Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[value]

This is a new and improved version of a topic that I intended to discuss several years ago. Since 2021, it has been prominently promoted in over 50 languages on a website for clean mobility that is visited by people from over 200 countries per week on average. Strangely, nothing changed.

"As a Perplexity.AI based GPT-4 model, I have quality access to a wide range of academic sources, including those related to space science tests. Therefore, I can confirm that as of January 2024, based on available knowledge and recent research, no form of Earth life, including animals, plants, or microbes, has been scientifically tested or sent beyond the Moon."

I noticed a news article last month that Iran successfully launched what is being described as an "indigenous bio-capsule" with unknown animals into space. Would Iran be the first country in the world to scientifically test whether Earth life can travel beyond the Moon?

Iran has sent a capsule carrying animals into space
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/ ... n-missions

The article that I wish to discuss:

Plato thinking about his Sublunary theory
moon-barrier.jpg (243.67 KiB) Viewed 2123 times

The Moon Barrier: The Frontier Of Life In Space
Were Plato and Aristotle right about life?

In the vast expanse of space, beyond the Earth's atmosphere and the orbit of the Moon, lies an enigmatic Moon barrier. A barrier that has been a subject of philosophical debate for thousands of years. Philosophers Plato and Aristotle believed that life beyond the Moon was impossible, as they saw it as a boundary between the realm of life and the realm of permanence.

As a philosopher of morality and a decades-long defender of free will, I founded GMOdebate.org in February 2022 to defend animals and plants against eugenics.

In 2021, I developed a new theory of life that led me to a question:

“How far away from Earth has life travelled in space?”

Astronaut cat
space-cat-200.jpg (30.86 KiB) Viewed 2122 times

To my astonishment, I discovered that life has never travelled farther than the Moon. Strangely, despite major investments into space travel and plans to send humans to Mars, science has never tested whether life can survive beyond the Moon.

“Why was it never tested?”

Mystery

Why did science neglect to test whether life can travel beyond the Moon?

The mystery deepened when I discovered that Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle predicted that life is restricted to a "sublunary sphere" below the Moon. Their theory suggests the possibility that life may not be able to exist in the "superlunary sphere" beyond the Moon.

Could Plato and Aristotle have been onto something? The fact that this question cannot be dismissed even in 2024 is remarkable.

A Key Part of The History of Science

The theory of Plato and Aristotle has played a key role in the history of science. The scientific revolution revolted against the idea that life cannot exist beyond the Moon, which laid at the basis of the transition from Aristotelian physics to modern scientific theories.

For example, Francis Bacon, a key figure in the scientific revolution, rejected the Aristotelian distinction between the sublunary and superlunary spheres. Giordano Bruno also sought to discredit the division between sublunary and superlunary regions. The distinction between these spheres was further challenged by the development of new scientific theories and discoveries, such as the work of Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills.

Giordano Bruno
giordano-bruno.jpg (264.67 KiB) Viewed 2123 times

Virgil (Aeneid, VI.724–727) had described the super- and sublunary regions as animated from within by spiritus, which Giordano Bruno identified in this context with the Universal Soul, and added that they were moved by a Mind diffused throughout their vast mass.

The theory of Plato and Aristotle has played a key role in the history of science, which is an additional argument that it should have been tested whether life can travel beyond the Moon as soon as that became possible.

Investigation

For context I will shortly describe my background and the reason why I came to investigate a potential negligence of science to do a simple test.

For decades, I have questioned the foundations of science and the idea that mind is produced by the brain.

My quest began around 2006 through the Dutch critical blog Zielenknijper.com with an investigation into what I categorized as the free will abolishment movement.

The free will abolishment movement is rooted in scientism, the belief that the interests of science weigh higher than human moral interests and free will. This movement has been going on for centuries and my investigation revealed that the movement was the root cause of the Nazi holocaust and eugenics.

My research as part of the critical blog Zielenknijper.com led me to question the role of psychiatry in claiming mastery over life, consciousness, and the human mind on behalf of science.

In extension of my philosophical research into eugenics, I founded GMOdebate.org in February 2022 to defend animals and plants against eugenics.

Something To Hide?

Throughout history, philosophers and scientists such as Socrates, Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Hypatia, Giordano Bruno, Baruch Spinoza, and Albert Einstein have faced exile for their unwavering loyalty to truth and their pursuit of knowledge that challenged prevailing beliefs and norms, with some, like Anaxagoras, being exiled for asserting that the Moon was a rock, and others, like Socrates, being sentenced to death for questioning the established religious and social order.

Over the years, I have been banned often for questioning sensitive topics such as the Big Bang theory, atheism (as a dogmatic anti-religion) or plant sentience.

I learned very early that proponents of the free will abolishment movement tend to use argument ad hominem (personal attacks) as their primary tactic.

Banned For Questioning The Big Bang Theory

Banned on Space.com
banned-on-space-com.png (3.89 KiB) Viewed 2123 times

In June 2021, I was banned on Space.com for questioning the Big Bang theory in a post that contained the same content as this topic: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18811

It was a decent written post about the fact that the Big Bang theory is considered a religion by an increasing amount of scientists. The post had received several serious replies and was deleted for questionable motives. Topics are normally ‘closed’ and remain readable but the moderator deleted the topic. Later my whole Space.com account would be banned and all my posts were deleted.

"This thread has runs its course. Thank you to those who contributed. Closing now."

Well-known science writer Eric J. Lerner wrote an article in 2022 in which he said:

“It has become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.”

(2022) The Big Bang didn't happen
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Academics are barred from doing certain research, which includes criticizing the Big Bang theory.

Before I posted the critical topic about the Big Bang theory on Space.com, I had started a topic to ask the question how far Earth life had traveled in space.

Could the Space.com ban have been related to my question?

Censored On Other Platforms

The new theory of life that resulted in the question how far life had journeyed away from Earth, was censored on many other platforms, including philosophy platforms.

For example, a related philosophical question on philosophy.stackexchange.com, regarding the idea that life on Earth might be tied to Solar-neutrino energy from the Sun, was closed almost instantly, as being ‘off-topic’. On many other forums the question was deleted.

Censorship or something else?

Philosopher Robert Pirsig (IQ 170), the author of the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (1974), the most sold philosophy book ever (5m copies), mentioned the following with regard being ignored when making a philosophical case for the concept quality beyond science.

"Though a website dedicated to his ideas boasts 50,000 posts, and there have been outposts of academic interest, he is disappointed that his books have not had more mainstream attention. 'Most academic philosophers ignore it, or badmouth it quietly, and I wondered why that was. I suspect it may have something to do with my insistence that "quality" can not be defined,' he says."

(2009-2011) Philosopher Robert Pirsig on onlinephilosophyclub.com
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18771

Quality and Values... This might be the scope where further philosophical progress is to be sought. A context outside the bounds of repeatable nature but meaningfully relevant.

Going Deeper: Materialism

The Western intellectual establishment has embraced materialism and banished the old philosophical metaphysics as a relic of superstitious times. In 2020, philosopher Dr. Bernardo Kastrup wrote a critical article titled Materialism will be mocked in which he argued that materialism has been developed and maintained through deception and trickery.

"In truth, materialism has survived thus far not because of magic, but because of tricks."

star-trek-200.jpg (28.98 KiB) Viewed 2123 times

The idea that life is independent of the Solar System has been culturally ingrained through films such as Star Trek, which caused people to believe that humans will travel through the cosmos as independent biochemical bundles of matter.

Dr. Bernardo Kastrup wrote the following about the potential influence of a cultural momentum to misguide science:

"Today we think that materialism is plausible, by mere force of habit and inherited cultural momentum..."

Could a dogmatic belief in materialism explain that science neglected to do a simple test?

Greater Good Of Science

Upon further inspection it is my opinion that materialism cannot be considered an independent cause for dogmatic misguidance of science.

The 'greater good of science' ideology introduced by scientism is the driving force behind the culture shift towards materialism. That shift has been going on for over a century and it resulted in the suppression of philosophy by placing philosophy on a level comparable with religions.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) already warned about the start of the development in 1886.

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

Science has been attempting to rid itself of philosophy and morality.

Science, when performed without morality ('humble observerly'), operates on the basis of a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism, which involves the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, which results in an ideal to abolish morality.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

In the absence of morality, it is seen that corruption emerges as a driving and even dominant force in pursuit of a perceived, dogmatic greater good of science.

In a deterministic world without free will, the greater good is centered around the interests of science, which is scientism.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Could they be right? By far the most unsettling implication of the case against free will is what it says about morality...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18900

In a deterministic world without morality, science might have been deceiving humanity about life's ability to travel beyond the Moon. The reason why could be dogmatic corruption.

Conclusion

If life is bound to a region around the Sun, humanity's understanding of nature, reality, and space travel would be fundamentally flawed. This realization calls for new philosophical thinking to guide humanity on a path forward for progress and survival. Instead of attempting to escape the Earth, humanity might better invest in protecting the Earth and potentially also the Sun as the source of life.

Why, after all these decades, has science neglected to test if life can travel beyond the Moon? What if Plato and Aristotle were right - and the Moon marks a barrier that life cannot cross?

--

What is your idea about the fact that it was never tested as of 2024 whether Earth life can travel beyond the Moon? If life in fact cannot travel beyond the Moon, what would that imply about theories of reality?

[value]

I was blocked on LessWrong.com for this article, an extra reason to discuss it here. It reminded me again of how unique my experience has been on this forum. There aren't many places online where fundamental non-corruption is a pre-given on behalf of what is actually the case.

Giordano Bruno was a Renaissance philosopher who questioned the dominant Aristotelian view and proposed an elemental theory that contradicted the Sublunary theory and the idea of a finite and infinitely divisible universe. His alternative theory of the elements drew on various philosophical and scientific ideas, such as Pythagoreanism, ancient atomism, and Nicholas of Cusa’s elemental doctrines.

Bruno's intellectual standing and his intuition of a universe derived from the divine were subjects of debate. Bruno's unorthodox beliefs, including his view of the Earth as a living being with a soul, led to his condemnation by the Roman Inquisition. He was handed over to the secular power and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome in February 1600.

Giordano Bruno
giordano-bruno.jpg (264.67 KiB) Viewed 2122 times

[value]

The mystery deepened when I discovered that Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle predicted that life is restricted to a "sublunary sphere" below the Moon.

I must credit Sculptor1 for this, who has provided me with several other of the most valuable insights and ideas since I joined this forum.

Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras was exiled for claiming that the Moon is a rock.

An Ancient Greek Philosopher Was Exiled for Claiming the Moon Was a Rock
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180972447/

[Lagayascienza]

I can't see why life could not survive beyond the moon. It would be pretty easy, and not too expensive, to test. For example, on the next probe to Mars (or elsewhere) the spacecraft (not the lander*) could carry a small capsule containing various life forms which would be monitored to if see if they survive.

*For various reasons, I'm against releasing organism from Earth onto other planets or moons.

[value]

The idea that humans would fly off into deep space as independent biochemical bundles of matter (or the idea that the mind originates in the brain)...

It seems common sense to me that life requires a fundamental topical energy source that is a priori to life's sensing of the world.

Subjective experience would not originate causally from within the matter of the organism but externally, from a context that cannot be a pattern, e.g. a context Other than what existed but not irrelevant. One might consider that context beginning-less of nature, since it is the origin of the 'begin' by which subjectivity is manifested.

It seems to me that there are philosophical considerations in which life is fundamentally dependent on the Solar system, and that would imply that it is the highest priority to test how far life can travel away from Earth.

From the perspective of a curious scientist since the moment that space science began (the first scientific test in space was on June 20, 1944), it seems incomprehensible to me that it would not have been the first thing on their mind to test: how far can life go away from Earth?

That there are people today who defend science based on the notion that it is just common sense that life can travel beyond the Moon and that there is no need to test it, is remarkable and something to have noted again...

An AI + logical enforcement confirmed the following about the idea that life requires a fundamental topical energy source:

"It is correct to state that the specificity in the life's specific directional energetic organizing behavior is work by itself for which energy is required[1][2]. Energy is defined as the ability to do work or to create some kind of change, and all living organisms require energy to perform their life processes[1][2][3]. The specific direction of the work involved in life's energetic organizing behavior requires a specific source of energy that cannot originate from random spontaneous sources in the environment[1][2]. Therefore, a specific source of energy is required to explain the specific direction of the work involved in life's energetic organizing behavior, and this energy is fundamental to life because it is required for a characteristic of life that is fundamental to life[1][2][3]. The specificity in the life's specific directional energetic organizing behavior is a key characteristic of life and is work by itself for which energy is required."
https://www.perplexity.ai/

In another topic I managed to have an AI conclude that Dark Energy and Dark Matter must be perceived from the perspective of cosmic structure per se, and neutrino's ability to change their cosmic mass influence from within the neutrino itself, could imply that the concept pure Quality is applicable, which would be manifested as positive and negative gravity, and that would be the source of both cosmic structure and life.

The structure of the Universe
structure-universe.png (247.86 KiB) Viewed 2110 times

The source of Gravity and life: neutrinos?
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18985

[Lagayascienza]

This thread sparked my interest so I did some searching and discovered that tardigrades, small, eight-legged, segmented animals, have survived in space. Sixty five percent of the tardigrades used in an experiment survived for 12 days on the outside of a rocket. This was a sublunary experiment but I cannot see why they wouldn't survive in a superlunary experiment. Starting in 2015, microbes which were placed outside the ISS where they were exposes to the harsh conditions off space, survived for three years. Again, this was sublunary. However, during lunar missions, astronauts have orbited the moon, which means they had traveled to superlunary positions. It had no effect on them. So I can't see that there is any sort of barrier to life from Earth surviving beyond the moon.

[value]

One might wonder what the origin was of the sub- and superlunary theory in the first place, in order to provide a substantiation for the idea that one can safely assume that a scientific test in sublunary space is sufficient evidence that life can travel beyond the Moon.

Virgil (Aeneid, VI.724–727) had described the super- and sublunary regions as animated from within by spiritus, which Giordano Bruno identified in this context with the Universal Soul, and added that they were moved by a Mind diffused throughout their vast mass.

I came from the angle of neutrinos and a preceding theory. I once wrote the following in response to user Faustus5 (who might be Daniel Dennett, evidence here) in topic Consciousness without a brain?.

"When one looks at the origin of consciousness, one looks at the origin of a manifestation. The mentioned properties such as cognition, perception and memory are manifestations. At question would be: why do those manifestations exist? What is the cause or origin?

It may be possible to state that the mentioned properties can only become manifested on the basis of information obtained by the senses, i.e. the mentioned properties of consciousness follow the origin of the senses. The scope of the quest can therefore be reduced to explaining the origin of the senses.

By logic it can be stated that valuing must have preceded the senses. On that basis it can be stated that the origin of the senses is valuing which means that the scope of the quest can be reduced to explaining the origin of valuing.

It can be stated that what has preceded the senses has preceded the human. Therefore one is required to look outside the scope of the individual for the origin of valuing.

The reason that the origin of valuing cannot originate in the individual is that by the nature of valuing, there is a factor involved that cannot be valued itself due to the simple logical truth that something cannot be the cause of itself. Valuing requires a distinguish-ability which it appropriates from what can be indicated as "good" and by the mentioned logical truth, "good" cannot be valued. Therefore, "good" - the origin of valuing - cannot originate in the individual."

This is just 'simple logic' in my opinion.

A vision of nature once showed life-quality like particles, that might be visualized through Leibniz his Monad theory. This caused me to look into neutrinos as a potential fundamental topical energy source of life.

One of my previous ideas was to find out whether the Dinosaurs might have gone extinct because of a change of distance between the Earth and the Sun.

There is evidence that animals have been shrinking in size over time and that is a mystery. The trend is observed in both fossil records and recent studies.

More recent studies have shown that animals are continuing to shrink in size today. For instance, a study of 70,000 bird specimens from the Field Museum of Natural History found that the average size of 52 North American bird species has decreased by 2.6% since 1978. Tigers and lions have also shown a trend of shrinking in size over time. Fossil records indicate that the ancestors of modern lions were significantly larger than their present-day counterparts. For instance, a male lion could weigh up to 900 pounds, while an average male lion today weighs around 420 pounds.

The cause of animal shrinkage is a mystery. However, there is evidence that the shrinkage of biological cell size plays a role.

1. A study by Atkinson et al. (1994) found that the average cell size of insects decreased by 10% over a period of 10 million years.
2. A study by Forster and Hirst (2012) found that the average cell size of fish decreased by 15% over a period of 2 million years.
3. A study by Calboli et al. (2003) found that changes in cell size can have a significant impact on the overall size of an animal.

Earth was 150 million kilometers closer to the Sun during the time of the Dinosaurs.

Neutrinos are very weakly interacting particles, and their interactions with matter are largely dependent on distance. As the distance between the source of neutrinos (in this case, the Sun) and the recipient (Earth) changes, the number of neutrinos that interact with matter changes as well. Could it explain that the size of organic life became smaller?

That subsequently led to the question how far away from Earth life had travelled in space.

[Lagayascienza]

But is there any evidence, or are there any theoretical considerations, which might suggest that organisms would not be able to survive further from Earth than the moon's orbit? How would neutrinos have any bearing in the matter? Neutrinos interact with matter so rarely that it wouldn't make much difference how far from the sun we sent organisms. Trillions of neutrinos from the sun (and elsewhere) pass through us every second, but we may go months or years before one interacts with our bodies. So clearly, it's not as if we need a daily dose of neutrinos to survive and even if we did, they come from all directions in space and the most energetic ones do not seem to come from the sun. Therefore, I cannot see how a lack of solar neutrinos, or a reduction in their flux, would effect life beyond the orbit of the moon.

[value]

A common expression in science is "Test, Test, Test!"

Richard Feynman, known for the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" said: "The only way to learn is to do experiments. There is no other way."

Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian-British philosopher of science: "The scientific method is not the logic of discovery, but the logic of justification. It is concerned with testing and accepting or rejecting what has been proposed."

Google Bard: "The phrase "Test, Test, Test" is not just a catchy slogan but a fundamental principle of scientific inquiry. It is a reminder that scientific knowledge is not based on authority or speculation but on careful observation, experimentation, and the accumulation of evidence."

One might assume that humans can breathe at the bottom of the ocean because they can breathe fine on land. When one never did a test to confirm it, one simply doesn't know.

There is a profound philosophical history that posited that life is restricted to a sublunary sphere, a region below the Moon. It simply doesn't make sense for science to just assume anything and to stay below the Moon, during the past 80 years that it has had the ability to do tests in space.

[Lagayascienza]

Scientists have tested life in space - from bacterial to humans and have discovered some important things about the effects of micro-gravity, etc. And humans have survived further out than the moon's orbit when they have orbited the moon.

So why haven't scientists tested this idea that goes back to the ancient Greeks. Well, perhaps the scientists have felt the notion that there is some superlunary barrier against life was just too looney to bother testing. There is no evidence that life cannot survive beyond the moon and there are no theoretical considerations that I can think of that might suggest would suggest it either. I guess the idea is just not worth testing. They have more important questions to answer. That is the simple answer to the question posed in the OP.

[Gee]

Mystery

Why did science neglect to test whether life can travel beyond the Moon?

The mystery deepened when I discovered that Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle predicted that life is restricted to a "sublunary sphere" below the Moon. Their theory suggests the possibility that life may not be able to exist in the "superlunary sphere" beyond the Moon.

Could Plato and Aristotle have been onto something? The fact that this question cannot be dismissed even in 2024 is remarkable

.
Not so remarkable. The last thing that science would want to do is promote an idea that came from ancient Greek philosophers, which could theoretically support religion. What if they tried to prove this ancient theory wrong and failed?

I think that there has been testing and remember that one astronaut, who happened to be an identical twin, was sent into space, then his chemistry and development was compared to that of his twin. MS (multiple sclerosis) has taken some cognitive skills from me, including memory and vocabulary, but I remember that I looked up information on this astronaut in Wiki -- so it is there if anyone can remember his name.

There have been other tests on life including plant life, so I suspect that science has already seen that there is a potential problem and does not wish to challenge this theorized barrier until they know how to pass it.

Science has been attempting to rid itself of philosophy and morality.

Science, when performed without morality ('humble observerly'), operates on the basis of a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism, which involves the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, which results in an ideal to abolish morality.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.

Yes, science has been trying to rid itself of philosophy, complaining that philosophy is not precise enough and can not give us accurate information. Maybe so, but there are some things that philosophy can give us, like it can identify the weakness in science. All strengths have an inherent weakness -- that is wisdom -- philosophy. The weakness in science is confirmation bias -- science can only prove what it tests for, or what it expects to prove. Science does not formulate and test premises, that is the job of philosophy, which would be why science created tests for witches and found lots of them. The science was great, but the philosophy sucked. Science is often wrong, and when it is, it is because it lacked the proper representation of philosophy.

If life is bound to a region around the Sun, humanity's understanding of nature, reality, and space travel would be fundamentally flawed. This realization calls for new philosophical thinking to guide humanity on a path forward for progress and survival. Instead of attempting to escape the Earth, humanity might better invest in protecting the Earth and potentially also the Sun as the source of life.

I don't find this boundary difficult to accept. It seems that all life has some kind of boundary, whether it be a cell bound to the body, or a plant/animal bound into an ecosystem, or even the Gaia theory. There is no reason to assume that these boundaries do not include solar systems, galaxies, and whatever is beyond.

Why, after all these decades, has science neglected to test if life can travel beyond the Moon? What if Plato and Aristotle were right - and the Moon marks a barrier that life cannot cross?

What is your idea about the fact that it was never tested as of 2024 whether Earth life can travel beyond the Moon? If life in fact cannot travel beyond the Moon, what would that imply about theories of reality?

Well, I don't know much about theories of reality, so I can't help you there. But it is interesting to consider that science's objectives in space seem to have changed. When I was young, we thought that we could travel to distant "Earths" and meet other life, but in the past 20 years or so, we have changed our objectives. We are now looking for other planets to arrive at that might support life, and we are investigating time travel -- so maybe we want to "jump" to another planet instead of traveling through space. Is that because we know that travel through space will not work? Maybe.

Gee

[Gee]

Scientists have tested life in space - from bacterial to humans and have discovered some important things about the effects of micro-gravity, etc. And humans have survived further out than the moon's orbit when they have orbited the moon.

There is a huge difference between surviving and living. Surviving in space does not necessarily equate to procreation, evolution, and life.

So why haven't scientists tested this idea that goes back to the ancient Greeks. Well, perhaps the scientists have felt the notion that there is some superlunary barrier against life was just too looney to bother testing. There is no evidence that life cannot survive beyond the moon and there are no theoretical considerations that I can think of that might suggest would suggest it either. I guess the idea is just not worth testing. They have more important questions to answer. That is the simple answer to the question posed in the OP.

Yes. A very simple answer.

Gee

[Gee]

The astronaut's name is Scott Kelly. He spent a year in space on one of his missions and, yes, science found differences in his genes when compared to his identical brother over time. So I think they have been studying this. The information is in Wiki.

Gee

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, there were some changes observed but they were subtle and gene expression levels returned to normal within six months according to Nasa dot gov / humans-in-space /twins-study. The changes would be due mostly to increased exposure to radiation in space. There is no reason why space flight beyond our moon's orbit would pose any greater risk than space flight within the moons orbit. Differences in neutrino flux would, presumable, be irrelevant because neutrinos so rarely interact with matter.

[value]

neutrinos so rarely interact with matter

Perhaps that idea is mistaken.

"some of the biggest mysteries in cosmology require either negative mass or 'dark energy' to explain it"

Oxford astrophysicist Jamie Farnes published an academic paper in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics plus an article detailing his idea that a “〰 dark fluid” with negative mass might explain what makes up our universe.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter should be perceived from the perspective of cosmic structure.

AI: Yes, it can be established that both dark matter and dark energy are not random and are directly tied to cosmic structures. ... Therefore, both dark matter and dark energy should be perceived from the point of view of cosmic structures, as they are directly tied to the formation and evolution of the structure of the universe.

(2023) Universe Defies Einstein’s Predictions: Cosmic Structure Growth Mysteriously Suppressed
Scientists have discovered that cosmic structures grow slower than Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity predicts, with dark energy (negative mass) playing a more dominant role than previously thought.

Galaxies are threaded throughout our universe like a giant cosmic spider web. Their distribution is not random and requires either dark energy or negative mass.
https://scitechdaily.com/universe-defie ... uppressed/

The mass influence of neutrinos is a mystery. Everything else in the cosmos acquires mass through the Higgs-boson, except for neutrinos. And because the Higgs itself has mass, neutrino's might be the fundamental origin of all mass in the cosmos.

Do hidden influences give neutrinos their tiny mass?
"When a particle interacts with the Higgs field, the Higgs field switches that particle’s “handedness”—a measure of its spin and motion. When a “right-handed” electron interacts with the Higgs field, it becomes a left-handed electron. When a left-handed electron interacts with the Higgs field, the opposite occurs.

But as far as scientists have measured, all neutrinos are left-handed.

Something else seems to be going on with neutrino mass..."
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... -tiny-mass

1. The masses of other fundamental particles come from the Higgs field, but neutrinos get their masses another way.
2. Scientists also wonder if neutrinos are their own antiparticles. If they are, they could play a role to explain the question why the Universe exists.

In theory neutrinos move at light speed because they can switch between so called 'mass flavours'. At light speed there is no time or distance so at question would be: how could neutrinos deviate out of a state of timelessness to interact with mass in the physical world - 'out of itself'?

When a neutrino changes "flavor" or "color" it is in a transition state and therefore can be any mass. At the midpoint it is 0 mass and travels at speed c (light speed). When it becomes one or the other it has mass. In between it can have any mass, meaning even 0 mass. It's the same as Schrodingers cat. It works and is non-contradictory.

The specific ability of neutrinos to change their mass influence can provide a clue that the source of their gravitational influence must be contained within the neutrino, which could provide a basis for further philosophical speculation.

Neutrinos might be a candidate that could apply to Dark Fluid theory.