Vitul

If the momentum is indeed the same, how does cooling work? I assumed that the decrease in momentum would reduce the overall kinetic energy of the atom, which is a decrease of temperature.

That is because you don't have a clear demarcation between semiotic and non-semiotic microstates when you consider evolution. Let me give you an example, We have biological function A that isn't completely efficient at its role. Slowly, mutations that are selected for change the function to better suit the needs of the environment and the organism inhabiting it. After a certain period of time, you don't find biological function A anymore, its been replaced by the better, evolved A*. That doesn't mean that A did not exist, or A* had to have any specific goal to achieve. It was simply natural selection at work. At this point, you can't call A a non-semiotic microstate when you consider the evolutionary history of the function. This solves your problem of finding a semiotic A*, among a vast sea of A's and non-semiotic microstates.

Going back to laser cooling, have we done any experiments to show that the recoil from photon emission is significantly lower than the original momentum (in the direction that makes Doppler cooling possible)?

What makes you so sure that we need pre-existing machinery to develop new semiotic microstates? From where I see it, it is equally probably that random mutations can lead to the development of microstates that may be turned semiotic or non-semiotic based on the environment. Please don't forget that the process is gradual. I expect you to come back with the argument that there needs to be some goal to achieve or some blueprint to copy, but try to think of mutations as random however, remember that the mutations are also influenced by the environment.

I was reading up on optical tweezers, and I found them very fascinating! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers Do you think reactionless drives are a possibility in the near future?

Hello, Considering that lasers can create significant radiation pressure, what are some applications you propose for utilizing the radiation pressure of electromagnetic waves? Also, what are your opinions on the Abraham-Minkowski controversy?

I need to see whether it can be published, and also if my hypothesis has any gaping holes in it. This work was done independently, I've worked with scientists in other fields.

My research is very basic, considering the equipment I've used. I barely have any specialized equipment, and my high school lab isn't willing to fund me. Most of my work is based on previous experiments on marine ecology. The costs of fertilizing the ocean is very low, the only hurdle is transporting the iron to the location. The economic aspect isn't a drawback, definitely. The potential nitrous oxide emissions is a well-known but unsupported argument. I agree with you, we will need to make a legal structure for the process to prevent misuse. On the other hand, carbon sequestration was also significant in some of the experiments. (Read up on EIFEX)

Iron fertilization as potentially increasing fish populations hasn't been studied before, and therefore we don't have a solid basis for approaching those interested in the same. The claim is based on my own research and as a matter of fact, my latest paper is on the same thing. The problem is that I'm not being able to popularize the concept among people, which would be vital in reaching those interested in higher fish populations. If only I could get the backing of a recognized scientist, things would be different.

I was referring to natural selection in biological evolution, based on the original argument. Thank you for the clarification!

Well, the mass of 19 Fortuna is 5.41 x 10^-12 solar masses.[1] I haven't figured out the orbital characteristics yet, what would you recommend? [1] Baer, James, and Steven R. Chesley. "Astrometric Masses of 21 Asteroids, and an Integrated Asteroid Ephemeris." Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy Celestial Mech Dyn Astr 100.1 (2007): 27-42.

Hello, I was just thinking and imagining what it would be like to live in an orbital settlement (note: this settlement is in orbit around a celestial object and not on a celestial object). Here's how far I've gotten: 1. We pick the celestial object to be 19 Fortuna, an asteroid that is sufficiently small and very rich in organic compounds. It also has tholin (which can be used for construction). 2. The location of 19 Fortuna is right in the middle of Mars and the Asteroid Belt, which gives us sufficient access to minerals as well as support and trading with the Mars colonists (who we're assuming have been successful). 3. Our agriculture is on Fortuna but most of our habitation is in orbit around the asteroid. I don't want to impose restrictions on you guys so that's all. We'll add points as we discuss this. 3, 2, 1....Let's begin!

Interesting argument, however, I would like to mention a few points/questions. Considering that semiotic microstates are not probable and the number of non-semiotic microstates are abundant, don't you think you need only one semiotic microstate for there to be development. Think about it like this, evolution doesn't re-create everything and assuming that the creation of semiotic microstates needs to go through the same, original search is fallacious. If we have the creation of certain microstates that are biologically functional due to various environmental factors (which you ignored completely), the creation of other semiotic microstates isn't an independent process. Natural selection as a semiotic microstate spreading mechanism isn't even related to your axis of argument. For natural selection to occur, you need to have populations with variations and therefore, semiotic microstate creation isn't in the domain of evolution but more in the domain of the creation of life. You must understand that evolution did not create life. You also underestimate the possible microstates that are biologically functional. Personally, I believe that we shouldn't limit our search for semiotic microstates to only what is observed. Life on Earth had multiple microstates for the same function which were then modified and corrected by evolution and natural selection. Therefore, there is a significant hole in your mathematics. I hope you understand my points. I know I'm not qualified to answer this, and therefore, most of my reply is based on logic and my limited knowledge.

Well, there is no concrete evidence for any drawback but there have been claims of nitrous oxide emissions. Moreover, more study needs to be done on various long-term effects, especially of the change in ecosystem structure from nanophytoplankton to diatoms. Overall, the verdict is that we require more funding for experiments and large-scale iron fertilization.

Hello, Iron fertilization is the process of fertilizing select zones of the ocean with iron compounds, so that it no longer acts as a trace element in the ocean. Thus, by removing the limitation on phytoplankton (marine algae), we can induce artificial phytoplankton blooms which draw in more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Based on what I've studied, iron fertilization might potentially increase fish populations as well as reduce carbon emissions. Do you think it is a good idea? Why/why not?

Hi, I have tried starting a thread multiple times but it always dies out without much discussion. Moreover, I think the time difference plays a big role. The most probable reason for the threads dying out is the specificity of topics, which I'm assuming not many have really looked into. What else would you recommend?

The student (me) has contributed to various fields. Most notably, my work is based on biology and more specifically, biological oceanography. I wouldn't like to divulge names here, but the scientists are recognized and reputed. If required, I can show my work through e-mail. My work with scientists has mostly been research internships, where I handled a specific topic of study under their guidance.

What would you like to know?

The student has already been published and has helped conduct research with scientists before.

Hi! Well, I'm not tone-deaf but it is an actual disorder. It does mean that you can't process pitch differences. There are various forms of musical disorders, you should look them up.

"Awesomeness, in turn, concerns the art of creating social openings – such people are skilled at the awesome art of inspiring community on the small and large scale." - Nick Riggle, www.aeon.co I mostly agree with Mr. Riggle. According to me, being awesome is analogous to being unconventional, and this tends to have a positive effect on society. Awesomeness has evolved beyond the traditional definitions and needs to be redefined.

Let's discuss the disorder present in 4% of the world population. Ask me questions if required.

What do you guys think of 'being awesome' in society?

Hey guys, What do you think about iron fertilization? Find out about it on my blog: link removed