3 ms·
It was a casual answer to an astronomy question buried in a comment thread on a message board for startup enthusiasts. The level of rigor you're demanding is un
by dangrossman 11y ago
It was a casual answer to an astronomy question buried in a comment thread on a message board for startup enthusiasts. The level of rigor you're demanding is unnecessary. [Citation not needed], truly. I'm absolutely sure that I won't run into trouble with HN's moderators or community for having commented despite having no "definitive answers with better-than-wikipedia citations" to give you about the chemical make-up of the universe. Nor do I think an HN where questions go unanswered lest the leading expert in current theory happens to respond in person with a bibliography in hand is a better one.
- akiselev 11y agoWe're not debating the multiverse theory or alternatives to the standard model, we're literally literally talking about the stoichiometric ratios and chemistry of the universe, a field of knowledge that is as fundamental to astrophysics as the concept of fusion itself. If you can't provide a single citation to support such fundamental statements as "H20 is the second most common molecule in the universe" outside of irrelevant Wikipedia articles, they are worthless, HN moderator and community standards notwithstanding.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- comboy 11y agoNice to have somebody on my side. From what I could find so far CO seems to be the second most common molecule in the interstellar space[0], and water does not seem to take part in a nuclear fusion[1], so I think that the discussed statement may not even necessarily be true. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Nuclear_fusion_in_stars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Nuclear_fusion_...