Incorrect. Stop trying to tell me things you don't even understand. Life existed almost immediately after the Earth formed. New evidence puts primordial life back to almost the very beginning of the Earth's existence. You should do some more research on the topic.

Yeah and when they landed they probably killed anything in close proximity and also probably altered global temperatures. Do you think that a massive ice rock is any different from a normal rock when traveling at thousands of miles per hour? It goes through the atmosphere in a couple of seconds. It can't melt fast enough. It is just like a normal rock hitting the Earth.

If a large chunk of ice like a COMET hit Earth it would literally wipe out all life on the Earth.

Something like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNtsVP42bOE

Followed by a nuclear winter that never ends where all life dies due to lack of sunlight.

It depends on the size. It it is the size of a comet (which is mostly ice) then it would wipe out all life on Earth...

You think the Earth cares that people are on it? When humans are extinct the Earth will carry on for billions of years and new life will form. Over 99% of all species ever to have lived on the Earth are already extinct. Let that sink in. We are nothing...

A trained geologist would be infinitely superior to a robot but it is just too expensive to send a person to Mars so it's better to send a lot of cheaper robots.

I'm talking about NASA, who has done far more in Space than SpaceX can ever hope to accomplish...

You need to re-examine your beliefs if you think SpaceX is going to surpass NASA in anything.

If all the super wealthy billionaires interested in space gave up all their money for a Mars landing, it wouldn't even be near enough. Landing on Mars with people will be ungodly expensive. It will take a major country or several to pull it off. Which is why it is likely to never happen with people. We can send robots pretty easily but sending people is entirely different and way more challenging.

There is no major breakthrough coming. We are 20 years min from even thinking about landing a person on it.

Agreed. We will never colonize Mars but we could visit it with humans like we did the moon. It would be absurdly expensive and probably not worth the money, but we could probably manage it once or twice. Hopefully no one dies in the process.

That's weird since NASA has put car sized robots on MARS already multiple times without SpaceX...

That's not true. A human can do lots of things a robot can't. Although it probably won't happen in our lifetime if ever. You are correct in saying it is probably not worth the cost. We could send a dozen rovers for the same cost. They aren't as good as a human, but they are still worth sending. I personally feel sending people is far too risky and costly. We can just send more advanced robots as they are invented. Eventually they could be as capable as a human. They are definitely more durable and can stay far longer on the surface. It would cost too much to keep people for any long period of time on the surface so even if they are better at tasks they have less staying power than a fleet of robots.

Probably not for 20 years minimum, and probably longer. People saying 5-10 years have no idea what they are talking about.

There is no preferred rest reference frame. Any object can be thought of as being at rest and everything else in motion relative to it.

You can think of light as a wave even from light bulbs. It is always a particle and a wave simultaneously.

Light is both a particle and a wave. When it travels through space it is both simultenously. The particle is called the photon.

Most think it is a particle...

Yes it's going to the moon. No it's not landing. It's doing 2 flybys and coming back.

The article is bad since the most commonly accepted description of dark matter is some exotic particle we have not yet discovered. The article says dark matter isn't particles. So how can it be correct? Researchers across the world are actively searching for dark matter particles because most of them believe it is a particle...

Spin doesn't mean it is actually spinning. It is a way to describe how it interacts with a measurement machine when the spin is measured. Spin is how the particle is deflected in the presence of a magnetic field. The particle is not spinning like a top. It's confusing I know.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/

The leading theories for what it is are mostly particle based theories. That was my point. I understand it exhibits gravity. That is the sole reason we know it exists.

There are custom made particle detectors all over the Earth trying to find dark matter every second of every day. They are giant contraptions which are almost solely searching for dark matter by many different means. It is one of the most active fields of study right now because understanding what dark matter is, is super important and will probably win you a nobel prize if you figure it out.

We are pretty sure dark matter is matter, which is why it's called dark matter not dark information. We have many observations that suggest it is a particle of some kind. We have decades of discoveries that prove dark matter is real. Just because we haven't detected the particles themselves yet doesn't mean it isn't still matter. It can be weakly interacting matter we can not detect because it barely interacts with other matter. It can be exotic large mass particles we can not produce in our colliders because they are limited to lower energies and lower masses. There are many reasons why we may not be able to detect it with any means we have and yet it still exists and is still matter.

This article is laughable at best.

This article is very bad. It is mostly incorrect about many things. I wouldn't put much stock in their "theory".

You can't go the speed of light... Problem solved.

I wouldn't call searching for 100 years out of 13.7 billion unsuccessful. We barely started looking...