Cassel

How do you distinguish the planet clearing it's orbit from what you describe?

They are not stable, because Jupiter is cleaning its orbit before our eyes.

If there really was such a clash, is it possible to have such "mountains"? I think that the melted crust of Earth and the other planet would create a more uniform structure? https://www.livescience.com/64943-nobody-understands-the-giant-mantle-blobs.html

Is a similar rule valid for Jupiter? (By the way, can Jupiter be called a planet if it did not clean its orbit?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_trojan

If the chances of something does not matter to you, I might as well create a hypothesis based on 6 hits in Earth. The fact that we are dealing with a sample of size 1 should make us skeptical about every hypothesis. Exactly, could not the Earth and the moon form in such a way from the beginning?

Why you exclude "capturing" moon? First of all, there is no evidence that the oceans of magma existed on Earth, it negates the hypothesis of a great impact. "This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties that have yet to be resolved. For example, the giant-impact hypothesis implies that a surface magma ocean would have formed following the impact. Yet there is no evidence that the Earth ever had such a magma ocean and it is likely there exists material that has never been processed in a magma ocean." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis Secondly, you suggest that the moon was accelerating, where was this observed? The simplest hypothesis is one that says that these rocks, on which the great impact hypothesis rests, do not come from the moon.

I see a different problem here. Both hypotheses are based on the assumption that these rocks are from the moon. This new hypothesis shows that there would have to be two objects hitting Earth. The first impact accelerated the rotation of the Earth to such an extent that it almost became flat. Second object was size of Mars, and that would create something that we have not seen so far (synestia) so we could explain the fact that the rocks from the moon are identical to the rocks from Earth. I have a simpler answer how to explain this similarity :-) As for the theory of the great collision, I am just reading about it and I do not understand why it is taken into account at all. Why could the Earth and the moon not be formed separately in the same orbit?

No idea, youtube recommended me this video :-) I am looking at her website, maybe there is more information http://sarahtstewart.net/origin-earth-and-moon/

Let me guess, they did it cheaper than the US?

I am a scared that they can mutate goats so much just by giving them milk...

That's why I wrote that language is a bad example. It's scientists who depend on ordinary people who keep their salaries from taxes if they create such a science, which an ordinary person (performing equally difficult profession, maybe it is worth stopping pretending that being a scientist today is something extraordinary) can not easily assimilate why ordinary people are supposed to spend on this "science" money? See, you gave another example of the bad name "deoxyribonucleic acid" does not say anything about what it is used for. DNA is an abbreviation of a name that means nothing. I do not know if you can look at names like a novice who does not know what the term refers to, if you have such a skill then you should see the problem that I see. Sure, but they pretend they are smarter that they really are, claiming that they know better how everyone should live and say they have a monopoly on knowledge and understanding about the phenomenon of the world around us. And they do not even know what the whole DNA chain is for. Not true. Languages have been created for thousands of years, and scientific terminology has been brought to the limits of the absurd over the past 50 years. The fact that the terminology is misleading is my opinion, I have no right to have an opinion other than yours? As so-far you have not written anything that could change my opinion, you only give further examples of terms that are misleading or badly named. The solution to this problem would be to create alternative, more descriptive names by some group of scientists. Cosmology is a descriptive name, but it's probably because it has not been invented in the last 50 years.

If someone uses a word in a language that you do not understand, it means that they can not communicate with you properly and it does not mean that you have to learn something, only they have to improve their skills if they want to communicate with you. And the professions in bold show the best that this way you creates artificial things that serve no purpose, only create new jobs for pseudo-experts who have to memorize some phrases. These things only slow down the development. Science can not exist in isolation from ordinary people, science was meant to be for people, not for elites who will pretend to be smarter and claim to know everything better. Something like that will end badly. A foreign language is a rather bad example, because learning a language can always be useful for example during a trip. But the terms that scientists give are so non-descriptive and misleading that learning them is a waste of time.

Not exactly, we write about writing data in DNA, but if we do not understand everything about DNA (as opposed to writing data in the form of zeros and ones on optical or magnetic discs), is this form of data storage safe? Yes, if I want to communicate with someone. If I do not want to bother someone, I use terms that he understands, but that does not change the meaning of what I'm talking about. In this case, I would say "a piece of DNA whose function is unknown."

We write all the time about the wrong naming, not about the understanding of the mechanism behind the DNA is difficult and takes time, right? If you have to devote time and have to start thinking like those who made up the term to understand the term, it means that something is wrong with science. It ceases to be generally available, and it was not supposed to serve only the elites? The language that is used by scientists increasingly detaches itself from reality. And it is strange that ordinary people are discouraged when they see such terms? After all, to understand anything you have to remember many useless and misleading names. And it was enough to simply write an "unknown fragment of DNA".

Jargon can use the dealer managers, athletes, but not scientists. And this is a big mistake, but how do scientists write in such a way that for an ordinary person it was difficult to understand what else to expect? I used to hear a very good phrase at university, if you can not write something clearly, then you do not understand it yourself. In this way, I perceive scientists who create such terms. So why are scientists so hard to admit to the average person that they do not know everything about everything? It was misleading, no one proved that it is a "junk fragment". "Junk DNA" suggests that you know what this fragment is for and that its meaning is irrelevant. It does not suggest in any way that the meaning of this element is unknown to you. Scientists need to understand such basic issues. non-coding DNA is also a misleading and meaningless name, because it tells you what this piece does not do, but does not say what it should do.

Yea, isn't this that case? Complex thing were described by two words that makes it misleading.

Scientists should take care that the terms they use to describe discoveries are clear even to ordinary people. They are getting salaries from the government just to work for the good of all of us. If such terms are created, it means that someone did his job wrong.

This term is misleading, why scientists will not remove such nonsensical concepts?

It's not junk DNA, we do not know what it's for.

If you write that it is almost trivial, but to this day nobody uses it, it means that it is not that trivial :-) The problem with DNA is that you need a laboratory clear environment. If you drop the device on the floor at home and something breaks, will you be in contact with the DNA of the virus or bacteria? DNA for replication does not need any substances/resources? What about UV radiation and mutations? A few years ago I read about the possibility of producing a 1 m² graphene layer. With 1 cm² should be enough to build a small disk. Anyone knows how many graphene atoms can be placed on such a surface? You just put it in vacuum box and there you go, you have storage device, that can last long. Copying can be done in the same way that optical drives work, you insert a blank graphene layer, and the device burns holes/atoms on layer to mark zeros and ones.

How is this a better solution than collecting data in a 1-atom thick graphene layer?

Same, sci+space I can't see it

So the way they perceive and study particles is wrong ...

Or they can send crew first to ISS in Dragon 2 for few days? While Orion gets in orbit crew uses Dragon 2 to dock with Orion?