Agent Smith

Si, that's correct. Could one reason be that RNA isn't protected by complementary strand pairing like DNA? ssRNA I know exists, but dsRNA, my files return null.

Quite possibly it's more correct to say [math]s < n \iff P(all \space numbers \space deleted) = 0[/math]

Perhaps due to their usual function/purpose, RNA is more unstable than DNA. 🙂

For [math]n[/math] random numbers, [math]P(all \space numbers \space deleted) > 0 \iff s \geq n[/math]

That's on target, but not all viruses are like that. Per my files (rather outdated), the polio virus has not undergone any significant mutation in the last 50 or so years, at least none that would affect the efficacy of the 2 vaccines that are around (one live, the other killed). I wonder why some viruses have such high degrees of genomic instability. There origins too remain a mystery, to me at least.

Would I be correct if I said that if we make radio contact now, the alien civilization has to be on/within a radio bubble that has a maximum radius of 4.5 billion light years?

Looks like a good place to build a launch pad.

What's this unifying psychological theory you refer to?

So Newton is inconsistent with Einstein. So, depending on the theory we use, either no work is being done or some work is being done. 🧒 Thank you for the reply

Some of these galaxies are moving away from us at speeds exceeding the speed of light I believe. Does that mean anything? Hence the space stretching patch I suppose. From Newton's perspective then the kinetic energy of some of these galaxies = [math]\frac{1}{2}mc^2[/math] which in Einstein's theory should be impossible.

So, from a Newtonian perspective, dark energy is a wild goose.

From a Newtonian perspective yes. Kindly go through the thread, it's short.

Could we be on a wild goose chase?

I would like an intuitive explanation also please, if possible. I've noticed the word "independent" appears in almost all answers to this question. What does it mean exactly and how does [math]F \propto m[/math] independent of mass and [math]F \propto a[/math] independent of acceleration lead to the conclusion that [math]F \propto ma[/math]

Can you explain a little bit more about how the constants being independent of acceleration and mass matter to understanding this rule that if ... [math]n \propto q ~ \& ~ n \propto r, then ~ n \propto qr[/math]