B
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Bob
Guest
On 29 Oct 2003 01:21:17 GMT, [email protected] (bob) wrote:
>
>Fact or fiction?
The type reported by the guy from Finland a few years ago?
Is there anything recent?
I'd be skeptical. Some of the work has been shown to be artifact.
Reports of things that are impossible usually are wrong. Or, as Carl
Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It is
important to understand why nanobacteria are considered impossible
(inconsistent with current understanding of how a cell is made). Thus
if there is something there, it would be quite exciting, but it needs
strong proof/explanation.
bob
>
>Fact or fiction?
The type reported by the guy from Finland a few years ago?
Is there anything recent?
I'd be skeptical. Some of the work has been shown to be artifact.
Reports of things that are impossible usually are wrong. Or, as Carl
Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It is
important to understand why nanobacteria are considered impossible
(inconsistent with current understanding of how a cell is made). Thus
if there is something there, it would be quite exciting, but it needs
strong proof/explanation.
bob
B
bob
Guest
Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2003 01:21:17 GMT, [email protected] (bob) wrote:
>
> >
> >Fact or fiction?
>
>
> The type reported by the guy from Finland a few years ago?
>
> Is there anything recent?
>
>
> I'd be skeptical. Some of the work has been shown to be artifact.
Yes, I've seen some of those articles. The authors of the original
study formed a company called Nanobac Labs in Tampa, Florida (where I
currently live). They went public last spring [nnbp.pk].
> Reports of things that are impossible usually are wrong. Or, as Carl
> Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It is
> important to understand why nanobacteria are considered impossible
> (inconsistent with current understanding of how a cell is made). Thus
> if there is something there, it would be quite exciting, but it needs
> strong proof/explanation.
Yes.
> On 29 Oct 2003 01:21:17 GMT, [email protected] (bob) wrote:
>
> >
> >Fact or fiction?
>
>
> The type reported by the guy from Finland a few years ago?
>
> Is there anything recent?
>
>
> I'd be skeptical. Some of the work has been shown to be artifact.
Yes, I've seen some of those articles. The authors of the original
study formed a company called Nanobac Labs in Tampa, Florida (where I
currently live). They went public last spring [nnbp.pk].
> Reports of things that are impossible usually are wrong. Or, as Carl
> Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It is
> important to understand why nanobacteria are considered impossible
> (inconsistent with current understanding of how a cell is made). Thus
> if there is something there, it would be quite exciting, but it needs
> strong proof/explanation.
Yes.
B
Bob
Guest
On 31 Oct 2003 10:08:28 -0800, [email protected] (bob) wrote:
>
>Yes, I've seen some of those articles. The authors of the original
>study formed a company called Nanobac Labs in Tampa, Florida (where I
>currently live). They went public last spring [nnbp.pk].
Interesting. Thanks.
I see no indication that they have established any more legitimacy for
nanobacteria in the last couple of years.
Time will tell. But i would not invest in them.
bob
>
>Yes, I've seen some of those articles. The authors of the original
>study formed a company called Nanobac Labs in Tampa, Florida (where I
>currently live). They went public last spring [nnbp.pk].
Interesting. Thanks.
I see no indication that they have established any more legitimacy for
nanobacteria in the last couple of years.
Time will tell. But i would not invest in them.
bob