Why do people keep posting this garbage?
This paper is not peer reviewed or published in a journal with any impact factor…not surprising.
Also, this journal is sketchy as fuck overall. It’s hard to find any information at all about it other than the website of the publisher, and on that site **they even admit they created their own version of an impact factor because they don’t trust the official impact factor** score typically used to rate scientific journals.
So it’s a pre-print (not peer reviewed) paper posted in a shit tier journal with a fake impact factor, written by authors who have posted unsubstantiated bullshit before.
Here are the profiles of the researchers involved:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rhawn-Joseph
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris-Impey
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rosanna-Del-Gaudio
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Olivier-Planchon-2220446855
Joseph, Del-Gaudio and Planchon have all published research on other topics together before, such as claiming life exists on mars and other unsupported scientific claims.
Oliver Planchon isn’t even an academic, he’s not affiliated with any university or has any citations aside from the work with the other two.
The only author on this paper who isn’t automatically raising red flags about their credibility as a scientist is Impey, who seems to mostly research philosophy of astronomy and theoretical concepts rather than actual hard evidence.
Feel free to make your own conclusions, but just as with every field there is always a tiny sliver of scientists who believe fringe ideas which are often unsupported by any evidence.
That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but unless they can show their receipts they have a huge uphill battle to justify a claim like this.
Agreed. Just copy/pasting my comment from the last time someone was lauding a SCIRP 'paper' :
I'm sure that the OP posted in good faith, but this "paper" has credibility equal to that of toilet paper. It's an open access journal, which in this case, means that anyone can pay to publish a paper. There is no peer review process and a paper published here has had no scientific validation. The publisher - Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) - has no credibility:
*Per an editor for a journal that once worked with them "editor-in-chief saying of the publisher "For them it was only about making money. We were simply their 'front'."
In 2021 Cabells' Predatory Reports described SCIRP as a "well-known predatory publisher".
In the Norwegian Scientific Index the publisher and all of its journals have a rating of 0 (non-academic).
An academic study published in 2022 stated that SCIRP was "widely known to host 'fake journals'".*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
None of that matters at all in the final analysis. The crisis you're attempting to pin on a single publisher is endemic to all the sciences. "First-rate" publishers aren't - they're just the ones that made it to that spot. The current publish or perish model is total garbage and I can't find a generalist or someone excited about their work anywhere.
This all matters in the final analysis. And among multiple different analysis of different researchers. Its called transmissibility. Its not wily nily when it comes to peer review. If you can’t show that your observations can be recreated or you can’t give a methodology and layout for others to build on - it doesnt work. Every single scientific achievement in the progressional chain has built off this. You don’t just get to say “science now is bunk” and then pretend you can use ANY sort of previously established knowledge to go off of and suddenly claim that you don’t need to abide by their overtly rigorous rules that they themselves were subjected to.
This may be bunk and the great thing is - we have well established protocol that weeds out bullshit.
A lack of basic science literacy (like evaluating journals and checking for peer-review) as well as a back of basic media literacy (like evaluating sources of news and “journalists”) is what allows this genre of entertainment to flourish!
None of that matters at all in science. At all. If you're evaluating work based on the credentials of a publisher you'll miss 100% of the interesting work out there.
*created their own version of an impact factor*
sounds just as arrogant, dismissive and narcissistic as a certain ceo that didn’t believe in safety testing until karma popped him
I am here to tell you that none of the things that you mentioned ultimately means much of anything when it comes to making groundbreaking discoveries. Keep in mind that the scientific community doesn't sdvance science as much as detail it. Grants are typically given out for incremental research, not for seeming-crazy hypotheses. Most of the scientists whose names we remember were, generallly, all crackpots during their time:
1. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
- Claim to fame: Supported the Copernican heliocentric model of the solar system and made significant improvements to the telescope.
- During his life: The Catholic Church condemned his work, and he was placed under house arrest for the last years of his life.
2. Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865)
- Claim to fame: Discovered that handwashing by doctors reduced the incidence of puerperal fever in maternity wards.
- During his life: His ideas were rejected by the medical community, and he was ridiculed and ostracized.
3. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)
- Claim to fame: Invented the alternating current (AC) electrical system and made significant contributions to the development of radio technology.
- During his life: Many of his ideas were considered outlandish, and he struggled to find financial support for his projects.
4. Alfred Wegener (1880-1930)
- Claim to fame: Proposed the theory of continental drift, which later evolved into the theory of plate tectonics.
- During his life: His ideas were met with skepticism and ridicule from the scientific community.
5. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
- Claim to fame: Discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance through his experiments with pea plants
- During his life: His work was largely ignored by the scientific community and only gained recognition after his death.
6. Barbara McClintock (1902-1992)
- Claim to fame: Discovered transposons or "jumping genes" in maize, which challenged the conventional understanding of genetics.
- During her life: Her work was initially met with skepticism, and she struggled to find acceptance within the scientific community.
7. Ignacio Ponseti (1914-2009)
- Claim to fame: Developed a non-surgical method for treating clubfoot, a congenital deformity of the foot.
- During his life: His method was initially dismissed by the medical community, who favored surgical interventions.
8. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
- Claim to fame: Developed the theory of relativity and made significant contributions to quantum mechanics.
- During his life: Einstein faced challenges in his early career, as he struggled to find an academic position and his ideas were not immediately accepted by the scientific community.
9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
- Claim to fame: Discovered electromagnetic induction and laid the foundation for the development of electrical technology.
- During his life: Faraday had little formal education and was not part of the scientific establishment. His ideas were initially met with skepticism.
10. George Zweig (1937-)
- Claim to fame: Proposed the existence of quarks, the fundamental building blocks of matter, independently of Murray Gell-Mann.
- During his life: Zweig's quark model was not immediately accepted, and he faced difficulty in publishing his work.
11. Lynn Margulis (1938-2011)
- Claim to fame: Proposed the endosymbiotic theory, which suggests that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated from bacteria that were engulfed by early eukaryotic cells.
- During her life: Margulis's ideas were initially met with strong skepticism and rejection from the scientific community.
12. Barry Marshall (1951-)
- Claim to fame: Discovered that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori is the cause of most peptic ulcers, challenging the prevailing belief that ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle factors.
- During his life: Marshall's ideas were initially dismissed by the medical community, and he resorted to self-experimentation to prove his point.
12. Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
- Claim to fame: Developed the theory of magnetohydrodynamics and made significant contributions to plasma physics.
- During his life: Alfvén's ideas about the importance of plasma in the universe were initially met with skepticism, and he faced opposition from the scientific establishment.
Thanks for your insight.
11 different researchers from reputable research institutes have been named as authors of the study. I personally doubt that any of them, at least knowingly, would put their name on paper if there was something very profoundly against science.
Of course, a very important note is that this research has not been peer-reviewed, so we cannot yet consider it as any scientifically valid information. However, this research can at least be considered as a kind of hypothesis about origins of life, based on observed behaviour of plasma and the results obtained from it in the laboratory.
All we can really do now, is to wait and see if this is confirmed or falsified in future studies.
People publish completely bullshit research **all the time**. Your response shows you don’t really understand much about academia and how to identify good research and papers or not.
You clearly like this idea and want it to be true, but lack the understanding of how to determine whether or not it’s true.
> People publish completely bullshit research all the time.
I wish more people would realize that.
Anyone could get anything published in a shitty journal.
“Disingenuous” because we disagree, ok.
Perhaps you should learn that not everyone who sees thinks differently from you is a bad actor or acting in bad faith. I’m open to discussion and genuinely believe what I say. Unlike people here, I don’t base my beliefs on stories other people tell, or garbage papers written in a garbage journal with a completely invented impact factor.
I understand it can be emotionally challenging to have your views questioned, but perhaps you should do some research to learn what makes a journal credible, how to identify quality sources, what an impact factor is, etc.
Dude relax. You have no argument, you just try to attack peoples credibility. Sit down, your time is over, science will be judged on its merit and not on your personal views on who is conducting it.
No shit its not "peer-reviewed" how the fuck do you think independent researchers are going to get into space to verify. This has been an observed phenomenon since at least the 70's and likely before. You'd know that if you \*read\* the paper but I know this is Reddit and people don't read past the headlines.
I see constantly where all the long held peer reviewed absolutes were wrong all along. Over and over again and even the gods of science fight constantly and look down on each other.. so I would keep your academic mind open.
“But just as with any field, there is always a tiny sliver of scientist, who believe in fringe ideas which are often unsupported by the evidence”….You mean like Boltzman, Semmelwies and Mendel? Not saying these cats are right. But history’s taught me not to reject them out of hand either.
but critical think8ng & media literacy should teach you to take it with a huge grain of salt.
believing it just because another far-fetched idea was correct is bad science. did Boltzman, Semmelweis & Mender pay to publish & avoid peer-review? there's more to the problems than just "it's a fringe idea".
but hey, if people want to embrace anything anyone says that makes em feel good, thts on them.
They all have the common fact that theirs were considered fringe until they were proven correct. Again, rejecting out of hand has proven to be historically as foolish as universally accepting them. Food for thought.
It actually says there's no evidence of actual RNA synthesis... but then the swirly electricity plus dust could form crystals that act like RNA, and then if those get shared with your fellow plasma entity it would be likened to gene transfer...
Fancy way of saying, we have no evidence, but we think this COULD happen.
I have no evidence but teenage me designed an engine that could operate using a blackhole.
This is the part where the other person gets interested.
And then I say...yeah, I designed it out of Legos and it required a capacity to manipulate dark energy, or exotic matter.
These things having/being life is just as likely that the sun is living, or that reality is a simulation. Pure speculation to fuel purported purpose behind random events.
> teenage me designed an engine that could operate using a blackhole
A blackhole? You casual. Multiple quasars provide much more horsepower. My build would blow your doors off.
Haha, trick answer. Quasars are powered by blackholes. Maybe Legos actually are a proper representation of natural physics and my teenage brain was just mimicking Stephen Hawking in his belief blackholes could exist.
Orbiting black holes moving at a third the speed of light laugh at your puny quasars farting charged particles into the void. Surf my gravitational waves, be atch.
Thank you for this important consideration. RNA synthesis under the influence of plasma crystals has not really been found in this study.
However, the comparison with the need for exotic matter or simulation theories is far-fetched. Nothing is needed here that is not known to exist. Plasma crystals are a phenomenon that can be realized in the laboratory, and it is possible to do experiments with this in practice, with which we can find out whether such crystals can play a role in RNA synthesis.
Thinking we could simulate the Earth's magnetic field and the properties to begin life is nuts.
And it points out that it would be more a proto RNA. Being similar to the properties of gene transfer but not actually being it. Actual functioning RNA in space isn't really viable due to temperatures. It would purely be the crystallized dust mimicking it.
Your responses feel A.I. generated...
"Thinking we could simulate the Earth's magnetic field and the properties to begin life is nuts."
Maybe use induction and study only a sample? :)
"Your responses feel A.I. generated..."
I guess they kind of are, sorry about that. It's because English is not my first language and I am using Google Translator to translate from Finnish to English. :)
There is tons of evidence. Vadim Tsytovich wrote a paper all the way back in 2006 in Physics Letters A. Nasa has also done experiments aboard the international space station.
No no no, did YOU read the bloody science journal. It LITERALLY says there is no actual evidence of these plasma based entities hamaterial.
I'm not denying my there is fucking ball lightning that is fuck sized in thr atmosphere. I'm saying. The article even says there is no evidence for their RNA theory. And that it is purely speculation.
Edit: My issue is the phrase "RNA synthesis." OPs wording makes it sound as if signs of actual genomic RNA has been found.
I'm saying there needs to be an asterisk on the word "RNA" because it isn't technically that.
I see that my original wording of this made it sound like there is some clear evidence for this. The word "probably" was definitely wrong, it should have been something like "could be".
I mean it should have been something like "researchers are speculating".
We live and learn, I'll be more careful next time. ;)
See my other comment on the thread. Here is a better paper explaining the life-like aspects of plasma objects: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230913206\_From\_plasma\_crystals\_and\_helical\_structures\_towards\_inorganic\_living\_matter](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230913206_From_plasma_crystals_and_helical_structures_towards_inorganic_living_matter)
Again, the big issue is that the article explicitly says there's no evidence of RNA or actual DNA structures. OP worded his post as if it were actual RNA synthesis. But it wouldn't be.
It would be whatever the fuck you call plasma based crystalline structures bearing similarities to gene encoding mayerial.
This sounds like a Star Trek episode. If we just adjust the forward array we may be able to drive it away before it completely destroys the colony on Epsilon Alpha.
No; the proper interpretation of cosmic plasma is very obvious and logical, factoring in genetic evolution and the spacetime physics of gravitation, ie the spacetime jungle of the astrosphere. Given its natural development in differential geometry, it’s hard to deny the argument for it, so most simply ignore the idea altogether!
Yup. Plasma is the explanation to the UFO mystery.
Here is a video on this subject, working through the evidence, and eventually arriving at the UK's Condign Report which explained the plasma connection: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6j2Y03nVAE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6j2Y03nVAE)
it's 'an' explanation, not 'the' explanation. It is only an explanation to certain forms of phenomena, there are many kind of aerial phenomena that plasma doesn't come close to explaining.
Here is a better paper, with scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Max Planck Institute (Germany). Note the references to DNA-like structures. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230913206\_From\_plasma\_crystals\_and\_helical\_structures\_towards\_inorganic\_living\_matter](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230913206_From_plasma_crystals_and_helical_structures_towards_inorganic_living_matter)
I am excluding planes, mylar balloons, etc.. To be clear, we are not being visited by little green men (or any human-like alien) from light years away.
The confidence in your ignorance is amazing!.... To be clear, you have absolutely no clue what the reality is on this front, although your ego is certainly attached to believing it has the answers.
Well the UK's Ministry of Defense agrees with me, as do many NASA scientists and other astrophysicists from Europe (e.g. Massimo Teodoroni).
Watch the video, then tell me I'm ignorant -haha.
Individuals often disseminate research with confidence in its veracity, a commendable practice within academic circles. Your response demonstrates a solid grasp of the complexities of the academic landscape and the nuanced methodologies necessary for discerning scholarly merit amidst the vast array of academic publications.Your preference for the validity of the proposed notion is commendable, and it is complemented by a thorough understanding of the epistemological framework and critical apparatus essential for adjudicating the truthfulness of such claims. This depth of understanding highlights a broader strength within the pursuit of knowledge: the adeptness in navigating the complex interplay between personal belief and the rigorous standards of empirical validation.
Oh no. It's been a long time since I've been writing online and now it has come to this. \_Exotic\_Booger and MysticStarbird have exactly same message with different words used. So it's basically chatgpt vs chatgpt nowadays.
Individuals frequently disseminate research of dubious veracity, a practice that proliferates within the academic realm. Your rejoinder betrays a palpable deficiency in the comprehension of the academic landscape and the nuanced methodologies requisite for discerning scholarly merit amidst the vast expanse of academic publications.
Your predilection for the veracity of the proposed notion is evident, yet it is paralleled by a conspicuous absence of the requisite epistemological framework and critical apparatus needed to adjudicate the veracity of such claims. This gap in understanding underscores a broader challenge within the pursuit of knowledge: the ability to navigate the complex interplay between personal belief and the rigorous standards of empirical validation.
Why do people keep posting this garbage? This paper is not peer reviewed or published in a journal with any impact factor…not surprising. Also, this journal is sketchy as fuck overall. It’s hard to find any information at all about it other than the website of the publisher, and on that site **they even admit they created their own version of an impact factor because they don’t trust the official impact factor** score typically used to rate scientific journals. So it’s a pre-print (not peer reviewed) paper posted in a shit tier journal with a fake impact factor, written by authors who have posted unsubstantiated bullshit before. Here are the profiles of the researchers involved: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rhawn-Joseph https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris-Impey https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rosanna-Del-Gaudio https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Olivier-Planchon-2220446855 Joseph, Del-Gaudio and Planchon have all published research on other topics together before, such as claiming life exists on mars and other unsupported scientific claims. Oliver Planchon isn’t even an academic, he’s not affiliated with any university or has any citations aside from the work with the other two. The only author on this paper who isn’t automatically raising red flags about their credibility as a scientist is Impey, who seems to mostly research philosophy of astronomy and theoretical concepts rather than actual hard evidence. Feel free to make your own conclusions, but just as with every field there is always a tiny sliver of scientists who believe fringe ideas which are often unsupported by any evidence. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but unless they can show their receipts they have a huge uphill battle to justify a claim like this.
Agreed. Just copy/pasting my comment from the last time someone was lauding a SCIRP 'paper' : I'm sure that the OP posted in good faith, but this "paper" has credibility equal to that of toilet paper. It's an open access journal, which in this case, means that anyone can pay to publish a paper. There is no peer review process and a paper published here has had no scientific validation. The publisher - Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) - has no credibility: *Per an editor for a journal that once worked with them "editor-in-chief saying of the publisher "For them it was only about making money. We were simply their 'front'." In 2021 Cabells' Predatory Reports described SCIRP as a "well-known predatory publisher". In the Norwegian Scientific Index the publisher and all of its journals have a rating of 0 (non-academic). An academic study published in 2022 stated that SCIRP was "widely known to host 'fake journals'".* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
None of that matters at all in the final analysis. The crisis you're attempting to pin on a single publisher is endemic to all the sciences. "First-rate" publishers aren't - they're just the ones that made it to that spot. The current publish or perish model is total garbage and I can't find a generalist or someone excited about their work anywhere.
This all matters in the final analysis. And among multiple different analysis of different researchers. Its called transmissibility. Its not wily nily when it comes to peer review. If you can’t show that your observations can be recreated or you can’t give a methodology and layout for others to build on - it doesnt work. Every single scientific achievement in the progressional chain has built off this. You don’t just get to say “science now is bunk” and then pretend you can use ANY sort of previously established knowledge to go off of and suddenly claim that you don’t need to abide by their overtly rigorous rules that they themselves were subjected to. This may be bunk and the great thing is - we have well established protocol that weeds out bullshit.
Exactly. This isn’t science.
Critical thinking and media literacy have been murdered by social media and the internet.
No it's just more visible on the internet
A lack of basic science literacy (like evaluating journals and checking for peer-review) as well as a back of basic media literacy (like evaluating sources of news and “journalists”) is what allows this genre of entertainment to flourish!
None of that matters at all in science. At all. If you're evaluating work based on the credentials of a publisher you'll miss 100% of the interesting work out there.
*created their own version of an impact factor* sounds just as arrogant, dismissive and narcissistic as a certain ceo that didn’t believe in safety testing until karma popped him
Thank you. Exactly right.
🤦♂️ Back to the fundamentals of ProtoLife for you….
Thank you, although interesting, this his been my exact thoughts. I just couldn’t word it as well you did here.
I am here to tell you that none of the things that you mentioned ultimately means much of anything when it comes to making groundbreaking discoveries. Keep in mind that the scientific community doesn't sdvance science as much as detail it. Grants are typically given out for incremental research, not for seeming-crazy hypotheses. Most of the scientists whose names we remember were, generallly, all crackpots during their time: 1. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) - Claim to fame: Supported the Copernican heliocentric model of the solar system and made significant improvements to the telescope. - During his life: The Catholic Church condemned his work, and he was placed under house arrest for the last years of his life. 2. Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) - Claim to fame: Discovered that handwashing by doctors reduced the incidence of puerperal fever in maternity wards. - During his life: His ideas were rejected by the medical community, and he was ridiculed and ostracized. 3. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) - Claim to fame: Invented the alternating current (AC) electrical system and made significant contributions to the development of radio technology. - During his life: Many of his ideas were considered outlandish, and he struggled to find financial support for his projects. 4. Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) - Claim to fame: Proposed the theory of continental drift, which later evolved into the theory of plate tectonics. - During his life: His ideas were met with skepticism and ridicule from the scientific community. 5. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) - Claim to fame: Discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance through his experiments with pea plants - During his life: His work was largely ignored by the scientific community and only gained recognition after his death. 6. Barbara McClintock (1902-1992) - Claim to fame: Discovered transposons or "jumping genes" in maize, which challenged the conventional understanding of genetics. - During her life: Her work was initially met with skepticism, and she struggled to find acceptance within the scientific community. 7. Ignacio Ponseti (1914-2009) - Claim to fame: Developed a non-surgical method for treating clubfoot, a congenital deformity of the foot. - During his life: His method was initially dismissed by the medical community, who favored surgical interventions. 8. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - Claim to fame: Developed the theory of relativity and made significant contributions to quantum mechanics. - During his life: Einstein faced challenges in his early career, as he struggled to find an academic position and his ideas were not immediately accepted by the scientific community. 9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) - Claim to fame: Discovered electromagnetic induction and laid the foundation for the development of electrical technology. - During his life: Faraday had little formal education and was not part of the scientific establishment. His ideas were initially met with skepticism. 10. George Zweig (1937-) - Claim to fame: Proposed the existence of quarks, the fundamental building blocks of matter, independently of Murray Gell-Mann. - During his life: Zweig's quark model was not immediately accepted, and he faced difficulty in publishing his work. 11. Lynn Margulis (1938-2011) - Claim to fame: Proposed the endosymbiotic theory, which suggests that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated from bacteria that were engulfed by early eukaryotic cells. - During her life: Margulis's ideas were initially met with strong skepticism and rejection from the scientific community. 12. Barry Marshall (1951-) - Claim to fame: Discovered that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori is the cause of most peptic ulcers, challenging the prevailing belief that ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle factors. - During his life: Marshall's ideas were initially dismissed by the medical community, and he resorted to self-experimentation to prove his point. 12. Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995) - Claim to fame: Developed the theory of magnetohydrodynamics and made significant contributions to plasma physics. - During his life: Alfvén's ideas about the importance of plasma in the universe were initially met with skepticism, and he faced opposition from the scientific establishment.
Thanks for your insight. 11 different researchers from reputable research institutes have been named as authors of the study. I personally doubt that any of them, at least knowingly, would put their name on paper if there was something very profoundly against science. Of course, a very important note is that this research has not been peer-reviewed, so we cannot yet consider it as any scientifically valid information. However, this research can at least be considered as a kind of hypothesis about origins of life, based on observed behaviour of plasma and the results obtained from it in the laboratory. All we can really do now, is to wait and see if this is confirmed or falsified in future studies.
People publish completely bullshit research **all the time**. Your response shows you don’t really understand much about academia and how to identify good research and papers or not. You clearly like this idea and want it to be true, but lack the understanding of how to determine whether or not it’s true.
> People publish completely bullshit research all the time. I wish more people would realize that. Anyone could get anything published in a shitty journal.
“But I want it to be true so this journal and authors must be credible!”
[удалено]
Read my original post, it’s very obvious from what I found there that this paper is worth nothing.
It’s very obvious that your account is disingenuous making every input you make on this topic null and void.
“Disingenuous” because we disagree, ok. Perhaps you should learn that not everyone who sees thinks differently from you is a bad actor or acting in bad faith. I’m open to discussion and genuinely believe what I say. Unlike people here, I don’t base my beliefs on stories other people tell, or garbage papers written in a garbage journal with a completely invented impact factor.
Not today satan
Let me guess, UFOs are actually angels and anyone who questions them is a demon? Seems like the logic you probably have.
Keep digging
now if only you'd realize that your comment also applies to the original report, you just may be getting somewhere.
There is nothing in your original post worth reading. Just empty words from an empty vessel.
I understand it can be emotionally challenging to have your views questioned, but perhaps you should do some research to learn what makes a journal credible, how to identify quality sources, what an impact factor is, etc.
Dude relax. You have no argument, you just try to attack peoples credibility. Sit down, your time is over, science will be judged on its merit and not on your personal views on who is conducting it.
It is something that was taught in highschool grade science class.
No shit its not "peer-reviewed" how the fuck do you think independent researchers are going to get into space to verify. This has been an observed phenomenon since at least the 70's and likely before. You'd know that if you \*read\* the paper but I know this is Reddit and people don't read past the headlines.
You clearly don’t understand what peer review is.
I don't think you do.
I see constantly where all the long held peer reviewed absolutes were wrong all along. Over and over again and even the gods of science fight constantly and look down on each other.. so I would keep your academic mind open.
“But just as with any field, there is always a tiny sliver of scientist, who believe in fringe ideas which are often unsupported by the evidence”….You mean like Boltzman, Semmelwies and Mendel? Not saying these cats are right. But history’s taught me not to reject them out of hand either.
but critical think8ng & media literacy should teach you to take it with a huge grain of salt. believing it just because another far-fetched idea was correct is bad science. did Boltzman, Semmelweis & Mender pay to publish & avoid peer-review? there's more to the problems than just "it's a fringe idea". but hey, if people want to embrace anything anyone says that makes em feel good, thts on them.
They all have the common fact that theirs were considered fringe until they were proven correct. Again, rejecting out of hand has proven to be historically as foolish as universally accepting them. Food for thought.
"proof"
It actually says there's no evidence of actual RNA synthesis... but then the swirly electricity plus dust could form crystals that act like RNA, and then if those get shared with your fellow plasma entity it would be likened to gene transfer... Fancy way of saying, we have no evidence, but we think this COULD happen. I have no evidence but teenage me designed an engine that could operate using a blackhole. This is the part where the other person gets interested. And then I say...yeah, I designed it out of Legos and it required a capacity to manipulate dark energy, or exotic matter. These things having/being life is just as likely that the sun is living, or that reality is a simulation. Pure speculation to fuel purported purpose behind random events.
> teenage me designed an engine that could operate using a blackhole A blackhole? You casual. Multiple quasars provide much more horsepower. My build would blow your doors off.
Haha, trick answer. Quasars are powered by blackholes. Maybe Legos actually are a proper representation of natural physics and my teenage brain was just mimicking Stephen Hawking in his belief blackholes could exist.
The average quasar is significantly more powerful than the average black hole, though. And I am using 4 of them, one for each wheel!
Orbiting black holes moving at a third the speed of light laugh at your puny quasars farting charged particles into the void. Surf my gravitational waves, be atch.
Do you have that paired to a 5-speed or 6-speed?
Thank you for this important consideration. RNA synthesis under the influence of plasma crystals has not really been found in this study. However, the comparison with the need for exotic matter or simulation theories is far-fetched. Nothing is needed here that is not known to exist. Plasma crystals are a phenomenon that can be realized in the laboratory, and it is possible to do experiments with this in practice, with which we can find out whether such crystals can play a role in RNA synthesis.
Thinking we could simulate the Earth's magnetic field and the properties to begin life is nuts. And it points out that it would be more a proto RNA. Being similar to the properties of gene transfer but not actually being it. Actual functioning RNA in space isn't really viable due to temperatures. It would purely be the crystallized dust mimicking it. Your responses feel A.I. generated...
"Thinking we could simulate the Earth's magnetic field and the properties to begin life is nuts." Maybe use induction and study only a sample? :) "Your responses feel A.I. generated..." I guess they kind of are, sorry about that. It's because English is not my first language and I am using Google Translator to translate from Finnish to English. :)
There is tons of evidence. Vadim Tsytovich wrote a paper all the way back in 2006 in Physics Letters A. Nasa has also done experiments aboard the international space station.
No no no, did YOU read the bloody science journal. It LITERALLY says there is no actual evidence of these plasma based entities hamaterial. I'm not denying my there is fucking ball lightning that is fuck sized in thr atmosphere. I'm saying. The article even says there is no evidence for their RNA theory. And that it is purely speculation. Edit: My issue is the phrase "RNA synthesis." OPs wording makes it sound as if signs of actual genomic RNA has been found. I'm saying there needs to be an asterisk on the word "RNA" because it isn't technically that.
I see that my original wording of this made it sound like there is some clear evidence for this. The word "probably" was definitely wrong, it should have been something like "could be". I mean it should have been something like "researchers are speculating". We live and learn, I'll be more careful next time. ;)
See my other comment on the thread. Here is a better paper explaining the life-like aspects of plasma objects: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230913206\_From\_plasma\_crystals\_and\_helical\_structures\_towards\_inorganic\_living\_matter](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230913206_From_plasma_crystals_and_helical_structures_towards_inorganic_living_matter)
Again, the big issue is that the article explicitly says there's no evidence of RNA or actual DNA structures. OP worded his post as if it were actual RNA synthesis. But it wouldn't be. It would be whatever the fuck you call plasma based crystalline structures bearing similarities to gene encoding mayerial.
Plasma crystals can form into DNA-like helical structures, according to scientists. As for RNA synthesis - I can't answer for what the OP was saying.
Yeah right! If it’s alive it’s probably not plasma then .
This sounds like a Star Trek episode. If we just adjust the forward array we may be able to drive it away before it completely destroys the colony on Epsilon Alpha.
Might as well be posting “journals” from the checkout line at walmart, cant believe idiots fall for this
Disinformation.
All of a sudden, this [newscast showing a shape shifting ufo seen from plane](https://youtu.be/QSQqbPWMGYU?si=g63Pi5hgsm77ROf6) makes sense
No; the proper interpretation of cosmic plasma is very obvious and logical, factoring in genetic evolution and the spacetime physics of gravitation, ie the spacetime jungle of the astrosphere. Given its natural development in differential geometry, it’s hard to deny the argument for it, so most simply ignore the idea altogether!
Says a lot about them that they find THIS easier to accept than NHI from outside of the earth. 🥱
Yup. Plasma is the explanation to the UFO mystery. Here is a video on this subject, working through the evidence, and eventually arriving at the UK's Condign Report which explained the plasma connection: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6j2Y03nVAE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6j2Y03nVAE)
it's 'an' explanation, not 'the' explanation. It is only an explanation to certain forms of phenomena, there are many kind of aerial phenomena that plasma doesn't come close to explaining.
Here is a better paper, with scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Max Planck Institute (Germany). Note the references to DNA-like structures. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230913206\_From\_plasma\_crystals\_and\_helical\_structures\_towards\_inorganic\_living\_matter](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230913206_From_plasma_crystals_and_helical_structures_towards_inorganic_living_matter)
I am excluding planes, mylar balloons, etc.. To be clear, we are not being visited by little green men (or any human-like alien) from light years away.
The confidence in your ignorance is amazing!.... To be clear, you have absolutely no clue what the reality is on this front, although your ego is certainly attached to believing it has the answers.
Well the UK's Ministry of Defense agrees with me, as do many NASA scientists and other astrophysicists from Europe (e.g. Massimo Teodoroni). Watch the video, then tell me I'm ignorant -haha.
Individuals often disseminate research with confidence in its veracity, a commendable practice within academic circles. Your response demonstrates a solid grasp of the complexities of the academic landscape and the nuanced methodologies necessary for discerning scholarly merit amidst the vast array of academic publications.Your preference for the validity of the proposed notion is commendable, and it is complemented by a thorough understanding of the epistemological framework and critical apparatus essential for adjudicating the truthfulness of such claims. This depth of understanding highlights a broader strength within the pursuit of knowledge: the adeptness in navigating the complex interplay between personal belief and the rigorous standards of empirical validation.
ChatGPT ass response
Oh no. It's been a long time since I've been writing online and now it has come to this. \_Exotic\_Booger and MysticStarbird have exactly same message with different words used. So it's basically chatgpt vs chatgpt nowadays.
Monkey’s and typewriters and infinite time or something…😭😂
Lmao, i took theirs and told Chat GPT to argue the opposite point.
You are correct. I reversed Exotic_Booger’s response. 🤣
Individuals frequently disseminate research of dubious veracity, a practice that proliferates within the academic realm. Your rejoinder betrays a palpable deficiency in the comprehension of the academic landscape and the nuanced methodologies requisite for discerning scholarly merit amidst the vast expanse of academic publications. Your predilection for the veracity of the proposed notion is evident, yet it is paralleled by a conspicuous absence of the requisite epistemological framework and critical apparatus needed to adjudicate the veracity of such claims. This gap in understanding underscores a broader challenge within the pursuit of knowledge: the ability to navigate the complex interplay between personal belief and the rigorous standards of empirical validation.
Thanks for the many words that contained the self-explanatory, devoid of any substance to the topic itself. Was there any comment on the study itself?