Genady

What does it mean? I didn't see this traditional premise of quantum theory

It doesn't answer my question, nor it offers a proof or an evidence.

Or else?

To save of what? from what?

Or else?

The mechanism is accumulation of substitutions, additions, and deletions which occur during consecutive replications.

My arthropod is much friendlier - langusta, smiling [Spiny lobster - Wikipedia]

Christmas Tree Worms' neighborhood at night. Here is some information and a little video on them.

Perhaps that post referred to this, much older (IMHO, equally useless) suggestion: Hunting dark matter with DNA | Science News

The free fall acceleration doesn't depend on mass because, in old terms, "gravitational mass" equals "inertial mass". Inertial mass is "relativistic mass". Since the inertial mass changes with velocity, for the free fall acceleration not to change the gravitational mass needs to change. Weight is the gravitational mass times the acceleration. Thus, the weight needs to change.

I guess they wouldn't generally eat each other. Rather for each kind the other kind would be just like other non-living natural phenomena -- wind, rain, waves, ...

Wouldn't it be very interesting to have two independent trees of life with opposite chirality with independent evolution and ecology on one planet. Any sci-fi writers around?

Was the purpose of this post to advertise the book?

AFAIK all surviving life descended from three ancestors: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. There is evidence that both Eukarya and Bacteria split from Archaea. All is needed then is to strengthen this evidence.

I got one: [2105.11949] Particle detection and tracking with DNA (arxiv.org) And then, this: DNA-based detector helps scientists hunt for dark matter | Astronomy.com

Right. That was the point of this test. That it still doesn't depend on the mass.

I remember a study from about 8 years ago showing that relativistic particles in accelerator free fall just like they should, i.e. like everything else in the Earth gravity, with the same acceleration. I think it means that their weight increased accordingly to their relativistic mass.

Got it.

I think I understand what you mean by a continuous emergent process. But could you please elaborate on this last statement?

This is a real conversation between me and my wife yesterday: Wife: What are you reading about? Me: Alternative vacuums. Wife: Mops?

I have a question about the RNA world (the idea of which is quite attractive to me). Do we consider "first living entities" or the entire world was one living entity, without membranes? Added: Or, each separate "pond" was a living entity?

How it is if we restrict the question to one regime, after inflation and before the expansion accelerated again, i.e. say between 3 s and 7 billion years or so after BB, when the expansion was decelerating due to the matter and radiation content? I think the OP meant virtual rather than imaginary particles. My answer to the OP questions stays. No.

Yep, this is my question, too.

Very interesting! No, unfortunately I don't read Spanish. And (not so unfortunately) I am not interested in philosophy. However, if I may ask, when / where / how did you study TRIZ? The description of your book says among other things (translated to English by Google), "In it there is a broad panorama of Altshuller's work, its content and its intentions". I happened to have an intimated knowledge of these, because I've learned TRIZ directly from Altshuller in 1970-72, and was directly involved in TRIZ development and teaching in the Altshuller's lab, part time, in 1972-79. In addition, I knew Altshuller personally even before all that, because he was a colleague and a friend of my father.

Cosmological event horizon.