Technical Ben

Solar panels now don't work too well around Jool...

May I suggest an Antimatter Augmented Steam Boiler once up in the edge of space? There is a bit of antimatter up there, naturally occuring. Plus a "trap" is really easy to make even with Victorian technology, providing they had the understanding. We can assume they discovered this after getting to space, and getting some sparks/glowing from some magnetics. Add a clever engineers and/or scientist (Val and Jeb duo?) and they could make a trap in situ in space and quickly change the world! From this we can have extra power for FTL and other plot devices. With it being antimatter, it still has a massive cost and risk factor, so it can be balanced as needed (as common as petrol, or as rare as platinum). The Penning trap, is basically just MAGNETS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap Oxygen production from plants or algae is going to be difficult. It may need a small room of solid green stuff (no use getting light in there ) for enough oxygen for one person. It might be too much work. But if we want some really interesting and unique space craft, with 50% of the living space being green walls (lit inside with artificial power and light) and green armour (outside using "free" solar power), then going natural would do it. PS, though, if you want to really run with ideas... make the problem of carbon dioxide a hidden "enemy" and constant threat. The scientists of the time do not know why astronauts keep going crazy then dying. It's dangerous as they act up and cause even more trouble than just themselves being hurt or dying. For "some reasons, unknown to us" this does not happen on larger pleasure passenger liners, which are outfitted with parks and greenhouses. So far, the best practice, is to move between rooms periodically, and vent out gases and air from the unoccupied rooms. However, all reports says this only buys a little time. Worse, it's only working at diminishing returns each time. So it is of utmost importance astronauts not exceed more than double their rooms "oxygen rating level". This limits active flight to 12 hours orbital for anything smaller than a cruiser. Prolonged missions risk "space madness". Finally. Perhaps a "range finder" would be a job. Getting the measurements of the moon is just maths (I assume ). So the rest is down to using a complex protractor, similar to a sextant. With a telescope and measuring the angles to the horizon, or say the apparent size of craters against a chart, to give really rudimentary readings. From there, the rest would be practice with a string held model lander and a model crater, with the pilot learning the timings and visual cues to land "instrument free", just as Scott Manley did on Youtube.

Dock in orbit? That's how I do it.

Perhaps he changed sides... and is now working for them! Dun dun daaaa!

Extremely weird you'll have no idea... ... oh wait, so do you eat the same food I do or something? I thought only I had strange dreams.

I thought I was bad for the 7th launch for my outposts arriving first, and me almost forgetting about the first launch on the slow efficient transfer. (I get impatient! )

I blame the education system. Or the facade put up in pretence of one.

Ok. "Amount" makes more sense. Thanks. The article was basic, for those without the specialist information. The video (which presumably the paper/website has not the time nor knowledge to understand), shows the real data and information. The paper/website could only go with the basics of the foundation of their study, epigenetics. Sadly, the title and body was wrong, it's not "new proof of [epigenetics]" but just "new data on epigenetics". Yep, silly newspaper or website there. Still amazing work on the genetic code. Alternate reading frames would be included in all genetic work I guess, as it's going to effect nearly all data. But yes, it's not the topic of the study they did, though it does come up (in reference to the locations and spread of the regulatory sites and how they are embedded in the DNA and how they effect and direct the data they need to collect). Finally, By it's nature and necessity, DNA must have no preference to it's base ordering. Any, absolutely any data contrary to this is an earth shattering discovery. A proof in contrary to this, is the flexibility of the codon table and the tRNA. Which means (AFAIK) any ordering can be chosen for any "code" without any structural limit. How and if that effects the amount of non-coding DNA with different codon tables, I do not know. Non coding though areas though, would still be required to be mechanically inconsequential.

Wow, interesting way to respond there. They can overlap and be internally combined with separate reference frames (with internal ones, it's hard to still state these as separate here, but I'll go with your language and technical terms if needed). Yes, it's decades old information. The video talks about new data and what this shows, and what is yet left open to learn. New data is new data. No need to shoot it down just because some papers/websites like to make it sound interesting. The "new" bit was generally about how much is left active and how much is turned off and how much is left without markers on cells that reach maturity (from the obvious starting point of embryonic stem cells). They looked in detail at this second code, the epigenetic, it's what they research. My understanding is rudimentary, and so is my language skills of something that requires specialist knowledge. Sorry, I did mean "epigenetics effect on gene expression is observed", I missed the first bit out. Did you not infer that from your understanding anyhow? Why not correct me instead of having constant jibes at my silly forum name? Do you see me calling you names for your spelling mistakes? No. I can still read your posts quite well, and be polite about it. We need not devolve into arguments on little human mistakes. So I'm rudimentary, some help would be appreciated. Explain what is meant by "is that chosing different codons can get you the same protein, but expressed at different levels." Levels of what? What is a "level"? Of reading frames? I know the codon table allows for both error correction/redundancy and for alternate reference frames (the level of redundancy allows "sentences" to have some overlap. Really clever feature. ). (Who on earth is making this vaccine claim? The comment was on impact, change and learning, not on "panic", was it?)

Why argue over it, and not actually look at the evidence first before we make any comments on the facts? Presentation of the actual data.

Hey, if the article is speculation and hyperbole, why not check the data ourselves? Talk by the scientist on his paper, with questions and admissions on what the limits of knowledge are, but also on how accurate the observations are. https://youtu.be/SE7AesCVkp0

No, as far as I know, there are multiple overlapping codes within DNA. So, depending on the description, we can say "there are double codes". We can easily spot one, and miss the other overlapping code. It could be protein encoding, and easy to spot the one, and miss the second protein encoded over the top, or read in the opposite direction. But AFAIK at least one overlapping encoding area has been observed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlapping_gene An amazing thing to learn, and a rather rudimentary a concept. Due to either it's nature or it's necessity, DNA has in built compression/redundancy via this method. I would have thought a proof on the structural requirements for the ordering of DNA would earn anyone, you including, a Nobel Prize. The entire consensus and observations currently attribute no preference for the DNA ordering due to atomic or mechanical forces. Only the mechanisms of reading/transcribing etc. The example of a double code, is an example of ordering, not of mechanical function and not of physical constrains. Though if I am wrong in my understanding of those systems, I'm happy to hear more on the subject. PS, the article states on the "new code" discovered, "One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled." So it appears it's talking about Gene expression, and not just overlapping encoding sites. Still, points stand. Gene expression is an observed fact. If it means we need to write in new details and change our understanding, do we choose to be dogmatic, or choose the evidence? I choose the evidence.

Well, that means one thing is for certain. Nothing is as complex as life... than perhaps that list of definitions for "life" in the dictionary.

Well, if I saw someone eating rocks with ketchup on, I'd still be surprised. No matter how many hot dinners I'd eaten with salt on, in mundane comparison.

If Gandi will not go to the mountain... dig up the ground under his house and transport it to the mountain, as it's easier than moving the mountain!

This.

That they are not using external materials and chemical compounds for their energy source outside of the organism is rather new. (AFAIK, not heard it refereed to historically) Yes, the internal workings has been known. Even some bacteria that use oxidisation as an energy source. But the article states it is knew to find out they can use the electron flow in and of it's self (If I'm reading it correctly). - - - Updated - - - [edit] ...What KerikBalm said, I agree.

Thanks. It's interesting that these things existed, and possibly exist today. But reliving to know that they may have expired and earth had "grown up" past the explosive supervolcano stage.

So a little personal flying assistant? I could use one of those!

Sorry, can you explain that further? Biological has many interpretations or definitions. What would have to be the source of the robots, and why could it not be a human and/or not a human? But why would it not be biological if a human made it? (We do make copies of ourselves in a different manner already) That's not a problem with the definition. A virus would be observation of enough evidence to say other parts of life must exist to support it. It would not be an observation of life in and of it's own (but close enough for inference of such an observation). Likewise, seeing fossils is not an observation of life, but one of fossils. It is proof of life though. That's rudimentary, and just in our decision on the temporal terms "life/lived/living". That's not a problem with the definition or science in the slightest. We just have an additional step to decide, "is this past/present and is it active/inactive". Yes, it's near impossible to derive if an inactive object has the capability to "live", because living is an activity... so we'd need to see it living. Then we can know if a fossil is one of life or one of something else. On earth we are familiar with the life, so can infer it from the fossils already. We can infer it from some things, but only with a lot of data (say for example a fossil of a robot would take inordinate detailed knowledge of it's parts and observation of the fossil to know if it could replicate. Again, no problem with life/fossils on earth as we have those observations already). We don't get that in outer space, but again, that's a limit of our observations, not of the definition.

That's a lot of things about sexual reproduction. We would first need to prove life requires sexual reproduction for our "robot life" to require such a trait. Looking at some simple observations, life does not require sexual reproduction. So my theoretical robots don't either. (But I'm willing to hear the alternative argument) As I specified we can theoretically create a robot that carries out all the functions of a cell (that is including it's internal workings). I could for example simulate an entire bacterium or amoeba on a computer. Or alternatively, I could reconstruct it's functions in a robotic form. If my robot is constrained to error checking overrunning adaptation, then this holds true for biological life too. If biological life can find a balance between error checking and adaptation, then so could our theoretical robot made to emulate the same system. Why am I confident of this? Because life is a mechanical processes. Any chemical systems within it can also be described mechanically for the purpose of my theoretical "robot". Thus all we need to do is decide how many functions a robot would need to have the same living capacity, as say a bacterium... right? (Note I am not asking if a robot is the same as a cat or human, as that's more functions than I could ever list ) What I need for my robot, would also be what I would test against for a definition, or a test when asking "is this other thing, perhaps on a another planet, also alive?" Why are we confused as to "is dormancy living"? We can look at a fossil. We can look at a rock. We can look at a frog while it eats and we can look at a frog while it is frozen and dormant (I'll assume perfect suspended animation). What is the difference between these 4 things. Is it undefined and fuzzy, or can science both collect data on it, order the data, and perform tests to decide where to call them "the same" and where to call them "different" so as to label one as "a living frog" one as a "dormant frog" and one as a fossilised frog? The last being "not alive and a rock"? Basically, we have to first decide if we are talking about the entire system or a singular part. The entire history, or the single instance in time. Yes, in the smaller measurement it is one thing (alive or dead), other the longer period of time it is both (not alive, then living, possibly later dormant, then living again, then finally dies...).

Thanks Bill Phill. That seems right. Is it correct to say that we observe life on earth as using chemical energy in a mechanical process? I ask as we could of cause imagine robotic life or some other form of life that follows the same processes and functions but using different chemicals or none at all (say an electric robot carrying out all the same functionality as a cell).

Interesting to learn that some viruses are RNA based. I must have missed that detail reading up on them previously. We can make lots of suppositions on what could have been. Would we consider the suppositions for our definitions or the observations of life? Seen it. No idea how or what that has to do with defining observations we currently have. Can we not observe how and what a virus is, and define that? Can we not observe the same things for a bacterium, a cat etc? Then define either the process, structure or individual observation? After observing the processes involved, DNA, RNA and polymerase, I don't see how that view can hold for much longer. Exactly! How did we reach those consensus, if not through observations? So are you saying life is such a concept? I'd say we observe it as a purely mechanical process. Other processes are based on gravitational forces. Yet others are chemical. But I see life is mechanical. So, we can decide what the colour green really means, make a specific definition. Make it part of science. We can decide what we really meant by "planet" and adjust or remove the mistakes. Use science to decide (is it orbiting the sun, has it cleared the neighbourhood, is it even a good definition or do we need a different "name"). But we cannot for what we observe as a Cat, Dog, Bacterium or Virus? Why? Who has said so? So scientific or biological categorisation is just tautological and a non-sequitur? Why attack me for pointing out we can find a benefit in categorization and naming? That everyone in science even does this? What have I done to deserve that personal attack when just talking about the subject? Yes. Exactly. I never said this is not of benefit, or that there is no value. There are many many different types of "star". Even though there are edge cases, blurred lines we can still talk about stars. We can still define them. (Is a black hole, still a star, is a neutron star, is a gas giant. Some lack fusion, some do have a small amount, some are so close to the edge case, we must add new definitions and tests). But at no time, to we attack people for asking what the current definition and observations are, do we? Sorry, many will strongly disagree with you. So we might need a better way to express why and show how that is. Perhaps tell me about the simplest part you know of. The virus or the RNA you think is the edge case and why that is so?

Again. I don't know what the confusion is. Sorry. Yes, there is no consensus amongst the entire world, but that's true for the colour green. Or the planet Pluto. Both those concepts, colours and planets, are arbitrary and fuzzy as you say. I agree. But both concepts can be stated scientifically. A wavelength, and an object orbiting a sun. Yes both have edge cases, so we can say "this specific wavelength" or "this specific sized planetoid is orbiting a star with fusion" and rule out as many edge cases as possible. There are always edge cases. That's reality for us. But it does not stop astrophysicists, particle physicists or anyone else. We just learn what the edge cases are, and how we need to apply the information we learn from them. To either improve understanding, or change our definitions (such as with Pluto ). Or we can state parasitic life is parasitic, life within an ecosystem is living within an ecosystem, and rocks are rocks. So, can we not ask, is a virus alive in the same way a cat is alive? Is a virus alive in the same way the cells of a cat are alive? Or is a virus only one part of life, in the same way DNA is only one part of life?

I'll mention it again, as it seems to have been missed. All those using "chemistry" in their definitions. Life as we know it, is not a chemical process alone. It requires mechanical and logical processes. DNA is our logical operator, that stores information, and mechanical processes to read/transcribe and action it. All life has these processes, no life as we know it relies on chemical processes. Viruses included. KerikBalm, I am not sure what your argument is. Yes there is at times a "spectrum". There also is in colour. While Science cannot decide what to define or call each colour, we can, and we can stick to it. While cultures use different meanings and understandings, we can still have one that scientifically is accepted. IE, wavelength. So, if I can define the wavelength as a green colour, why can I not define a process as being, or not being "life" or other processes as being/not being "living"? Yes. And a Cat is not a Dog. But it still means a definition of "feline" is correct when talking about my cat, even if you point out that bacterium are sometimes parasitic. In which case, we define those parasitic ones as.... parasitic, and not individually operating. Where did I say we cannot do so??? Fine. The question was for the thread "what is a virus/bacterium/parasite/dormant thing, is it alive [that is, what is it doing]?" or visa versa, "is a living thing classed as..." We either use an agreed definition, of living. Or we answer specifically each thing we discuss, as you are offering. That's also great.