Moontanman

To be honest the moon is not that easy to really look at, we don't have enough resolution to see anything but brobdingnagian constructs. On the other hand there are a handful of really odd things on the moon we can see but not with enough resolution to really be sure of anything but the fact they are odd. I doubt the entire concept of aliens traveling interstellar distances specifically to see us. Much of my doubts center around aliens wanting anything to do with planets to begin with and parking an artificial colony world on the moon is problematic at best and putting it in orbit would make it stand out like a sore thumb. While an artificial world could be hidden in places like the asteroid belt or the lagrange points of Jupiter it's more likely a small if not tiny machine could observe us with no risk to their own life and property. I have a difficult time justifying the idea of live aliens ever coming into contact with the Earth's biosphere or them risking their lives for data that we would be capable of sending something like a drone or rover in our stead to collect.

Of course I do not, neither do you and some countries do give credence to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, no, the light of scientific inquiry has not been shown publicly on the phenomena and the Air Force has used ridicule to discourage any real scientific investigation. Luna is already the subject of so much silly pareidolia BS study of it's surface is almost as full of hoaxes, scams, and misrepresentations of the available data it's almost as bad as UFO sightings. The moon is a huge place, any evidence would have to be in plain sight and be big enough to draw our attention... The Moon would be a good place to base any surveillance of the Earth but I have my doubts that aliens would need a base nearby to do this with.

Just don't forget it takes two hands to handle a whopper!

In science fiction it's best not to agonise about the details...

Moonshine, I misspoke He only talks and flys when i am flying as well..

There is little to no info on the net about this subset of warp drives. Here is a paper but I can't access it... https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2437558

No, not at all he has an irish accent, he can fly but his power comes from moon light and he always wears a fur coat... So you are not going to give us anything but baseless assertions? anyone else smell troll?

The chemicals are thought to have been organic chemicals possibly catalysts combined with inorganic chemicals (often clays are part of this) and an energy gradient. IMHO we will never know the exact process even if we manage to create life from scratch due us being too far in the future from the events and not knowing how many different ways life could come about.. Generally in this context a precursor is a simpler ancestor of something else. I doubt the exact chemicals will never be "found" unless of course there is only one very precise way for life to come about. The reason the figure for resources is not specific and assumed to be huge is that organic chemicals no doubt were part and parcel of an immeasurable number of organic molecules not only in variety but in numbers of each variety. Organics exist in space in amounts that can only be described as immeasurable, vast clouds of organic molecules, one example is ethanol, that contain many times the mass of the earth. These molecules rain down on the earth even today but are consumed by extant life forms before they can accumulate to the point of being able to trigger biogenesis. Yes the answer has yet to be discovered but as Dr. Szostak explains there could be more than one answer or a synergy of many different organic and inorganic chemicals coming together in innumerable ways over large amounts of time. No laboratory could possibly really do this in real time... Since you have asked about videos explaining this I hope I will not catch grief for this post but this video, one of many made for use in schools might help a bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdozVq81gog&t=79s

This is interesting, probably total BS but it's interesting.

If you cannot show it then you do not know it. Only what you can provide evidence for is meaningful. I can claim to have a talking dog, if I did would just accept it?

Even more reason you must provide evidence, we can claim all sorts of things only what we can show is important..

A citation is required to make these assertions, what you suggest is nothing but opinion. Please give us some evidence that "this is what is being experienced" I do not experience it and I need evidence before I can evaluate your assertions...

I think you are conflating faith with trust, I have no faith but I do have trust in things I have a reasonable expectation of being true. Do you have faith the sun will appear to rise in the morning or do you trust based on reasonable expectations?

Word...

Then why bring shape into the discussion? Define what you mean by surfaces, surfaces are part of objects, the universe contains objects... I'm just not sure what you are asserting... The universe can be both infinite and shapeless in fact I think you need to show some evidence for your assertions, in fact if you would read the rules of the forum you will see you do indeed need to show evidence for your assertions... These "facts" are not self evident to me so you need to show me some evidence...

First of all I am indeed sure of clown fishes, you would have to specify the species of crab for me to be sure what example you are using, there are a great many with varying degrees of dependence on their hosts https://seaunseen.com/porcelain-anemone-crab/ . Cleaner wrasse https://seaunseen.com/cleaner-wrasse/ Cleaner goby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elacatinus Cleaner shrimp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenopus_hispidus is the one i am most familiar with but there are a great many of them, some only feed through cleaning and others do and don't. The Birds in the OP are not my cup of tea and I am relying much on the article but what makes me think this is different is this https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180521143827.htm I would think that two species that share the same basic niche would compete rather than cooperate...

No they do not, anemonefish and anemone crabs or anemone hermit crabs cannot persist in the wild without their perspective symbiotes. If I must I can show you links to this but it is old and established science... Yes in fact obligate cleaners cannot persist without their main food source. It has been shown that removing the cleaners from a reef spells, if not doom, then unhealthy large fishes. Now some fish only do this cleaning thing during a small part of their lives and some even use the cleaning station as a ruse to bite chunks off bigger fish. Cleaner shrimp also depend on their hosts for food almost exclusively. The way these traits and actions evolved slowly over time can be shown, it's not a case of a fish choosing to clean a shark at the top point of a reef... No you do not, go back and check again... Now that is a new one! In captivity I have seen fish of wildly different species form what for lack of a better word a friendship..

I think it's more of a case of each using the other to their own ends. When a bait ball forms in the ocean via whatever method a great many animals will join in one the feast from baleen whales to tuna often at the same time but usually one species heards the bait fish into a ball at the surface and other animals take advantage of the opportunity. Two different species of birds actively cooperating to protect a common home range against invaders even of the same species is a bit more than than simply taking advantage of each other... The example of the OP is voluntary and depends on both species wanting it to happen. Lots of animals do that but the reasons are not as cut and dried as you seem to be indicating... Or ordered an elephant to save a buffalo? You mentioned clown fish and hermit crabs, neither of which are choices from individuals but examples of species developing cooperating systems over time via evolution. Even if you claim that the fish and the crabs are making a choice it's certain the anemones are not... Both of those examples are animals coevolving a relationship with no choice in the matter. I disagree, cleaning symbiosis is not a choice for any of the organisms involved, this behavior has evolved over millions of years. Some crab, shrimp, or fish didn't just decide to risk cleaning his own predators to see if they would cooperate. This behavior is quite complex for sure but it is innate, not a choice made by individuals... So you think clown fish can live in the ocean successfully without their symbionts? You do realise that many fishes show these relationships to some degree during some stage of their lives. Clown fish cannot survive without an anemone but an anemone can live quite well without clown fish.. Same is true for the crabs you mentioned. Agreed but the anemone fishes are just as obligate to their hosts. No it would not...

In examples as you have given the animals evolved their relationship over large stretches of time, they have no choice in the matter and cannot survive independant in the wild away from these relationships. The dolphin example I gave is of independent organisms choosing to work together for mutual benefit that normally do not associate with each other nor do they need to.

I have to agree the key word is choice, all of the examples you've alluded to so far seem to be short on the choice side... IMHO all the ones you offered are evolutionary instead of a choice... A choice would be closer to a pod of dolphins who cooperate fishing with humans and both are free not to do so but instead choose to do it. Of course this already exists but it is much closer to what the OP IMHO is talking about than clownfish and anemones or hermit crabs and anemones, neither of them is a choice for the animal but represent clearly established evolutionary relationship that comes about through mindless natural selection rather than choice...

Can you elaborate and give some examples?

Symbiotic relationships are not the same as two independent and equal species cooperating and living together by choice. The OP at least seems to be suggesting this...

I am not prepared to call human society a multi species society due to the fact that all the species we tolerate do not live independent lives separate from us and cooperating with us. If wild wolf packs lived among humans as separate and independent entities who would cooperate without losing their independence I would have to rethink this...

It would be the underwater equivalent of an industrial civilization, sorta like the idea of a planet that has organisms that live in a hydrogen atmosphere. We have done some really wild bioengineering in just a few thousand years. What could a civilization do over a much longer time period by just selective breeding? West of Eden by Harry Harrison does a pretty good job of speculating this idea.