A planet 1.3 x The earth's radius would have a mass of 2.2 x Earth's mass. At 2.8, the density is only 1.2x that of the earth. Given the low precision of all the numbers, I won't be surprised if it was actually just the same density as Earth.

For some reason, I read this at first as "Mice with two feathers?"

The researchers' calculations hint that these particles could have been created in just the right quantities to explain dark matter, which can only be "seen" through its gravitational pull on ordinary matter... The gravitons, if they exist, would have a mass of less than 1 megaelectronvolt (MeV

If I add calculations to it can I claim to have a theory that dark matter could be made of unicorn fart? This "study" is no different. Speculation upon speculation upon wild guesses. This is not physics.

Is Dark Matter Just Old Gravitons from Other Dimensions?

No!

If people cared about genocide, there will be public outrage about the ongoing genocide in Southern Cameroon.

https://www.genocidewatch.com/...

But I bet most of you have not even heard about this.

It still is. Android is an operating system not a programming language.

The case in court is not about which player is major or minor or how much profit Oracle would have made if Android did not exist. The case is about whether APIs can be copyrighted. If you are allowed to copyright APIs then you are also allowed to copyright a file format.

If they had a patent on it, it would be a different discussion but I don't see how it can be copyrighted.

Tough luck. The courts are not there to make sure one company's profits are protected at all cost. Even if it is true that Google drove them out of the mobile market, it still doesn't mean APIs can be copyrighted. The case in court is not about whether Google hurt Oracle's feelings or not.

This article highlights the main problem with theoretical physicists. They are arrogant, and lack basic understanding of proper use of language. For example, the flaw identified in the paper is not with "Emergent Gravity", but with a specific attempt at an emergent gravity theory. The flaw is with the "holographic screens" theory. Now some idiot will go around claiming that "emergent gravity" is flawed. This is just one example out of a million like this. You can find similar examples in almost every discussion about Quantum Theory -- self delusion through poor use of language, perhaps intentionally so.

Tell the guy who just got a cancer diagnosis that they should be happy because they only had a 1 in 4 chance of getting it.

If you find yourself moving, look ahead and then look behind. If it is a push, there will be more stuff behind us. if it is a pull, there will be more stuff in front of us. This is important because it is unlikely that any attractive forces are fundamental, which means all apparent attraction is simply a side-effect of repulsion. This discovery adds to the body of evidence supporting that idea. The next challenge is, we need to prove that gravity is not an attractive force but the side-effect of a more fundamental repulsive force.

I don't know how the reporter thinks this discovery could ever lead to cloning of such an organism. A typical eukaryote has 20,000 to 100,000 proteins in its proteome. Even viruses could have hundreds of proteins. To clone an organism, you will need to have a full copy of its DNA (or RNA in the case of RNA viruses). That means prestine samples of all proteins from the proteome. Even having that is not enough, since going from proteins to DNA is not straightforward -- since proteins are often modified after translation. Even then, you also need non-protein encoding DNA which is just as important for the survival of the organism.

I would say it is a pipe dream to start thinking of cloning, based on finding a fragment of a pre-historic protein. Rather than speculate about cloning, there are a lot of other very useful questions this discovery can answer, such as how that protein has evolved with respect similar proteins modern variants of the same species. We could perhaps then understand what micro-evolutionary pressures could have influenced (or not influenced) the evolution of a species such as an ostrich which has survived all these years.

We've been seeing things like and many orders of magnitude more complex that this using Crystallography for more than a hundred years. Google "electron density maps" and check out some of the pictures in 3D. Then head over to the Protein Data Bank to see atomic resolution molecular structures determined using crystallography for more than 80,000 protein, nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) and carbohydrates. Even the Ribosome structure has been determined all in 3D. What they have here is a force map which is even more indirect than the electron density and these molecules are "nano-dwarfed" by the sheer complexity and size of molecules whose structures are already available by crystallography.