Genady

Why the answer you get by searching the web is insufficient?

I didn't notice this.

Good news, for whatever reason, (from the Marine Park report) "The 2023 sargassum season invasion was approximately 30 days compared to 51 days in 2022."

Right. However, it does not answer my question: what does make one to conclude that greenhouse gases alone don't cause all the problems. As in What makes one to think that it is also something else? IOW, that greenhouse gases alone are not enough to cause all the problems.

What was the cause of that? Did that change in the last ~100 years? What did cause that? Did that change in the last ~100 years? Overall, how much of effect these factors have compared to the greenhouse gases?

Why not?

If I consider one of the simplest animals, a sponge, I will have to play with words to fit it into the definition of machine. It is just not what that definition describes.

Sorry, I don't understand what "modified yes plus" means. What I mean is that an animal is not "an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task."

Then, by this definition of 'machine', the answer to my question is, no.

Do you define machine as a mechanical device?

I agree. I see one motive for doing it being experimental testing of our understanding of the animal.

Yes, the process was different. What does this fact say about the result? The same or similar results can be achieved via different processes, I think.

Aren't animals the biochemical machines?

Yes. The choice depends on the intended use. For example, when discussing 'force' in physics and in politics, different definitions of the term 'force' are used.

Just for the background, these are more than decade old news: Qbo Robot Passes Mirror Test, Is Therefore Self-Aware - IEEE Spectrum Robot learns to recognise itself in mirror - BBC News

Good. I can empty my ignore list again. My wishful thinking agrees with the previous post.

Support local businesses.

I think this question would be OT here.

I think that the emphasis on escaping is weak. They - bodies, light - not only cannot escape, but they also cannot make a move away from the BH center or even stay still. Everything necessarily keeps moving deeper and deeper into the BH. It is not just about "light itself" (Ethan Siegel). It is about time itself. Beyond the event horizon, direction toward the center is the forward direction of time. Everything - even light - moves forward in time, which means, toward the BH center.

I don't know if there are data to support this statement, but I'm ready to believe it. I am ready to believe it, because this phrase is repeated so often, that if they remember anything about black holes, then they remember it.

But that was exactly what I meant in the OP when I wrote, "as if light is expected to escape from everything" (bold emphasis added). Anyway, I think this phrase is just a popular cliché. I've conducted a little experiment five minutes ago. I've asked ChatGPT for a short description of black hole. Of course, its answer represents common patterns in these descriptions. And the first sentence is,

Aha! To somebody, it does:

Newtonian BH does not have singularity. But if they think that light is unaffected by gravity, then how does the black hole's effect on light emphasize its gravity?

This clock could be made of the LEDs from the OP's other post and thus cool the Earth atmosphere while disseminating time.

Perhaps so, I don't know. In my mind, a much more powerful emphasis of how strong the gravity of BH is, would be a phrase, e.g., "nothing, even a spacecraft with an infinitely powerful engine, can't escape it." As I said here, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132131-why-even-light/?do=findComment&comment=1246405, "A powered spacecraft, a ladder, a tower, a rope hanging from an orbiting spacecraft, etc."