)) Or, "As Mautner explains in his study published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Cosmology, the strategy is to deposit an array of primitive organisms on potentially fertile planets and protoplanets throughout the universe." (Professor: We have a 'moral obligation' to seed universe with life (phys.org)) There are more.

The title has been used as well, albeit for a not purposeful seeding: "His approach is that panspermia, that is, that life arrived on Earth aboard meteorites or comets, has also occurred backward." (Reverse panspermia: The possibility that life on Earth has reached other planets (kagay-an.com))

There is even a legal opinion: "What happens if we seed other planets with Earth life? From a scientific perspective, the answer is tremendously complicated. From a legal perspective it’s simple: Someone goes to jail." (Here's Why It's Illegal to Seed Planets With Alien Lifeforms From Earth (inverse.com))

Just FYI.

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Then why propose it?

I'm not averse to looking at the universe; I am to tampering with it. Look how badly we messed up our one little planet! I'm not in favour of exporting our manias.

I propose it because I don't know and I don't have an opinion, and I'd like to hear opinions and to learn arguments from others. I am proposing it on discussion board, not to a board of directors of SpaceX or NASA  

18 minutes ago, SEKI said:

Yes.

So,  the traditional theory has a  fatal problem.

My model is proposed to resolve this problem.

 

quantum + anti-quantum -> none (vacuum)

Anyway, I only proposed a hypothetical model.

 

No, the traditional theory does not have this problem. Maybe this quote and this website will help:

"It so often happens that I receive mail - well-intended but totally useless - by amateur physicists who believe to have solved the world. They believe this, only because they understand totally nothing about the real way problems are solved in Modern Physics. If you really want to contribute to our theoretical understanding of physical laws - and it is an exciting experience if you succeed! - there are many things you need to know."

How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist (uu.nl)

28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

A little project? How many $billions; how many scientist and technician-hours, how much effort that might be directed at saving lives on Earth? While we can - which we actually can, while terraforming and seeding another planet is a long shot, at best.

You might be right. I don't know and I don't have an opinion. But, I hear the same arguments about $ and hours from my neighbor, who about once a month asks me who cares about what happened to the universe billions of years ago, or how galaxies billions light years away have formed, when there are so many problems on Earth that need to be solved today.

56 minutes ago, Godot said:

Ummm...   ...my turf! (I used to be a molecular bologist)

This is a nice and elegant proposal to build a novel detector with superb spatial resolution - though it's actually more like 3nm, not the single one the paper peddles. Still, better than other currently used detection systems.

But... ...neither this article nor the quoted primary source https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6809.pdf give even the slightest hint as to how they'd manage to differentiate between WIMPs and other particles. *shrug*

 

["convective gravity"]

None I know of, that's why I'm asking f there is any. It might even be compatible with GR, as the assumption would be that 0g (not the free fall type, but the absolute) might not be the bottom of the scale. After all, we're way deep in the gravity well ot the milky way / local group / ... 

Only hand-waving from me, no data or such. Just wondering whether anybody did such a theory / the math based on that assumption.

Re the first part: my "disapproval" referred only to the idea of using them for detection of specifically dark matter.

Re the second part: If I understand correctly, you're asking if gravity can be repulsive, rather than attractive. Yes, it can. Dark energy, whatever it is, creates repulsive gravity. The hypothesis of early cosmic inflation assumed repulsive gravity. However, for gravity to be repulsive, its source needs to be somewhat "exotic." No matter and radiation we are familiar with and observe in galaxies, including the dark matter, are like that. Their gravity is attractive.
 

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What for?

Just a little project. While we can.

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Shouldn't we rather let the promising worlds work out their own fertility issues?

May be. However, on the scale of trillions worlds out there, this will not have any significant effect. But could make a difference between life and death for the life originated on Earth.

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Only if 'we' take all the other life forms on Earth with us. That's unlikely. Most of them, sure; probably not all. So this planet can still have a second chance.

Better yet, suppose we stop short of mass extinction?

I'm thinking rather about a time scale of a billion years or so, when Earth will become uninhabitable regardless.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

My take on that article is that knowledge of Archaea has still much to be learned, and your conclusion is somewhat premature.

 

Quite possible.

Anyway, the findings like "has been reported to be found more often in stool samples from patients with diverticulosis than healthy individuals" are what I referred as association in the post above. Maybe archaea just prefer diseased tissues and thus are found more often in the patients with disease?

I wanted to see what other big squids are doing with their egg masses. Not much known, but here is an interesting recent finding:

This Mesmerising Underwater Blob Is Actually a Huge, Rare Mass of Squid Eggs (sciencealert.com)

Well, after all the statistical analysis I came up with my own ballpark estimates, which seem to fit it:

life - one per galaxy

intelligent life - one per cluster of galaxies

advanced technological civilization (like us) - one per universe

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The awareness of Archaea as a distinct group appears to be quite young.... 45 years.  From the link:

 

I'm not sure it is technically correct to say that Leeuwenhoek first described bacteria in 1674. We didn't know of archaea as a separate domain until 1977, but it was there, mixed up with bacteria. Leeuwenhoek first described prokaryotes in 1674, he certainly couldn't distinguish between bacteria and archaea. Also, prokaryotic pathogens were found for long time, before 1977. Now, we can separate them into bacteria pathogens and archaea pathogens. The result of this separation: all of them turned out to be bacteria, no archaea.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Here's a compact discussion: https://microbiologysociety.org/blog/why-dont-archaea-cause-disease.html

They found some evidence of an association between some disease and archaea, but no evidence of archaea causing a disease, yet.

Maybe it is fortunate, because it might be difficult to develop an antibiotic targeting archaea due to their biochemistry being more similar to ours than that of bacteria. 

This question appeared in another thread, but it was OT there, so I post it anew.

When we find a promising but sterile world, shouldn't we throw some archaea there with a purpose to spread life? After all, if / when we all go extinct here on Earth, then 4 billion years of evolution will go down the drain. This way we would be instrumental in saving the life. Nobody on Earth but us is capable of doing so.

Let's ask it differently: of all the known prokaryotic pathogens, what percent are archaea? 

While there are so many detrimental bacteria, there are no detrimental archaea. Is it so? Why? 

3 minutes ago, Arthur Smith said:

Well, climate change will be bad enough that humans could become extinct but that will leave the field open for other species to fill the gap and evolve in all sorts of ways we can't predict.

Sure. But this scenario cancels the other consideration, "No knowing where we could end up in a billion years or so."

6 minutes ago, Arthur Smith said:

Good grief, no! No knowing where we could end up in a billion years or so.

On the other hand, if we all go extinct here on Earth, then 4 billion years of evolution will go down the drain.

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Very much so. First of all, he's given solid reasons, not just intuition for why we can't know. But secondly, the second one is about the chances if INTELLIGENT life being out there. And the results are not just "we don't know", they tell you more than that.

I could have linked just the second one, but I think you need to watch the first one to appreciate the second. 

Ok, thank you. I will, with the help of the paper linked by @Arthur Smith.

4 minutes ago, Arthur Smith said:

David Kipping (the astronomer in the videos) has published a paper on this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08033.pdf

I managed to watch the second video. Having the paper available helps with following the video.

Thanks a lot. For many reasons, not the least of which is APD, I much prefer to read rather than to listen.

When we find a promising but sterile world, shouldn't we throw some archaea there with a purpose to spread life?