Of course it does. It has lots of places where it is opaque as well. The point stands that it is a fortuitous circumstance that it has a window at the peak of the sun’s spectrum, so we get a double bonus. Again, our eyes did not have to choose between the sun’s spectrum and the atmosphere’s transparency. It got a “buy one get one free” deal.
This can be viewed all sorts of ways depending on your philosophy. But I’m surprised anyone would view it as “meh, no biggie.”
You misunderstand me. He explains why it appears so absurd to us (the context of why such a big number seems so out of place and is so difficult to deal with in physics), he does not offer an account for why it has that value.
In fact he goes on to insist that he thinks the number is wrong and that the real value is actually zero. I’m not posting that video because I think he’s right about the real value being 0, only because he gives a sort of account for how that extremely large value was calculated.
How does it differ from Mars, or Venus? How does it differ from rocky exoplanets with atmospheres in general?
Many think that can’t be, because then the universe would expand too slowly (as opposed to too quickly if the value was bigger.) It would seem that, in the current theory, that it has to be very, very small, but not vanishingly small.
But maybe he will turn out to be right. I’m a nuclear physicist not a cosmologist, so by no means an expert.
I have no idea, I’m not a cosmologist either. Again, I’m not posting that video to advertise his solution or because I agree with it (I have no way of doing that, too far outside of my understanding), only because of the practical account of calculating the large value that he gives.
If you’d quoted beyond the first line of my post you might have realised I didn’t say that.
And the aqueous humor (fluid between the cornea and the lens) and the vitreous humor (between the lens and th retina) are both about 98% water.
Even if light waves outside the visual band pass the atmosphere, they are absorbed by the water in the eye. Water-based eyes cannot exploit spectra that are strongly absorbed by water.
That “if” was a rebuttal as it were to this statement of mine:
If life, any kind of life , requires the storage of information, then you won’t find it without heavy elements.
But seriously, you need to do better. All science has an implied “if”. If QM is correct, … If General Relativity is correct, … If evolution is correct, … etc. Merely pointing out the “if” is meaningless, as it is understood.
The point remains that a overwhelming consensus would agree that it is a reasonable working assumption that any kind of life involves reproduction, and reproduction implies (by its very name) the existence of information, and information requires storage, and to store anything requires complex chemistry and molecules, and they in turn require the synthesizing of heavy elements.
Highlighting the “if” is not really any kind of substantive counter-argument. To be taken seriously you need to propose a plausible way there could be life without heavy elements, and not just reiterate what everyone already knows, namely that science never ultimately proves anything right, there are always assumptions. There is always an “if”.
No, you need to do better. You’ve stated that life requires heavy elements, but your ‘support’ for that statement is mere repetition of it.
But in this case it’s not understood, since your claim does not have the same evidential support as evolution or relativity.
True, by every attempt to define ‘life’ that I’ve seen.
Not true. Reproduction implies the existence of something to reproduce, which thing probably includes information for some definitions of information but not others, but could concievably not.
False. Information can be stored in an arrangement of large quartz crystals on a bed of smaller quartz crystals. It could be stored as a series of deuterium atoms in a lattice of crystallien hydrogen. It can and is transmitted as a series of light pulses of different frequencies and/or lengths, which doesn’t require any molecules or chemistry at all.
Sure it is. It shows that your argument is based on an unverified and possibly unverifiable assumption, and so may be incorrect.
Not all ‘ifs’ are equal.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.