geordief

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/17/science/dark-oxygen-research/index.html "Andrew Sweetman, a professor at the UK’s Scottish Association for Marine Science who was behind the find, is embarking on a three-year project to investigate the production of “dark” oxygen further" 2.2 million pounds doesn't sound like a lot of money..... They seem to have found other regions where oxygen is found(freshwater and in a mine) and apparently bacteria are involved in the freshwater production of oxygen which was not so deep as that observed at the ocean bed with the nodules ) They are talking about rigs with sensors going down some 11 kilometres.

If you are sure there are no obvious cracks then could it be a hairline crack? Maybe along where a vertical side meets the floor or one of the other edges? (that is where mine is)

Is the leak costing you any money? If not put up with it and wait for it to get worse when the source may be more easily seen ? Is it pure concrete or are there bricks as well? I have a big outdoor cement and stone water tank that fills from the field but has leaked for the past 25 years as there is a crack half way down at the corner.

Is there much difference btw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone and that beauty? (thought I was good at holding my tongue)

Do you want to give an example of 2 identical patterns that can be designated as one object (if that is what you were saying?) Do they have to be patterns of the same objects? (Like identical waves perhaps?)

So 2 crows and a pigmy can be the same object as 2 pop divas and a meringue tart?(did I understand "patterns" correctly?)

Is it your understanding that no two such objects or systems can be identical? What might be a method of quantifying similarities between them if that was held to be useful?(so that ,for example we might agree to give the two objects a same name /designation)

Can we have thoughts that have identical components to ones we have had before? Or do they just feel similar but are in fact slightly different? Eg: If I lose a physical object , suffer no material consequences and find it again by accident is there a part of the feeling/thought process that is identical in all circumstances ? Is it possible that there could be fundamental thought processes that we weave together to create our conscious awareness? (Hope I have not wandered off topic?)

@gggamer2025I think you are supposed to summarize the content of videos you post and to indicate what is is that you actually want to discuss. Fellow users should not need to click on videos to learn what the discussion is going to be about.

If this was verified (I just have a faint idea of this) would it provide a means to tweak gravitational lensing?

Could this be a way of looking at it? At the macro level two events("events" as physical things that happen -not "events" as points in spacetime) can be causally connected ,meaning that they are joined by a series of interceding events . At a micro level perhaps(?) this chain of events does not exist,there only being event A and event B to take into consideration. So what then would factor in to predicting whether event B would reflect or not a particular property of event A? If there is indeed nothing in between the two events then "randomness" is all that is left(except that ,for reasons I am ignorant of with apparently statistical probability still applies)

I think Mr Vat told me a few weeks ago that you can buy teabags with plastic in them in the States. Not sure if we ever had them over here. I used to avoid them (teabags) for reasons of taste and expense but now buy them for the convenience (the donkeys also like them but not as voraciously as the used coffee filters)

Have you tried sloe gin? Wait till the berries have been frosted and make it yourself. There may be other berries you can use but sloe gin is not a bit "dry" It can be bought in the shops but it might depend on where you are.

Would an electronic count in tandem have cleared that matter up at that well remembered time? (I am not suggesting electronic counts should not be used but that a manual count should be readily available when appropriate -maybe they already are.)

Seems to me that ,if the Dems have not asked for a recount there is likely to be strong (circumstantial?) evidence that there has been no foul play this time. Taking a different tack I cannot for the life of me understand why a manual recount should not be undertaken as an automatic procedure. In Ireland ,some 10 or so years ago electronic equipment was bought to count the votes as a new procedure. The machines were never used as there was not enough public confidence in them ( they were eventually sold for a pittance and a loss) The recent and ongoing election in Ireland is being counted manually . Electronic voting is imo a disaster and should be supplemented (if not entirely supplanted) by manual counting .

Corruptus inteterruptus.

Would that also likely represent the overall population (on those platforms ,none of which I personally take part in) or just the political leanings of the "news influencers" in them?(do you think) Edit :males are more trusted as influencers,perhaps and they skewed right in this election?

In terms of technical ability?

Are you talking about Canada? I am not sure I follow your point. You don't think the "working class" seek to better their economic situation? That they remain "working class" even when they succeed in this? Are you talking about their self image ?

Yes ,I think I was perhaps thinking along those lines. I seem to want to describe or measure a "system as a whole" and am coming to the realization that a system may be the "sum" of its internal relationships and moreover the concept seems to run foul of the idea that there is no absolute time or space. Any system cannot be fixed -only approximated as such. Still ,with my solar system example of 1,2,3 states if the third system was disturbed by a massive black hole would we have no hesitation in agreeing that the change between 3 and 1 was greater than that between 2 and 1? We would have to show that one variable at a time and then stick them all together to model the system "as a whole"?

I wasn't sure where to post really but I often post in relativity and thought it might be quite close I am indeed worrying about where Earth is relative to Jupiter but I think you may be saying that the Sun's reference frame "includes" that information . Can we say that for a complete system it is possible to describe it by using any chosen reference point and that all the individual relationships can be bound up in that one reference point? From my lowly knowledge status I wonder whether I can doubt it (or if I have expressed myself at all cogently)

Your "abstract space" is that a timeless concept? Is my question ,then connected to entropy? Another example of two differing systems could be a shuffled pack of cards and ,in these cases I have feeling that entropy might be a method of comparing one arrangement of the cards versus another. Still ,my initial example specified that one arrangement derived from the other...so I think time entered the frame,unlike the pack of cards.

It could be ,on the macro level the arrangement of the solar system (discounting its position in the galaxy) We have some 10(?) main objects-planets (let's discount the Sun for simplicity ) At 12 midday our time the various planets are set out in an arrangement and 12 midnight we have a new arrangement At 12 midday the next day there is a third arrangement Calling the arrangents 1,2,3 can we measure how much 2 is changed from 1 and does 3 change from 1 to a greater degree? I am not sure whether or not the lapse of time enters into any calculation or whether the configurations "stand alone" as it were. I think it is unarguble that changes have happened but can we measure that change for the system as a whole or just by comparing individual components of one system against individual components of the other system.

Suppose we have 2 systems ,one of which derives from the other how can one measure the difference between them (the amount of "change")? Can we assume that the first system is comprised of n constituent parts and the other m constituent parts since these parts can interact and destroy/create themselves? Do we have to connect the two systems with an array of "lines of causality "?

Has there been any suggestion that a husband should be expected to vote in accordance with his wife's preferences?