Genady

Sorry, I don't understand this question. Why do they need to collide? What kind of collision? What does it have to do with the OP?

Perhaps, not. There are plenty of life forms in the deep ocean, where there is constant temperature, constant darkness, and not much mixing with the surface water. Why would they care about the surface being covered or not with ice? They might depend on a dead organic matter that falls down from above. Ice on the surface would stop that. The organisms that don't depend on this DOM would continue like nothing happened. The other would be of two kinds. Many would die. The others could switch from the DOM falling from above to the DOM created by the ones that died. Like these sponges.

In the case described in the OP, it's neither discovering life, not discovering a new life form. It's a new ecosystem.

Then it should be something inconspicuous, like little letters that say 'fun' if the drink is ok and changes to 'run' otherwise. ?

Should the detection be visible to all or just for eyes of the person with a drink?

Define what is a chair... The pictures in this article are very nice, allow to identify the corals. They are mostly - or all - from the family Agariciidae. Most of the corals in this family are specifically adapted for low-light conditions, hence their flat, open, "rose-shaped" structures. Their normal depth is something like 100-300 feet, 30 - 90 m. It is incorrect to compare them to "corals" in general which mostly live at much shallower depths, like they do in the article.

Another recent discovery: BTW, I've been in that "zone", 70+ m. Yes, there is still plenty of light there, at least in our waters here. And, it is pitch black down from there. Rare coral reef discovered near Tahiti in ocean's 'twilight zone' - CNN

Why? Isn't it clear that these sponges are alive? We don't live by definitions in the real life

The point is not self-awareness. The point is life.

... and then you can publish your findings in the Nature Communications.

Astronomers try to do something about this sky pollution. Will they succeed? Are they justified in their demands? Astronomers Rally to Stop Satellite Megaconstellations From Ruining the Sky (gizmodo.com) Astronomers Join Forces to Push Back Against Satellite 'Pollution' Ruining The Skies (sciencealert.com)

Another large community has been discovered in an unsuspected location: Sprawling sponge gardens found deep beneath the Arctic sea ice - CNN

I wonder where that thing about a "word" came from. Because their is no mention of it in the Hebrew text: So, it is not clear where the water came from. The light came next. Then, a separation between water below the sky and water above the sky. The separation between land and seas came later.

Genady was wrong in the OP. In two points. First, in the assumption that we can find a promising but sterile world. Second, in the assumption that this form of life is so special in comparison with the "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful [which] have been, and are being, evolved" in countless places in the universe, that it needs to be saved.

If it has basic inhabitable conditions then a probability is high that it has some form of life. If it doesn't have life at this moment, it will some time later. There is no point in seeding life where life is already present or will be soon (in astronomical times.)

If they live underground, underwater, inside caves, any other difficult to access places, it would take very long time and huge effort to find them and even more so to make a reasonable conclusion that nothing is anywhere. By robots? We are still discovering new species and new ecosystems on Earth that we didn't know about. On the other hand, they sure depend on environmental conditions which would be affected by newly seeded life.

Leaving all other aspects of this discussion out, I have a scientific / technical question: How would we ever know that an inhabitable world is sterile? We don't have a way to know what was / is an evolutionary path of life there. Thus we don't have a way to know where and how to look for it. Can we program a robot to do something that we ourselves don't know how?

I've ran it three times (clicking randomly since I don't know which color I enjoy most etc.) I think the three parts of the "results" are just coming out in various combinations.

I've noticed this cheap trick of making movies in the metallic blue shades, about 10-15 years ago. I hated them too, but not because of the coloration, but because they inevitably were bad movies (to my taste, of course). So, after a while, as soon as I saw this color I just stopped watching at once.

Yes, the rest mass of the battery, but not the rest mass of the electric fields.

Mass is not additive. A mass of the whole is not equal sum of masses of its components. In the particular example, the mass of a charged battery is not equal the sum of mass of the uncharged battery and mass of the electric fields. The mass in this example is gained "in the form of energy" of the electric fields, but not in the form of their mass.

(I have added the numbers to the quote above.) 1. I don't know how to separate an effect of color from that of other factors. 2. Fractions of a second. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. See #1.

Me too.

I would like to include other factors, especially demographics, but (a) I don't have that information, and (b) the set is small as is, doesn't make sense statistically to make clusters. As I've mentioned, curiosity. These data perhaps have some answers, we just don't know the questions yet. I believe that accumulation of resources for undetermined utility is a key to progress. Some of it at some time will be handy, or crucial. That's why it will be done at random times and the "subjects" won't know when they are observed and when they are not. Eventually, the habituation will take over and the "subjects" will behave normally.

I do plan so. Not consecutive weeks necessarily, but perhaps random weeks from time to time.