beecee

Interesting and noted. But the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Orginization) is our top national science agency, so I would be surprised if this wasn/t already considered. I also found this.... https://www.future-feed.com/how-it-works "Asparagopsis seaweed is characterised by secondary metabolites with antibacterial properties and demonstrates a potent methane reduction effect in livestock digestive fermentation. Using low volumes (less than 1.0%) in a feedlot trial, methane was reduced by over 90% with positive trends observed for feed conversion and productivity. The Asparagopsis species of seaweed produces special substances containing naturally occurring bromine (CHBr3) that prevents the completion of methane construction by reacting with vitamin B12 at the last step, which disrupts the enzymes used by the specific gut microbes that produce high energy methane gas as waste during digestion."

There are two things to consider here. The observed space expansion is over large distances, and a good analogy here are the dots on a balloon being blown up. The dots are not really moving, but are getting further apart due to the expanding balloon material [space] expanding. Over smaller distances,(like our solar system, our galaxy, our local group of galaxies, and even further afield to our galactic wall) the expansion is negated by the gravitational attraction of objects. Best example of this of course is M31 (Andromeda) and our own Milky Way which in a distant time will be merging.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-03-18/cows-fed-seaweed-methane-emissions-reduced-82-per-cent/13253102#:~:text=Feeding cattle a small amount,up to 86 per cent. Cows fed small amount of seaweed burp 86 per cent less methane in trial: Feeding cattle a small amount of a seaweed species found in Australia has been shown to reduce their methane emissions by up to 86 per cent. Supplementing either 0.25 per cent or 0.5 per cent of a cow's daily feed with Asparagopsis taxiformis — a red seaweed native to Australian coastal waters — resulted in an average drop in methane production of over 50 per cent and 74 per cent respectively over a 147-day period, according to a study published today in the journal PLOS. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that has a warming potential around 25 times that of CO2 over a 100-year period. Key points: Red seaweed contains a compound that can reduce the production of methane Proponents say it could be the equivalent of removing 100 million cars from the road if adopted by the agriculture industry Some scientists warn the side effects of eating red seaweed on a large scale could include the production of ozone-depleting gas. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::https://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/livestock/futurefeed Feeding livestock a seaweed supplement called FutureFeed could simultaneously help to secure global food security and fight climate change by reducing powerful greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge A hungry, warming world More than 800 million people are currently experiencing food insecurity, a number that will grow as further increases in the world's population put an even greater strain on the food chain. Furthermore, approximately 1.3 billion people rely on livestock such as cattle and sheep for their livelihoods. Consequently, there is a significant need for increasing productivity in livestock production to help lift people out of economic and food poverty. If livestock could be helped to grow larger faster, and at little expense, then a significant part of the problem could be alleviated. more at link..................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Is this the answer? Certainly not a complete answer, but could well see things heading in a more beneficial direction I suggest. Comments?

Naaa, that's just the why and how. We all perceive the local stellar system as is. but describe the reasons with different methods, both correct, one just more accurate then the other. The facts remain, time perception [as the great man illustrated] is a different kettle of fish to time and the nature of time.

Sounds like the start of a long, boring rant.

We all perceive the same data...we all observe the CMBR at 2.73K...we all observe the universal expansion over large scales...we all observe the same Sun...we all observe a day being 24hrs long. if we are all honest that is. Can you give me some observational scientific data that is perceived differently by different individuals?

Despite things being pretty well OK in Australia with regards to covid 19, I will be receiving my astrazeneca jab within the next week or two. The rough figures I heard is that with something like 17 million injections given in Europe, 30 or so have had some sort of side effect, noting that not all these side effects have been shown to be a result of the vaccination. I have no qualms about the OK given by the AMA [Australian Medical Association]

I have tried to, but sometimes it is difficult. Please refer back to my first post in this thread...... In summing, the perconal perception of the passing of time is a personal thing, based on probably what studiot said just above. Time itself cannot exist without space, just as space cannot exist without time, both evolving (as we know them) at t+10-43 seconds in what we call the BB model

? Who supports absolute time? The fact that time and space are real, is based on the fact of their variability and interchangeablity.

Ask Bertrand. Personally my view of philosophy aligns mostly with Professor Lawrence Krauss. Both he and Bertrand were simply emphasising the limitations of philosophy and the beginnings of science. The philoosphy of science is a worthwhile, necessary concern of philosophers on the foundations of science, which scientists generally adhere to. https://theconversation.com/philosophy-under-attack-lawrence-krauss-and-the-new-denialism-12181#:~:text=Our ability to be effective,own borders in problematic ways. But hey, while I made a remark with regards to your own faulty philosophy, this is about time, and the perception of time, and you have received some good answers from other participants in this thread, pointing out your errors in thinking.

Most is way above my fat head, but in saying that, the "Abstract" and "Conclusion" segements are often readable and even understandable.

While agreeing with that for the present time and the forseeable future, wouldn't even the angular momentum be very slowly negated over time? (friction with the accretion disk spiralling in for example) so that we end up with all Schwarzchild metric in the distant future.

Certainly one whose answers I personally look forward too, and consider seriously and respect. Hope you find what you are looking for Marcus! Take it easy!

Happy St Patrick's Day!!!

Fortunately certainly, as it works, despite much we don't understand about it. The fact remains though that time at the non-quantum level, is interchangeable with space, at the non-quantum level, and of course the success of GR. We have no universal "NOW" And obviously while the two do have extraordinary success, we have yet to meld one into the other, so to speak. Look into a mirror. What do you see? A past reflection of yourself. While much discussion about time and its existence or reality, is philosophical in nature, [Science is what we know; philosophy is what we don't know: Bertrand Russell ] the fact remains, we experience it everyday, and experience it differently and at at a different rate. Like I said, the obvious, there is no universal NOW. Something does not have to be physical to be real.

The success of Einstein's GR confirms the fact that space and time are simply different sides of the same coin. Time does vary for different observers, depending on their speed through space. Gravity also affects the passage of time. Like I said, without time, there is no space and vice versa.

As others have said, time perception, or the perception of time depends on the human condition and circumstances....You could say that "mind time" and "clock time" are two different things. A child sees the passing of time from one Christmas to the next, as an eternity: To an adult though, it can seem like yesterday. Sit with a hot blonde for an hour chatting and it seems like a minute; Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it sems like an hour. A quote, or words to that effect from the great man, Albert Einstein. This perception of time is explained here....https://qz.com/1516804/physics-explains-why-time-passes-faster-as-you-age/#:~:text=Clock time and mind time,related to saccadic eye movement.&text=So%2C when you are young,that time passes more rapidly. Physics explains why time passes faster as you age: The nature of time itself is different. That is real...time is real, just as real as space, and is interchangeable with space. That time cannot exist without space, just as space cannot exist without time, both evolving at t+10-43 seconds in what we call the BB. I like the explanation given by Sean Carroll here....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVINOl0Ctfk

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-oceans-emitting-ozone-depleting-cfcs.html Study predicts the oceans will start emitting ozone-depleting CFCs: The world's oceans are a vast repository for gases including ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. They absorb these gases from the atmosphere and draw them down to the deep, where they can remain sequestered for centuries and more. Marine CFCs have long been used as tracers to study ocean currents, but their impact on atmospheric concentrations was assumed to be negligible. Now, MIT researchers have found the oceanic fluxes of at least one type of CFC, known as CFC-11, do in fact affect atmospheric concentrations. In a study appearing today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team reports that the global ocean will reverse its longtime role as a sink for the potent ozone-depleting chemical. more at link.................... the paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/12/e2021528118 On the effects of the ocean on atmospheric CFC-11 lifetimes and emissions: Significance Manufactured CFC-11 is depleting the Antarctic ozone layer. CFC production has been strictly controlled by the Montreal Protocol, but emission estimates are very sensitive to choices of lifetimes, which are often assumed as constant over time. We employ a hierarchy of models to study the effect of the ocean on the time-dependent uptake and release of atmospheric CFC-11. The ocean is a sink for CFC-11 and significantly affects its total lifetime and hence the emission inferred from concentration data of past decades. This has not been explicitly included in international ozone assessments. We show that, as anthropogenic production ceases, ocean fluxes become more important, suggesting a need for further studies with high-resolution global models linking atmospheric chemistry and ocean processes. Abstract The ocean is a reservoir for CFC-11, a major ozone-depleting chemical. Anthropogenic production of CFC-11 dramatically decreased in the 1990s under the Montreal Protocol, which stipulated a global phase out of production by 2010. However, studies raise questions about current overall emission levels and indicate unexpected increases of CFC-11 emissions of about 10 Gg ⋅ yr−1 after 2013 (based upon measured atmospheric concentrations and an assumed atmospheric lifetime). These findings heighten the need to understand processes that could affect the CFC-11 lifetime, including ocean fluxes. We evaluate how ocean uptake and release through 2300 affects CFC-11 lifetimes, emission estimates, and the long-term return of CFC-11 from the ocean reservoir. We show that ocean uptake yields a shorter total lifetime and larger inferred emission of atmospheric CFC-11 from 1930 to 2075 compared to estimates using only atmospheric processes. Ocean flux changes over time result in small but not completely negligible effects on the calculated unexpected emissions change (decreasing it by 0.4 ± 0.3 Gg ⋅ yr−1). Moreover, it is expected that the ocean will eventually become a source of CFC-11, increasing its total lifetime thereafter. Ocean outgassing should produce detectable increases in global atmospheric CFC-11 abundances by the mid-2100s, with emission of around 0.5 Gg ⋅ yr−1; this should not be confused with illicit production at that time. An illustrative model projection suggests that climate change is expected to make the ocean a weaker reservoir for CFC-11, advancing the detectable change in the global atmospheric mixing ratio by about 5 yr.

Hiya Potato King!! Firstly congrats in posting in the correct section. We have so many "would be's if they could be's" coming up with half baked hypothesis,pretending its science. I'm not qualified to really review your idea, but the part where you say, " Instead we need to view them as small localized disturbances in spacetime" seems reasonable speculation. The best [I believe] explanation for the creation of our first fundamentals, is when the "superforce" started to decouple at t+10-35th seconds from memory, and the accompanied phase transitions and false vacuum. With time, I believe it is safe to say that time cannot exist without space, and space cannot exist without time. I'll let the real experts now give their take.

Funny, I have experienced far different...I have on various occasions, when confronted with questions and/or debatable situations, E-Mailed a few professors over the years on matters in their field and have received replies, three that come to mind being Geraint Lewis, Kip Thorne and another Andrew Hamilton.

Seeya in Stockholm!

Sure! Science and scientific theories are being questioned, researched, added to, modified, and re-enforced everyday. https://www.ofseaandmountains.com/the-worlds-tallest-underwater-mountain-in-the-ocean/#:~:text=Mauna Kea – Technically the World's Highest Mou extract: Mauna Kea – Technically the World’s Highest Mountain 10,000 meters from base to peak, 4,207 meters of which are above sea level. http://2ap93t1x1l6e2f6gfo3ag4vw.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/seamounts.jpg http://2ap93t1x1l6e2f6gfo3ag4vw.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/fig17-01.jpg http://awesomeocean.com/trending-now/the-mountains-of-the-deep-sea/

The beginning of the Wiki quote sums it up admirably and the meaning most apply to it in its usage.....The tall poppy syndrome is the cultural phenomenon of mocking people who think highly of themselves, "cutting down the tall poppy"

10 hours ago beecee said, with regards to your nonsensical claims that Earth has doubled in size over the past 180 MYA, I'm still waiting, and I would also say the whole forum is still waiting for that evidence. In actual fact, you have none, other then unsupported rhetoric. Yes, that is the current best supported hypothesis...https://astronomy.com/news/2019/05/giant-impact-hypothesis-an-evolving-legacy-of-apollo extract: "From remote measurements of the Moon’s mass and radius, researchers also know its density is anomalously low, indicating it lacks iron. While about 30 percent of Earth's mass is trapped in its iron-rich core, the core of the Moon only accounts for a few percent of its total mass. Despite this substantial difference in iron, Apollo samples later revealed that mantle rocks from the Moon and Earth have remarkably similar concentrations of oxygen. And because these lunar and terrestrial rocks are significantly different than meteorites coming from Mars or the asteroid belt, it shows the Moon and Earth's mantle share a past connection. Additionally, compared with Earth, lunar rocks were also discovered to be more depleted in so-called volatile elements — those that vaporize easily upon heating — a hint that the Moon formed at high-temperatures." Of course if you have evidence invalidating the current evidence and hypothesis, it would be wise and dutiful of you to follow current procedure and submit a scientific paper on your own hypothesis and the evidence for scientific peer review. I suggest though that all this is, is more unsupported rhetoric. Easily found if you google, which I'm sure you are capable of...irrespective, I'll play your game.......[1] The observed expansion, when mentally reversed, suggests a smaller, hotter, denser past.[ 2] The CMBR at 2.73 K or relic heat from the BB [3] Abundance of the lighter elements. [4] Galactic formation and evolution. More emotional, seemingly religiously inspired rhetoric I see. Or if you like, you could show me evidence of any of the above. The universe does not give a stuff about the observer or life within it, which was simply a continuation of evolution of the universe and the elements, stars and planets, and the life which fortuitiously through abiogenesis came to be, on at least one planet. We are star stuff, pure and simple. Scientists, at least those worth their salt, practise "free thinking" as guided by evidence, both observational and experimental, and the scientific methodology. I would, since you raised it, familairise yourself with the index aligning with crackpottery..... https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

The scientific delusions you seem obsessed with are really silly. Science in all its forms, are disciplines in eternal progress. Alternative theories, if they have any basis, still need to run the gauntlet, just as the mainstream established theories already have. And obviously some alternative theories are simply impossible and against the current laws of physics. Why you cannot see this imo, reflects your probable anti mainstream stance, just for the sake of it. Sometimes we call this "tall poppy syndrome"You really need to do better.