Tartle Best Data Marketplace
Tartle Best Data Marketplace
Tartle Best Data Marketplace
Tartle Best Data Marketplace
August 7, 2021

The Cosmic Data Chasm. Why the Answers Lie in the Universe

The Cosmic Data Chasm
BY: TARTLE

 

Sometimes, it takes a long time before you are proven right. Not that too many people seriously doubted Einstein’s prediction that gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space – existed. However, it wasn’t definitively proven until 2016, nearly a 100 years after the Jewish scientist first posited their existence. Even in 2016, with the technology available, it took a major event to trigger waves large enough to be detected. That event was the collision of two black holes over a billion light years away. 

In 2012, the Higgs boson particle was finally discovered. Predicted back in the 1960s, the subatomic particle was needed to complete the Standard Model. Once the Large Hadron Collider finally proved the particle’s existence, physicists could say that they had a solid grasp of the fundamentals of how subatomic particles behave. 

Data Waves and the Politics of Science in the Universe

It would be easy to go from these and other discoveries and say that everything is going perfectly smoothly in the world of physics. However, that would be to ignore all of the crazy things going on that we have no clue how to explain. Just take dark matter. There is a lot more of it in the universe than there is visible matter. The ratio seems to have gone down, from 10/1 to 6/1 likely thanks to more accurate analysis as well as people just getting better at detecting normal matter. How much of the change in the ratio is taken up by the discovery of extrasolar planets, or that neutrinos actually do have a tiny bit of mass? Yet, there is also a large amount that we can’t account for. There is also dark energy, which has no relation to the concept of dark matter. It’s just a term for the energy that might be causing the expansion of the universe to speed up. Yes, that’s a thing. And let’s not even get into quantum mechanics where things get really weird.

Pretending everything is chugging along smoothly would also ignore the fact there are issues that are more political than scientific to be dealt with. That comes into play especially when scientists are delving into those strange and mysterious elements, the places we don’t understand. That’s because the discoveries that come from research into those poorly understood fields sometimes have implications for what we consider to be established science. Those who have made their careers on things like orbital mechanics, star formation, how gravity works, and so forth don’t much like people telling them their theories are wrong. 

Einstein himself fell prey to this. When he was still working out his theory of relativity the common understanding of the universe was a steady state model. It had always been here much as we see it today. He and others were resistant to the Big Bang Theory that was getting peddled by one Fr. George Lemaitre. Einstein was so resistant he actually added a fudge factor into his equations called the cosmological constant that would make the answers compatible with a steady state model. Einstein later removed it, calling it his greatest blunder. 

If Einstein didn’t care about having his preconceptions challenged, it’s no wonder that scientists today struggle with the same impulses, though now, it is perhaps even worse. There are various incentives to not rock the boat. Too many are primarily interested in getting tenure at their universities, or getting their grant money from the government. Pursuing those goals rather than the truth means that new ideas aren’t just treated with suspicion, they can be flat out suppressed, holding back not just a particular scientist, but science as whole, thus limiting our ability to understand the world around us. That is precisely why we need more openness, more transparency in our data, so that others can go into it and research things for themselves and hopefully learn to be open to whatever the truth may be.

What’s your data worth? Sign up for the TARTLE Marketplace through this link here.

Summary
The Cosmic Data Chasm. Why the Answers Lie in the Universe
Title
The Cosmic Data Chasm. Why the Answers Lie in the Universe
Description

Sometimes, it takes a long time before you are proven right. Not that too many people seriously doubted Einstein’s prediction that gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space – existed. However, it wasn’t definitively proven until 2016, nearly a 100 years after the Jewish scientist first posited their existence. Even in 2016, with the technology available, it took a major event to trigger waves large enough to be detected. That event was the collision of two black holes over a billion light years away. 

Feature Image Credit: Envato Elements
FOLLOW @TARTLE_OFFICIAL

For those who are hard of hearing – the episode transcript can be read below:

TRANSCRIPT

Speaker 1 (00:07):

Welcome to TARTLEcast with your hosts Alexander McCaig and Jason Rigby, where humanity steps into the future and source data defines the path.

Alexander McCaig (00:24):

Welcome back to TARTLEcast. You know that we love talking about physics data, so we got some really cool stuff going on here regarding the Cosmic Chasm.

Jason Rigby (00:35):

Yeah, and we're going to talk about LHC not AOC.

Jason Rigby (00:39):

I don't want to get into politics today. LHC is the Large Hadron Collider.

Alexander McCaig (00:43):

I don't even know, I can never even say it, Hadron? Hadron?

Jason Rigby (00:47):

Hadron, hadron. Somebody will correct us.

Alexander McCaig (00:49):

[inaudible 00:00:49]

Jason Rigby (00:49):

It's in Switzerland. But this is really exciting, something happened February, 2016, and we have an article by Pedro G, I want to say Ferrari but-

Alexander McCaig (01:01):

Ferraria.

Jason Rigby (01:02):

Yeah. He has a great name. He is an astrophysicist as the University of Oxford, which we're going to be having an astrophysicist astronomer.

Alexander McCaig (01:10):

Well, group, we're going to have the world's top theoretical physicist joining us actually on TARTLE. Yeah.

Jason Rigby (01:15):

Every Friday.

Alexander McCaig (01:15):

Abi Loeb.

Jason Rigby (01:16):

So it should be a few episodes after this one, so if you're listening to this one you'll have to wait a couple weeks and then you'll have it on there and it'll be awesome.

Alexander McCaig (01:23):

You got to be patient.

Jason Rigby (01:24):

Yeah. He also wrote a book.

Alexander McCaig (01:27):

Called Extraterrestrial.

Jason Rigby (01:28):

Yeah, so this is going to be fun guys, yeah. Because this is a guy that knows what he's talking about. It's proven. He's got his long list of Harvard-

Alexander McCaig (01:38):

Credentialed much better than you or I.

Jason Rigby (01:41):

Yeah, and then those scientific societies. I mean the list goes on and on.

Alexander McCaig (01:46):

You and I, useless. Don't listen to us.

Jason Rigby (01:48):

So one afternoon in February, 2016 something happened.

Alexander McCaig (01:49):

What happened?

Jason Rigby (01:54):

Albert Einstein over 100 years ago predicted these gravitational waves or ripples in space, so scientists unveiled the first definitive evidence of this existence.

Alexander McCaig (02:07):

Do you know what I think's kind of funny about this?

Jason Rigby (02:08):

What?

Alexander McCaig (02:09):

I'll tell you, I love looking at word etymology and all that too. If you take the Galactic-

Jason Rigby (02:15):

Galaxic? Galaco?

Alexander McCaig (02:18):

If you take the Hebrew word for galaxy, it's galaxia and the root word gal, G-A-L, means wave. How is it that such an old language knew to look at the stars and they thought of the word wave when describing a galaxy?

Jason Rigby (02:38):

I guarantee you Albert Einstein was Jewish, so I guarantee you he probably [crosstalk 00:02:41]

Alexander McCaig (02:41):

He's like, "Yeah, probably something [crosstalk 00:02:42]."

Jason Rigby (02:42):

Let me see, yeah, let me see what that-

Alexander McCaig (02:44):

Isn't that interesting, though?

Jason Rigby (02:45):

That is interesting. I've watched him multiple times and it's so interesting when you have somebody that brilliant. If you want to call him like the Elon Musk of that time. He knew when he was wrong, people don't realize that, that he was wrong on certain things.

Alexander McCaig (03:01):

Can't be right on everything.

Jason Rigby (03:02):

Yeah, you cant be, right. But people put people into that category, where they put them as like you can do no wrong. Remember when Michael Jackson was almost like a god and people were fainting?

Alexander McCaig (03:15):

Yeah. You can do no wrong. Yeah.

Jason Rigby (03:18):

Yeah, then next thing you know, do, do, do, do, the house of cards always fall.

Alexander McCaig (03:20):

Always fall.

Jason Rigby (03:21):

But something happened in 2012 too, the Higg's, and I don't know how to pronounce this word either, the Boson?

Alexander McCaig (03:27):

Yeah, the Higg's. So apparently what they would call a God Particle, right? So that's what they found in 2012, so that was that step.

Jason Rigby (03:33):

Yeah, and this was the subatomic world. This is where they're starting to get into... 1950s we stayed the atomic side of things, now we're getting into, like you said, the God Particle which is this whole idea of where did creation begin?

Alexander McCaig (03:47):

Yeah. Or even to the fact that are there things smaller than an atom? Yeah, and I bet you they can keep going smaller and smaller. But the thing is we always find... They're trying to be deductive, like, "What's the base? And let's study the base and then work our way back up." But I think it just goes smaller and smaller and smaller.

Jason Rigby (04:12):

It's fractal.

Alexander McCaig (04:13):

That's what we're going to find, as your technology improves it gets smaller and smaller or larger and larger.

Jason Rigby (04:17):

Well, telescopes are that way too. I was watching a physicist the other day and he said, "If you go up to the sky and you put your thumb up and then you look at your thumbnail, that's 100 million galaxies."

Alexander McCaig (04:29):

I know, it's ridiculous.

Jason Rigby (04:30):

So I mean think about that.

Alexander McCaig (04:34):

Yeah, hmm? What?

Jason Rigby (04:37):

How big is space?

Alexander McCaig (04:39):

And then they're saying that there's a multiverse.

Jason Rigby (04:40):

Yeah, [crosstalk 00:04:41]

Alexander McCaig (04:41):

So I have an infinite amount of universes in an infinite amount of dimensions, and I have billions of galaxies within a universe. Nah.

Jason Rigby (04:49):

And there's layers of more of that of the same, but they're not just the same, but different because there's-

Alexander McCaig (04:56):

Yeah, no thanks.

Jason Rigby (04:57):

They've proven, and this is what this article talks about, is fundamental physics is on a roll, that we're getting enough data to come in to verify it. So shout to physicists and the work that they're doing. But it's so crazy that there's another Alex, there's multiple Alexes in multiple universes, and they're totally different than who you are now.

Alexander McCaig (05:20):

I'm going to have to kill them all. I can't have that. I can't have that competition.

Jason Rigby (05:28):

[crosstalk 00:05:28] I love that, but this is what I wanted to get into, and I wanted to... So we have theories that Albert Einstein invented, and then we go through and we see, "Okay, here it is, 2016." And 100 years later, and now all of a sudden we have data or proof that the theory is right and then they were able to put the two... Because I was reading about this, they had these two measurements, wave measurements, and how they could measure the ripple.

Alexander McCaig (06:02):

[crosstalk 00:06:02]

Jason Rigby (06:02):

And they also had one in Washington State and then they had one in... I forgot where the other place that they had it.

Alexander McCaig (06:08):

It reminds me of when they're using the thing to check for earthquakes. It's like, "Okay, did the ripple go this way? It went this way. Okay, great."

Jason Rigby (06:16):

Yeah, it was something like that. But this is what I want people to understand, is as we grow as a society our data grows, and it's growing at a chart that is... I mean if you look at the amount of data usage that we have as humans, I mean the growth of it with the IoT devices and everything else that we're going through and a lot of people don't realize the commercial use, and-

Alexander McCaig (06:40):

What's it tell you? If everything was in Albert Einstein like 10 years ago, everything, all of our new technology, it's phased out. We've learned new stuff, new theories have come in, new data, new observations. We look at the universe, there's a 6:1 ratio of dark matter to actual physical matter you can see. Hello? We're only focusing on that small, small portion of the entire universe that we're currently living in.

Alexander McCaig (07:07):

It takes more data so you can analyze the stuff you can't see. That's going to take time, but through that time, through that observation, through that increase in data, that affords us more analysis and through that analysis we can come to new conclusions about these things.

Jason Rigby (07:22):

So do you think that is the issue, the analysis of data more than-

Alexander McCaig (07:26):

Well, yeah. Analysis also has a lot of biases. So what happens you collect a lot of data? A guy's been sitting at his Princeton job for 40 years, he's been tenured, and somebody comes to him and puts it on his desk, and like, "Hey, your theories, they don't line up." This guy's written like 25 whitepapers, he's been cited on this so many times and you're coming in here to tell him that there's actually no weight to his papers. I mean this is his entire career as a scientist is essentially for nought.

Alexander McCaig (07:55):

So think about how conservative all the scientists end up acting, they all fall into line with one another. They actually don't want to take the data that is actually showing them that that fundamentally, what you're saying can't be true. But the thing is they're all falling into that hypothetical conservative line and pushing away all the other data, the outliers, that are telling them, "Your theory's wrong, it's completely wrong. Look what else is going on here, look what you're missing, look what you're not learning." Why? Because they're worried about their reputation, they're worried about losing the job, and they're worried that all the work they put in, their ego is screaming at them to say, "This was yours, don't let them take it from you." This happens every single day.

Jason Rigby (08:32):

And so when we look at this data collection and data analysis, this is the concern, and I know you just brought up the concern, but the big thing that I'm seeing is if we're going to wait till someone dies before we say they weren't... That amount of time that that data's sat, it's sat on a shelf, it's sat on a computer, it's sat on a desk and then that professor dies, and then now another person comes out saying, "Well, no. Actually it wasn't this, it was this."

Alexander McCaig (09:04):

That's generally what happens.

Jason Rigby (09:05):

So these datasets that higher education is holding onto, what do you think? Because here's where I'm trying to get to, how could TARTLE help universities be more transparent?

Alexander McCaig (09:25):

They could upload their datasets into TARTLE and they could make them available for purchase, rather than say, "I'm going to give it to the head chair of the department, and have him decide if it gets released." Why would one centralized, authoritative figure who could possibly have an ego completely stonewall your entire operation and all your work, which probably has a lot of weight to it, when you can just put it up on TARTLE and share it with the entire world? Why wouldn't you want to take your Rubin Observatory data down in Chile or wherever it might be, in that brand new telescope that's putting all that information in the cloud, why wouldn't you want to open up the availability of that information to go out there? Why wouldn't you want to fund your telescope through your data? Why beg the governments to give you funding?

Alexander McCaig (10:09):

Sell that data. Go for it. Share it. Open it up. That's what you want to do, and then you don't have to worry if somebody okays it. Take the observation you have and send it out there, and let the world analyze it, not one person say, "No, that doesn't fit into my lens. I'm not letting that go."

Jason Rigby (10:25):

So do you think because they are so conservative, do you think that peer to peer with TARTLE? So if you could be anonymous, which you are, totally anonymous, that opens up a whole nother-

Alexander McCaig (10:40):

Yeah, think about all the scientists who are like, "I want to release this." I'd be psyched if people started putting UFO photos on TARTLE, I'd be all jacked up.

Jason Rigby (10:47):

Yeah, of course. Yeah. Yeah, I know that would be exciting, but we'll need to make a packet for that.

Alexander McCaig (10:51):

You know what this does? This eradicates barriers for sharing truth. It just destroys it. It open up the floodgates for people to share information. If you'd say that, "They've already done that with social media." No, they haven't. No truthful, knowledgeable information has been shared on Facebook or anything like that.

Jason Rigby (11:15):

No, because everybody's trying to be better than-

Alexander McCaig (11:18):

And then when you go to Wikipedia it's already been manipulated by the person writing the article. I want the source information. Let us all come to our conclusion together.

Jason Rigby (11:27):

But let's say you have a science society and they want to anonymously poll their scientist.

Alexander McCaig (11:33):

Go for it.

Jason Rigby (11:35):

And they're assured that it's totally anonymous, there's absolutely no way that we can find out that Doctor So and So said no on this or disagreed on this. I think that anonymity would be huge in higher education, because then it allows an honest dialog with these theories. Now we're not waiting 100 years, even though Albert Einstein was already dead. Which I know they're waiting on the technology, which I get that part, but still it's like-

Alexander McCaig (12:06):

Were they? SR-71 Blackbird, were they really waiting on the technology or is some guy going, "We can't release this right now"?

Jason Rigby (12:13):

Yeah. I was listening to a mathematician the other day and he was talking about this, he's like... He got ostracized, and he brought out that they were jacking up the numbers here in the United States. The economists were jacking up the numbers here in the United States for the GDP.

Alexander McCaig (12:36):

I don't doubt it. I never would trust an economist.

Jason Rigby (12:39):

They had found out some mathematical formula where they could say that the GDP was like .000 something better, and then that in turn... Basically what it netted was like over five years they were going to get a couple trillion dollars, the government would get more money.

Alexander McCaig (12:57):

Let me ask you, did they actually go to every single business and ask them what their output was?

Jason Rigby (13:01):

Well, yeah. Exactly.

Alexander McCaig (13:02):

This is my point. No, they have to theorize, summarize, mean, medians and mode and let's find out what we can do and put this together and say, "This is the [crosstalk 00:13:10]

Jason Rigby (13:09):

But the amount of effort that went into screwing over the American people.

Alexander McCaig (13:14):

For a fraction of the effort they could've gone to TARTLE and done it truthfully.

Jason Rigby (13:17):

It's interesting to me. It's like, yeah, you're sitting here saying that you... You're an economist, you're in a society that is a not for profit, you're sitting there saying that this whole society is supposed to be for the betterment of mankind, and then you're turning around and all getting together and making a decision to do fraud against the American people so that you can better the 1%.

Alexander McCaig (13:46):

Why? Because we like how our theory works. This is one of the fundamental things I didn't like about finance. Everybody has a theory about how it all works, and I would look at these professors teaching it in these large classrooms, and I'd say, "Are you rich? Did it work for you? No? Why are you teaching it to me then?" "Well, because everybody uses it." So because everybody's using a theory that effectively doesn't work, because if it did they'd all be making money and not losing it?

Jason Rigby (14:21):

Well, it gets even worse because if 80 to 90% of our trading is done through machine learning, then if we're programming all the machines to do candlestick patterns-

Alexander McCaig (14:35):

Then they'll go, "It work." Self fulfilling prophecy.

Jason Rigby (14:36):

Well, it's a bias, yeah.

Alexander McCaig (14:37):

Well, the same thing happens here with physics in these scientists, self fulfilling prophecies. "No, let's nix that away. And once you've nixed away all the outlier data, look where we are. Oh yeah, we've normalized the hell out of that curve. This looks great. My papers are good. I'm getting funding next year guaranteed, we all are." But the other guys that are doing the real work, being truthful, really observing, they're not going to get no funding, they've been pushed to the side, they've been silenced, their papers will never get cited. That's what happens. It's crap, it's so political it's ridiculous.

Alexander McCaig (15:07):

You've got to get rid of all that stuff. When you do that you hinder knowledge, you hinder our evolution, you slow humankind down. All these other advances, you're limiting that because of that egotistical political centralized regime that is happening around data. One person gets to look at all the observations and say, "That observation can be released. The rest of you, no." That is completely absurd.

Alexander McCaig (15:31):

What if I wrote an entire book? I mean the CIA likes doing this, what if I wrote an entire book and I handed it to a central authority and they blacked out everything in there and say, "Okay, this is what you can sell"? And all I'm left with just two paragraphs out of 200 pages. How would that make you feel? You'd be crushed, absolutely crushed, you'd be demoralized. That happening there is the same thing that happens in so many other places where people are trying to get their funding, higher education groups come together, conservative scientific theory, it's not proof, it's scientific theory, and just like them, saying, "Those observations don't matter. That data is not legit."

Alexander McCaig (16:10):

It's not for you to decide. It was observed, it happened, it was recorded. That's for other people to share to whoever they want to share, not for you to prevent them from sharing it. Why? Because it also has the college's name on it? "I don't think Harvard should send something out, that seems a little off the scales here. It's not best for your career and reputation."

Jason Rigby (16:33):

Well, I mean we're seeing that now with data that's coming from people that have been incarcerated here in the United States.

Alexander McCaig (16:42):

Sure.

Jason Rigby (16:43):

It even gets worse because now it's gets political. So now we know that there's a high percentage of African Americans that were on trumped up drug charges with they had some marijuana on them, which is-

Alexander McCaig (16:56):

Who cares?

Jason Rigby (16:56):

I mean we just legalized it here in New Mexico.

Alexander McCaig (16:59):

Yeah, who cares?

Jason Rigby (16:59):

But who cares? But they're in prison for 5, 10, 15, 20 years. You know what I mean? And so you release all of those people, now you have a whole different ballgame into what it looks like.

Alexander McCaig (17:13):

Could you imagine if we had-

Jason Rigby (17:15):

But do you see with the data? The data proved that we have, because it's falsified. I mean how many times are we coming... We live in a nice neighborhood, how many times are the cops coming around here, pulling, saying, "Hey, buddy. Come here a second"? I've never been questioned.

Alexander McCaig (17:32):

Ever?

Jason Rigby (17:32):

Where a cop car pulls next up to me and says, "Hey, I need to talk to you."

Alexander McCaig (17:34):

Ever?

Jason Rigby (17:35):

Where that's constantly happen in African American neighborhoods.

Alexander McCaig (17:38):

Absolutely.

Jason Rigby (17:39):

And we're going through this issue right now with that, but-

Alexander McCaig (17:42):

Well, even in the very Spanish neighborhoods here.

Jason Rigby (17:43):

Yeah, yeah. Exactly, the North Valley and stuff like that.

Alexander McCaig (17:45):

Total profiling, 100%. I mean-

Jason Rigby (17:49):

Where the odds of this rich kid over here-

Alexander McCaig (17:53):

The data's wrong.

Jason Rigby (17:54):

... having a backpack full of weed?

Alexander McCaig (17:56):

Is much, much higher. Gosh.

Jason Rigby (18:00):

It's so funny. But I mean this is a prime example of when you take gatekeepers and put them in charge of data.

Alexander McCaig (18:09):

Yeah, it's gatekeepers. Data should not have these gatekeepers. If somebody observed something, that is their observation. It's their record of their life, of their scientific event, of some medical thing, that is their record. They went through it.

Jason Rigby (18:27):

But that's where we get into data ownership-

Alexander McCaig (18:29):

Yeah, that's exactly right.

Jason Rigby (18:30):

Because now Harvard's feeling like-

Alexander McCaig (18:32):

"We own this data." Yeah, yeah. No. Well, actually you don't, Harvard.

Jason Rigby (18:36):

Actually the scientists that did all that work for you, and those researchers and the assistants that you're getting free labor off of. I never understood that, the peeps that are... They've already graduated.

Alexander McCaig (18:48):

They got all the interns and everything, [crosstalk 00:18:50]

Jason Rigby (18:50):

They've already graduated.

Alexander McCaig (18:53):

All these universities are labor lodges.

Jason Rigby (18:54):

Why are they working for free for the university? It's like-

Alexander McCaig (18:58):

You know what I would tee up? You know what I would tee up to them, to these universities? Harvard and everybody? Start sharing your research through TARTLE, start acquiring research through TARTLE, support people that need to be supported. Don't support regimes. Okay?

Jason Rigby (19:13):

But what if you are a regime? You need to centralize it.

Alexander McCaig (19:16):

No, I'm telling them to take a turn in the tide.

Jason Rigby (19:19):

To decentralize it.

Alexander McCaig (19:19):

Okay? Decentralize what's going on here. If Harvard wants to be forward thinking, then wake up to what's happening right in front of you and take that turn. That's all I got to say.

Jason Rigby (19:29):

I love it.

Alexander McCaig (19:31):

Ride a different wave.

Jason Rigby (19:34):

Not the money train. Get off the money train.

Alexander McCaig (19:36):

Get off the money wave, get on the cosmic gravitational wave. Ride that one.

Jason Rigby (19:41):

That's the cosmic, we need to make sure that... But there's a shout out to all the scientists, the physicists, those that are out there. I'm really excited about what we're doing globally. You can see with the pandemic and the vaccines and stuff like that, when we get together and we have unity-

Alexander McCaig (19:56):

I love that.

Jason Rigby (19:57):

... and we don't look at borders, it's amazing what we can accomplish and how quickly we accomplished. I mean I think right now this United States is leading in vaccination.

Alexander McCaig (20:07):

It's amazing.

Jason Rigby (20:08):

Yeah. So I mean just alone, not just United States, but these other countries and scientists. Like we had some French scientists and South American scientists and a couple Russian scientists that were just really, really involved in this process. What are the scientists, because I don't want to butcher it, the ones that work with viruses and stuff?

Alexander McCaig (20:27):

Epidemiologists.

Jason Rigby (20:28):

Yes, epidemiologist. I mean shout out to those guys, I mean there was even some guys from China that were... Not the Wuhan Lab, but there was even some guys from China that got involved.

Alexander McCaig (20:39):

Epidemiologist. I want to make sure I actually did that correct. Does that-

Jason Rigby (20:42):

I think you're 100% right. I'm almost positive you are.

Alexander McCaig (20:46):

"Study and analyze distribution patterns of determinants of health and disease conditions defined via populations." So yeah, the scientists coming together to track the spread of the disease, all that other stuff.

Jason Rigby (20:54):

So we'll close out on this, hopefully we can do the same for climate stability.

Alexander McCaig (20:58):

Yeah, hopefully we can do the same for scientific research of the cosmos. Hopefully we can reverse that 6:1 ratio.

Jason Rigby (21:06):

That would be exciting.

Alexander McCaig (21:07):

Yeah.

Speaker 1 (21:16):

Thank you for listening to TARTLEcast with your hosts Alexander McCaig and Jason Rigby, where humanity steps into the future and the source data defines the path. What's your data worth?