Genady

The purpose is: Whose knowledge? Humans are a tool, not a goal in this idea. Plants and other forms of life on Earth do it while restricted to Earth. The idea is, to remove this restriction.

The point is, to give life a chance to go on after there is no more chance on Earth.

There is nothing to discuss anymore, is there? The OP has conceded:

Why report back?

Predictions of this model should then differ from QM, and this difference should be testable experimentally. What are such predictions?

Is it unitary?

When I have come up with the idea / question in the OP and with its name, Reverse Panspermia, it was new to me. However, after a search on the Internet it turned out to be not so new. For example, "A German physicist envisions giving life a leg-up by sprinkling planets with microbes from robotic spacecraft." (Genesis project – a plan to seed life on other planets (cosmosmagazine.com)) Or, "As Mautner explains in his study published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Cosmology, the strategy is to deposit an array of primitive organisms on potentially fertile planets and protoplanets throughout the universe." (Professor: We have a 'moral obligation' to seed universe with life (phys.org)) There are more. The title has been used as well, albeit for a not purposeful seeding: "His approach is that panspermia, that is, that life arrived on Earth aboard meteorites or comets, has also occurred backward." (Reverse panspermia: The possibility that life on Earth has reached other planets (kagay-an.com)) There is even a legal opinion: "What happens if we seed other planets with Earth life? From a scientific perspective, the answer is tremendously complicated. From a legal perspective it’s simple: Someone goes to jail." (Here's Why It's Illegal to Seed Planets With Alien Lifeforms From Earth (inverse.com)) Just FYI.

I propose it because I don't know and I don't have an opinion, and I'd like to hear opinions and to learn arguments from others. I am proposing it on discussion board, not to a board of directors of SpaceX or NASA

No, the traditional theory does not have this problem. Maybe this quote and this website will help: "It so often happens that I receive mail - well-intended but totally useless - by amateur physicists who believe to have solved the world. They believe this, only because they understand totally nothing about the real way problems are solved in Modern Physics. If you really want to contribute to our theoretical understanding of physical laws - and it is an exciting experience if you succeed! - there are many things you need to know." How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist (uu.nl)

You might be right. I don't know and I don't have an opinion. But, I hear the same arguments about $ and hours from my neighbor, who about once a month asks me who cares about what happened to the universe billions of years ago, or how galaxies billions light years away have formed, when there are so many problems on Earth that need to be solved today.

Re the first part: my "disapproval" referred only to the idea of using them for detection of specifically dark matter. Re the second part: If I understand correctly, you're asking if gravity can be repulsive, rather than attractive. Yes, it can. Dark energy, whatever it is, creates repulsive gravity. The hypothesis of early cosmic inflation assumed repulsive gravity. However, for gravity to be repulsive, its source needs to be somewhat "exotic." No matter and radiation we are familiar with and observe in galaxies, including the dark matter, are like that. Their gravity is attractive.

Just a little project. While we can. May be. However, on the scale of trillions worlds out there, this will not have any significant effect. But could make a difference between life and death for the life originated on Earth. I'm thinking rather about a time scale of a billion years or so, when Earth will become uninhabitable regardless.

Quite possible. Anyway, the findings like "has been reported to be found more often in stool samples from patients with diverticulosis than healthy individuals" are what I referred as association in the post above. Maybe archaea just prefer diseased tissues and thus are found more often in the patients with disease?

I wanted to see what other big squids are doing with their egg masses. Not much known, but here is an interesting recent finding: This Mesmerising Underwater Blob Is Actually a Huge, Rare Mass of Squid Eggs (sciencealert.com)

Well, after all the statistical analysis I came up with my own ballpark estimates, which seem to fit it: life - one per galaxy intelligent life - one per cluster of galaxies advanced technological civilization (like us) - one per universe

I'm not sure it is technically correct to say that Leeuwenhoek first described bacteria in 1674. We didn't know of archaea as a separate domain until 1977, but it was there, mixed up with bacteria. Leeuwenhoek first described prokaryotes in 1674, he certainly couldn't distinguish between bacteria and archaea. Also, prokaryotic pathogens were found for long time, before 1977. Now, we can separate them into bacteria pathogens and archaea pathogens. The result of this separation: all of them turned out to be bacteria, no archaea.

They found some evidence of an association between some disease and archaea, but no evidence of archaea causing a disease, yet. Maybe it is fortunate, because it might be difficult to develop an antibiotic targeting archaea due to their biochemistry being more similar to ours than that of bacteria.

This question appeared in another thread, but it was OT there, so I post it anew. When we find a promising but sterile world, shouldn't we throw some archaea there with a purpose to spread life? After all, if / when we all go extinct here on Earth, then 4 billion years of evolution will go down the drain. This way we would be instrumental in saving the life. Nobody on Earth but us is capable of doing so.

Let's ask it differently: of all the known prokaryotic pathogens, what percent are archaea?

While there are so many detrimental bacteria, there are no detrimental archaea. Is it so? Why?

Sure. But this scenario cancels the other consideration, "No knowing where we could end up in a billion years or so."

On the other hand, if we all go extinct here on Earth, then 4 billion years of evolution will go down the drain.

Ok, thank you. I will, with the help of the paper linked by @Arthur Smith.

Thanks a lot. For many reasons, not the least of which is APD, I much prefer to read rather than to listen.

When we find a promising but sterile world, shouldn't we throw some archaea there with a purpose to spread life?