Science topic
Forests - Science topic
Explore the latest questions and answers in Forests, and find Forests experts.
Questions related to Forests
Scholars have been arguing that Anthropocene has its origins firmly rooted in colonialism. It is evident that colonialism was all about violence, plunder and erasure of indigenous peoples, cultures, identities, worldviews, and promotion of slave trade. It didn't stop with people but permeated into control, plunder and erasure of natural resources - damming of rivers, mining or coal/minerals, logging of forests, poaching of wildlife. The "fortress" forest and biodiversity conservation models which we see now in India is not a traditional system, but an Anglo-Eurocentric model imposed upon us. The terms reserved forest, protected forest, national park, sanctuary is the testament of colonialism - these terms are no way indigenous or traditional and alienation and exclusion of local communities was written into their definitions. Does that mean India never had an indigenous/traditional forest and natural governance systems?
The scientific management of forests, woodlots, propagation trees, seedlings and nursery management was dealt explicitly in ancient scriptures such as “Vṛkṣāyurveda” (Suresh, et. al., 2013).
The time period of Vṛkṣāyurveda ranges from 1200 BCE to the present (Suresh, et. al., 2013).
The three basic categories of forests mentioned in the ancient Indian scriptures are:
1. Shrivan – the forest that provides prosperity;
2. Tapovan – the forest where one can contemplate and seek after truth; and
3. Mahavana – the natural forest, home and shelter for all the biodiversity and wildlife.
Maybe it is time to decolonize (most importantly contain and prevent internal-colonialism), and restore the traditional systems, indigenous cultures, and knowledge systems for better management of our natural resources. Perhaps it should change with changing the terminology of how forests in India are referred to. Maybe it is time to shun the alien, anglo-eurocentric terms like - reserve forests, protected forests, national parks and sanctuaries and restore the traditional terms - Shrivan, Tapovan and Mahavan in formal classification of forests in India. As the definitions of Shrivan, Tapovan and Mahavan are very clear (inclusive), the use of forests and the way we see and approach them would also change. By definition the fortress conservation terms - reserve, protected, sanctuary, and national park, are anti-local, anti-people and exclusionary and there is no culture, sacredness and spirituality associated with such anglo-eurocentric terms. On the contrary the indigenous terms - Shrivan, Tapovan and Mahavan, are inherently inclusive and has culture, sacredness and spirituality intricately entwined and embedded in their definitions. Erasure of a name can erase the identity of a person, place, that includes forests.
For example (In Kerala/Western Ghats):, a plant species 'X' is found in different forests, such as the Reserve Forest of Kasaragod Forest Division, Nilambur North Forest Division, Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, and Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary. How can I determine whether the forest type in each location is evergreen, semi-evergreen, or moist deciduous?
"Birdwings mainly inhabit tropical rainforests, particularly primary forests. In the author's experience, however, slightly disturbed, well-illuminated, primary forest (jungle") is preferred over undisturbed, closed (i. e. dimly-illuminated), primary forest. Such environments are mostly those formed during the transition from human disturbed or cultivated ground to climax forest and include narrow trails, open spaces and open forests. Depending on species, some birdwings prefer darker places or better illuminated places but most are known to frequent villages.In recent years, selective logging within tropical forests. (rather than complete felling of all trees) has been adopted. If primary forest is thinned in this way without too much damage to birdwing foodplants, such a site may provide suitable habitat for birdwings. Secondary forest is, therefore, also a habitat of birdwings. Indeed, some species will occupy only secondary forest. However, 'secondary forest in most accounts within this text is used almost synonymously with'primary forest-like environment' (rather than referring to forest formed by successional recovery of vegetation following clear-felling). Birdwing habitats can be loosely divided into emergence sites and nectaring sites. An emergence site is one where larval foodplants grow and where eggs, larvae, and pupae occur. Nectaring sites are those where flowers occur and at which adults feed on nectar."
I want to carry on research on the impact of increased temperature on the tree species in Bangladesh. The idea of methodology is welcome. It may be in natural forests or plantations in some places of Bangladesh.
Floristic diversity of dominant species of climax forests and need for their conservation on priority basis
- Invasive species threaten all forests, especially forests that have been exploited
- Therefore, one of the factors of the entry of the seeds of these plants must be wood exploitation and transportation machines
- This issue should be seriously studied.
- I need one or more study colleagues who are interested in studying and researching in this field
Should the ongoing logging in the Amazon forest, including other natural highly biodiverse forests, be recognized as a crime of destroying the planet's strategic natural resources generating an increased threat to human existence on planet Earth?
Should the ongoing logging of trees in the Amazon forest, also other natural highly biodiverse forests, and the logging of trees in other areas of natural forest ecosystems carried out in the formula of robbery pseudo-forest management should be recognized as a crime of destruction of strategic natural resources of the planet generating an increase in the threat to human existence on planet Earth?
Dear Researchers, Scientists, Friends,
In recent years, the need to accelerate and increase the efficiency of the green transformation of the economy has been growing in importance. This is due to the need to increase the scale of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as generated by energy, industry, transportation, livestock farms, etc. continue to generate high greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming process is accelerating as a result. If the processes of green transformation of the economy are not significantly accelerated then the exceeding of 1.5 degrees C of the average temperature of the planet's atmosphere (counting from the beginning of the first industrial revolution) will happen even before the end of the current decade and the occurrence of a global climate catastrophe in the second half of this 21st century will become inevitable. One of the key elements of the green transformation of the economy is the cessation of deforestation processes and the development of reforestation programs for civilizationally degraded areas, post-industrial areas, post-mining heaps, urban areas as part of the reduction of concretions, and post-agricultural areas where the soil has been depleted due to the intensification of agriculture in the industrial model. By 2023, the deforestation rate in the rainforests of the Amazon natural rainforest has been almost halved in Brazil. This is a very good trend, in which perhaps finally the scale of protection of these natural highly biodiverse forests is beginning to improve significantly. This is especially important because the highly biodiverse rainforest ecosystems of the tropical natural forests of the Amazon contain more than 300 million unique species of flora and fauna and the Amazon forest is still the largest natural area of forest ecosystem that plays a key role in the natural process of absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and emitting oxygen. The ongoing logging of trees in the Amazon forest, and the logging of trees in other areas of natural forest ecosystems as well, which is being carried out in a formula of predatory pseudo-management, should be recognized as a crime of destroying the planet's strategic natural resources generating an increase in the threat to human existence on planet Earth. Perhaps in this way, through appropriate changes in legal regulations, the large-scale deforestation of forest areas still taking place in many parts of the world and/or the predatory pseudo-management of forests that is being carried out would finally be ended.
I presented the issue of human security in connection with the green transformation of the economy, pro-environmental policies and the implementation of sustainable development goals in the article:
HUMAN SECURITY AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
Should the ongoing logging of trees in the Amazon forest, also other natural highly biodiverse forests, as well as the logging of trees in other areas of natural forest ecosystems carried out in the formula of predatory pseudo-forest management, also be recognized as a crime of destruction of strategic natural resources of the planet generating an increase in the threat to human existence on planet Earth?
Should the ongoing cutting of trees in areas of natural highly biodiverse forests be recognized as a crime of crimes against humanity?
What do you think about this topic?
What is your opinion on this issue?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
Still steadily declining forest area, deforestation prevailing over aforestation, predatory cutting of entire stands, cutting down old-growth forests, creating pseudo-forest monocultures serving mainly or exclusively for the production of wood raw material, etc., are key factors in the rapid decline of the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems, including the extinction of many species of flora and fauna. In addition, deforestation processes also negatively affect the climate and amplify the progressive processes of global warming, soil aridity, etc. It is extremely strange that in the era of the 21st century, widespread knowledge of the civilizational sources and consequences of the progressive process of global warming, deforestation and/or predatory pseudo-management of forests is still carried out in many countries of the world. It is essential to urgently reverse these negative processes.
In the following article, I have included the results of the research conducted on the connection of the issue of sustainable development, the genesis and meaning of the Sustainable Development Goals, the essence of sustainable development in the context of social, normative, economic, environmental, climatic, as well as human rights aspects, etc. The research also addressed the issue of key determinants of human existential security as an element of the concept of sustainable development.
HUMAN SECURITY AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
The key issues of this issue and why the above issue is important is what I wrote in the following publication:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT AS A KEY ELEMENT OF THE PRO-ECOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECONOMY TOWARDS GREEN ECONOMY AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY
What do you think about this?
What is your opinion on this topic?
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
How do multistory buildings impact the preservation of agricultural land and forests compared to traditional urban sprawl?
Can we stop global climate change? Does human scientific power reach the world's climate change? What is the response of the researchers?
As you know, humans are very intelligent and can predict the future climate of the world with hydrology, climatology and paleontology. But don't countries, especially industrialized countries, that produce the most harmful gases in the earth's atmosphere and think about the future of the earth's atmosphere? Do they listen to the research of climatologists? What would have to happen to get them to listen to climate scientists?
Miloud Chakit added a reply
Climate change is an important and complex global challenge, and scientific theories about it are based on extensive research and evidence. The future path of the world depends on various factors including human actions, political decisions and international cooperation.
Efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change continue. While full recovery can be challenging, important steps can be taken to slow progression and lessen its effects. This requires global cooperation, sustainable practices and the development and implementation of clean energy technologies.
Human scientific abilities play an important role, but dealing with climate change also requires social, economic and political changes. The goal is to limit global warming and its associated impacts, and collective action at the local, national, and international levels is essential for a more sustainable future.
Reply to this discussion
Osama Behnas added a reply
Global climate change is impossible to stop. Human scientific power cannot reach the climate changes of the world.
Borys Kapochkin added a reply
Mathematical models of planetary warming as a function of the argument - anthropogenic influence - are wrong.
Alastair Bain McDonald added a reply
We can stop climate change, but we won't! We have scientific knowledge but no political will. One can blame Russia and China for refusing to cooperate, but half of the US population (Republicans) deny that climate change is a problem and prefer their promiscuous lifestyles to the answer:
All climate change is loaded on CO2 responsible for the greenhouse effect. Therefore, scientific experiments from several independent scientific institutions around the world should be conducted to determine what the greenhouse effect is at different concentrations of CO2. Then, a conference of a reputable and professional organization with the participation of all independent scientific bodies should be held to establish standards on CO2 concentrations and propose policy measures accordingly.
The second action that can be taken is to plant as many trees and plants as possible to breathe CO2 and release oxygen. Stop any deforestation and immediately plant trees in any tree-filled areas.
Lucy George added a reply:
We have the knowledge, tools and resources to ensure a livable and sustainable future for all. Carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are major contributors to global warming. Therefore, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very important and should be done as soon as possible to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions. Both forests and oceans play an important role in regulating our climate, so increasing their natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide can also help prevent global warming.
Reply to this discussion
Ilan Kelman added a reply:
Yes, we can address and stop human-caused climate change. See extensive details in the full technical reports of ipcc.ch
Mohamed Sarmoum added a reply:
I think it is difficult to stop global climate change, but, on the other hand, we can develop adaptation mechanisms with this change
Mrutyunjay Padhiary added a reply
The challenge of combating global climate change is complicated and multidimensional, involving scientific, technological, political, economic, and social initiatives. Even though we may not be able to "stop" climate change entirely at this time, we can surely lessen its worst consequences and adjust to the changes that are already occurring. It is true that advances in science have allowed us to gain an in-depth knowledge of the mechanisms causing climate change as well as the tools and techniques that can be used to slow it down. Scholars from diverse fields such as ecology, engineering, economics, climatology, and social sciences are actively investigating climate change and devising remedies for it.
Sudhir Shukla added a reply
Global climate changes are at Macro- Mega scale changes basically induced by the continuing geological processes, hitherto invisible to present human generation because of their slow pace. The modern human race might have accelerated this change by adopting industrial expansion and ever-growing greed for conventional energy. Human effect is most visible in weather changes and weather anomalies more profoundly visible now-a -days when compared to global climate changes.
Think of climate changes in the past / geological history when human did not exist at all?
Reply to this discussion
Hong Yin added a reply
May 16
Talking about global climate change without time and space scale is not science. The earth has its own rules to change while human is relatively nobody. What human could do is to try best to understand and respect the earth and find the balanced way to survive better.
Andrey V. Zhuravlev added a reply
3 days ago
It seems we can't change the trend. However, we can try to change the speed of climate changes to allow time for adaptation.
Hello everyone,
I have a question about calculating the NDVI for a forested area over a period of ten years. I would like to know if I should calculate the average NDVI for each year, or if I should calculate the NDVI for the same specific date each year, which should be more or less the same date.
Thank you.
"How do we understand special relativity?"
The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.
Reply to this discussion
Vacuum
Multiverse
Entanglement
Big Bang
Motion
Following
Share
All replies (40)
📷
Wolfgang Konle added a reply
5 days ago
Fred-Rick Schermer "It does not explain how all got started up, but then again I also have Energy as a given. I recognize your model as complete on its own, leaving some aspects unexplained."
Good question, an answer and some additional explanations can be given in short words.
There was no startup. The model is eternal.
The background of dark energy distorts space into an S³ structure with a space curvature of 1/R² and a volume of 2π²R³. The volume of space oscillates. It shrinks as the dark energy is charged and expands during a recycling event.
The transfer of the upload energy takes place via a gravitational interaction. With its gravitational field, each particle, including photons, creates a tiny dent in the dark energy density. If this dent moves, the dark energy has to bypass the dent. The bypass motion requires some energy, which must be provided by the moving gravitating object.
A recycling event lasts a few million years. The energy charging phase lasts about twenty to thirty billion years. We are currently in this phase.
Recommend
Share
📷
Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply
5 days ago
Wolfgang Konle
Thank you, Wolfgang, I understand better now what you are working with.
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Cosmin Visan added a reply
2 days ago
Fred-Rick Schermer Universe doesn't exist. "Universe" is just an idea in consciousness.
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Cosmin Visan added a reply
2 days ago
Wolfgang Konle Energy doesn't exist. "Energy" is just an idea in consciousness.
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply
1 day ago
It looks as that rather strange series of posts in the thread is too long already, and to point here that the thread question rather in detail is scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1, and on page 2..
Cheers
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply
1 day ago
Wolfgang Konle
Wolfgang, will you please read this article in which I propose the inverse for explaining a Black Hole.
All data is the same, but the perspective is distinct.
It's like Rubin's Vase, where one can see a Vase, but another can see the Two Faces. All data is the same, but the view is distinct nevertheless.
Same for the Black Hole. I can see the Black Eye instead, with all data exactly the same, yet the perspective is what makes the view different.
There is truly no invisible mass required to explain everything we observe.
Preprint On The Scientific Black Eye
This may be my most important work. It puts me in opposition to the majority (nearly everyone) of the scientific community.
Thank you for your review.
Recommend
Share
📷
Cosmin Visan added a reply
24 hours ago
Fred-Rick Schermer Energy doesn't exist. "Energy" is just an idea in consciousness. See my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World".
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Wolfgang Konle added a reply
12 hours ago
Fred-Rick Schermer
I have scanned your article about a "black eye".
But I could not identify the differences between your black eye model and the black hole model described in standard physics.
I have looked for differences in energy, mass, momentum, momentum of inertia, and external impact on the galaxy. But I could not find any substantial information about that kind of differences.
Recommend
Share
📷
Cosmin Visan added a reply
9 hours ago
Wolfgang Konle Energy doesn't exist. "Energy" is just an idea in consciousness. See my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World".
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply
5 hours ago
Wolfgang Konle
Excellent, Wolfgang. You make me happy with that response, though I need to mention just a little more.
The Black Hole model contains an event horizon, whereas the Black Eye does not contain an event horizon.
There are two important positions which I describe as follows:
1. A Black Eye is a phenomenon like the Eye of the Storm is a phenomenon. The Eye of the Storm is really there, but it is not based on itself. The Eye is based on the wind force of the Storm. Inside the Eye, there is no wind force. Hence, it is a phenomenon, a byproduct of larger circumstances. It should be considered a major observation that physical realities can produce phenomena that then 'exist' in their larger context.
2. When a person closes an eye, then one can see what a Cyclops sees. Yet the eye that is open did not move toward the center of the face, so the reality of a Cyclops will not be achieved. That means that when an ordinary physical property among others is declared to be zero, then the remaining physical properties do not realign themselves around a center. There is no realigning. The physical reality remains intact, and the zero reality of a physical property cannot be used to declare how the standard reality is then something that it cannot be (i.e. singularities are outcomes on paper only; no scientific grounds were produced to declare singularities scientifically correct).
I do not undermine the Black Hole model other than proposing a better model in which there is no event horizon to consider. All is scientifically present in the Black Eye model. There is nothing to believe in the Black Eye model, while there is something to believe in the Black Hole model, and believing is of course a non-scientific activity.
Thank you, Wolfgang, for your reply.
Will you respond further based on what I wrote here above?
Recommend
Share
On The Scientific Black Eye
A Black Hole is accepted in science by most physicists. Not many people suspect that an alternate model is available based on the same data, called a Black Eye.
The Black Eye model does not contain a mass in the center. The model is not based on a single mass. Rather, the outcome is explained based on the entire system, and for this article that system is a galaxy.
The Black Eye model takes a system-wide approach and bases the resulting outcome on all masses in a galaxy. The gravitational forces of all masses combined establish a collective gravitational depression in the center. In this model, we are witnessing a collective result.
Meanwhile, an additional component is involved as well, not considered by most physicists to play an important role. Next to the ordinarily considered motions of matter, a galaxy as a whole is also on the move through space in a single direction. This helps to establish a special outcome, right in the center.
Note that there is no difference in data between a Black Hole and a Black Eye. It is all in the scientific interpretation that the distinction between both models comes about. Like Rubin’s Vase, one can see a Vase, or one can see Two Faces. Either way, the data is identical.
--
Most will be familiar with the Black Hole model, so the emphasis for this article will be on presenting the Black Eye model.
The starting point is not the gravitational monster itself, but rather the circumstances of a galaxy as a whole.
The Milky Way contains about 100 billion stars and all of these stars have their own gravitational force, attracting all other masses. Yet as a collective, the center of this gravitational force establishes a deep depression.
· The pull on the center is enormous, coming from all directions in the galactic disk. The explanation that not all masses move toward the center with that pulling force is due to the circular motion of this collective, countering the action. Most masses are pushed out by the circular motion and pulled in by the gravitational force.
A depression is made up of various components. The most important aspect for understanding the Black Eye model is that the center of the depression is void of materials, except for happenstance materials (more on this later).
The center exists in a gravitational balance, called net-zero, yet the depression is experienced at its gravitational maximum. That net-zero reality takes up space; it is not a singular point, but rather an area, an Eye of net-zero gravitational force.
Perhaps a surprise, but at the exact spot of first moving away from the net-zero location, all hell breaks loose.
· This sudden boundary shift is like the shift seen with the inner core of planet Earth, with the solid part of the inner core located in the center flanked right around it by the fluid part of the inner core. The center is solid, not moving internally, while the fluid part is moving wildly. There is no transition zone right at the shift of both parts of the inner core.
The same shift occurs between non-motion in center /wild motion right next to it in the gravitational depression. In the center, there is net-zero gravity, not experiencing gravity. Right on the edge of it the gravitational force is exerted to its max. There is no greater gravitational expression in the entire galaxy than right here next to the net-zero location.
What happens right next to this edgy spot is that friction has become available whereas no friction is available anywhere inside the net-zero center. As soon as that friction is available, there is motion, lots and lots of it. All tension of all masses in the entire galaxy is kept at net-zero in the center and breaks loose with a fury at first opportunity.
For the Black Eye model, one can declare that edgy spot a gravitational Wall of Motion. The photons seen in images of a Black Hole/Black Eye show us the Wall of Motion. As is well-known, we only see photons when they move in our direction. This is a location of great turbulence.
📷
In the Black Eye model, photons will in general not make it through the center because the gravitational Wall of Motion will swat them out of the way before a photon can reach the center. As such, the Eye will be black. Meanwhile, the Wall of Motion in which the photons are swatted into our direction ensures that the ring of light (the donut) is visible to us. Thanks to the way photons works, we can see the ring of light, the Wall of Motion.
· Further out, photons continue on their straight path all around the Black Eye and Wall of Motion. As long as they are not swatted by the Wall of Motion, and when photons are not aimed toward us, we do not get to see them.
Once more, the most important aspect is the center at net-zero. This net-zero location is the solid backbone of all gravitational masses moving around it. In a way, all masses are moving around the gravitational center. Each mass is attracted both by the center and by all other specific masses in the galaxy. As such, specific individual behavior by a mass can also get established in this setting.
A partial collective of masses in the galaxy, when placed in opposite location to the center, can move any single mass individually as well. That means that for a single mass, the majority of the galaxy can end up establishing the direction that pulls this mass toward the center. As a result, a single mass may end up with a specific behavior in light of the net-zero center.
📷
In a visualization with a clock, this is like a single mass located at 2 o’clock being attracted via gravity through the large center location of the clock by the other side. Yet it is not just the masses located at 8 o’clock that are doing the attracting. It is more like all masses between 5 and 11 o’clock are attracting the single mass at 2 o’clock. Masses found at 7 o’clock or 10 o’clock would also be pulling the single mass at 2 o’clock in their direction.
Similarly, the mass at 2 o’clock is contributing (its very small part) to the attraction on all these masses between 5 and 11 o’clock. It will do so as part of its majority of masses of a galaxy. A mass at 8 o’clock will be pulled by all masses situated between 11 o’clock and 5 o’clock, including the single mass at 2 o’clock.
This is therefore a story of the single mass being attracted by the many in opposite direction, while the single mass contributes itself, as part of the many in opposition, to each and every other mass in their specific opposite location.
Once more, it is the circular motion that keeps all masses where they are. The inward pull by all masses is countered by the outward motion of the circular motion of all masses.
Through happenstance, a single mass may no longer follow the established path and become attracted to the very center of all masses in the galaxy. Yet when that mass reaches the center, it will still move around it. The single mass reverts direction in a smooth but perhaps rather fast transition.
In a static view, the exact center has an attraction that is equidistant in all directions of the galaxy. As such, a single mass will bypass the center in a circular motion, reversing direction, exactly because there is no single mass of attraction. This is a collective outcome played out on an individual mass.
Interestingly, the net-zero location can be entered also by a mass, yet this cannot happen at great velocity. At great velocity, the mass will always move around the net-zero center.
Yet when a slowly and gradually moving mass enters the net-zero location, it can get stuck on the ‘wrong’ side of the Wall of Motion.
· Like an airplane flying straight into the Eye of the Storm perhaps not encountering much trouble, when flying out back into the Storm the plane better not enter it at the wrong angle where the force can overwhelm it. Indeed, it is dangerous work for these pilots.
Naturally, a mass that ‘fell’ into a Black Eye will not have a steering wheel available and will not be able to exit the Black Eye exactly as desired. In short, it will not exit in a single piece.
📷
That mass will get churned into pieces. Some of it will fly right back into the galactic disk, unnoticed, yet a good amount can move outwardly through the perpendicular spouts. These spouts are located on both sides of the net-zero location in the galactic disk, themselves also net-zero areas. What propels these churned pieces is nothing but the speed the pieces achieved from the churning motion in their direction. Once more, the Wall of Motion will not let any mass escape whole once it entered the net-zero location.
To understand how a galactic system can establish a Black Eye, it is not sufficient to understand the gravitational motions only. A galaxy, or any matter in the universe, is always on the move. There truly exists no matter at a standstill.
The entire galaxy of, for instance, the 100 billion stars of the Milky Way, are on the move collectively, moving through space in what is basically a straight line.
This is the fastest speed that all these Milky Way masses are moving in. The outer regions of the galaxy are moving at the same speed as all other masses in the galaxy in that single direction.
· Like ice-skaters on a frozen canal, each skating under his- or her own force, all are moving like a group and yet there is no group force. There appears to be a group, but a single skater can stop skating on his or her own accord, with the remainder of the group continuing. There is no group powering the skaters.
The initial ‘push’ established by the Big Bang materialization process got applied to all Milky Way energy, moving it in one and the same direction, at one and the same speed. Therefore, it appears that there is a group that is powered by group action. Yet the group action that we see, the circling of these masses, is based on gravity. For the skaters, we see the evidence of their being a group when they are jostling or helping propel each other. Yet in general, each skater skates on their own power.
· The original push of the Big Bang is not based on gravity.
The true motions of all masses in the Milky Way are more complex than considered in our Einsteinian view of matter in which gravity is the essential force.
On the one hand, there is the fastest motion of all masses moving in the same direction at the same speed at the same time. On the other hand, there is the gravitational motion indeed that attracts these masses to one another.
· A circular motion is the result of both realities combined.
In the center, there will be a net-zero location, and this will not be based just on gravity, but based on the established circular motion, which includes the single and fastest direction that all galactic matter is moving into.
--
Why did physicists consider there is a Black Hole instead of a Black Eye?
The answer lies in our achieving answers not just based on what we observe in reality, but also in our doing calculations on paper. When all the data is transposed onto paper, then one facilitates an environment in which is it easy to make a simple but fatal mistake.
Consider a piece of paper with a face drawn on it: two ears, hair, a nose, an eye, a mouth and chin.
All parts are scientifically correct.
And yet when there is just a single eye in the face, then the drawing shows us a Cyclops. It does not matter that the eye itself is scientifically correct. The drawing shows an outcome that does not corroborate what we witness in nature.
When all data about a galaxy is expressed in correct calculations on paper, then a melding of data into a single mass can still make the outcome become incorrect. The worst part of the Black Hole calculations is accepting that for the Cyclops the single eye sits in the middle of a face.
Naturally, it is easy to see what a Cyclops sees. All one needs to do is close an eye and we see exactly what a Cyclops sees.
· Yet the mistake is to think that the remaining open eye moved to the center of our faces.
The model demands therefore that all that is real remains in place, even when there is an established outcome of zero for whichever aspect that one has considered essential in a physical environment. The zero presence of any aspect does not allow us to eliminate the zero location from our equations.
· We are not allowed to play with models at will.
It is easy to undermine the Black Hole model with the Black Eye model, just like it is easy to undermine the Vase with the Two Faces. Only one outcome will be correct, and yet the data shows us two possibilities.
How to pick the best possible outcome?
The scientific weak spot in the Black Hole model is that the entity that establishes the scientific Black Hole cannot be shown itself. The event horizon prevents any fully scientific acknowledgment to ever occur. The Black Hole model contains a curtain beyond which no scientific access can be obtained, except on paper. That makes it a weak scientific model because the scientific essence is not available.
The Black Eye model does not suffer this scientific problem. All data is out there in the open. Everything is explained.
The real distinction is in the interpretation of the data.
Can we stop global climate change? Does human scientific power reach the world's climate change? What is the response of the researchers?
As you know, humans are very intelligent and can predict the future climate of the world with hydrology, climatology and paleontology. But don't countries, especially industrialized countries, that produce the most harmful gases in the earth's atmosphere and think about the future of the earth's atmosphere? Do they listen to the research of climatologists? What would have to happen to get them to listen to climate scientists?
Miloud Chakit added a reply
Climate change is an important and complex global challenge, and scientific theories about it are based on extensive research and evidence. The future path of the world depends on various factors including human actions, political decisions and international cooperation.
Efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change continue. While full recovery can be challenging, important steps can be taken to slow progression and lessen its effects. This requires global cooperation, sustainable practices and the development and implementation of clean energy technologies.
Human scientific abilities play an important role, but dealing with climate change also requires social, economic and political changes. The goal is to limit global warming and its associated impacts, and collective action at the local, national, and international levels is essential for a more sustainable future.
Reply to this discussion
Osama Behnas added a reply:
Global climate change is impossible to stop. Human scientific power cannot reach the climate changes of the world.
Borys Kapochkin added a reply:
Mathematical models of planetary warming as a function of the argument - anthropogenic influence - are wrong.
Alastair Bain McDonald added a reply
We can stop climate change, but we won't! We have scientific knowledge but no political will. One can blame Russia and China for refusing to cooperate, but half of the US population (Republicans) deny that climate change is a problem and prefer their promiscuous lifestyles to the answer:
All climate change is loaded on CO2 responsible for the greenhouse effect. Therefore, scientific experiments from several independent scientific institutions around the world should be conducted to determine what the greenhouse effect is at different concentrations of CO2. Then, a conference of a reputable and professional organization with the participation of all independent scientific bodies should be held to establish standards on CO2 concentrations and propose policy measures accordingly.
The second action that can be taken is to plant as many trees and plants as possible to breathe CO2 and release oxygen. Stop any deforestation and immediately plant trees in any tree-filled areas.
Lucy George added a reply:
We have the knowledge, tools and resources to ensure a livable and sustainable future for all. Carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are major contributors to global warming. Therefore, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very important and should be done as soon as possible to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions. Both forests and oceans play an important role in regulating our climate, so increasing their natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide can also help prevent global warming.
Reply to this discussion
Ilan Kelman added a reply:
Yes, we can address and stop human-caused climate change. See extensive details in the full technical reports of ipcc.ch
Mohamed Sarmoum added a reply:
I think it is difficult to stop global climate change, but, on the other hand, we can develop adaptation mechanisms with this change
Mrutyunjay Padhiary added a reply:
The challenge of combating global climate change is complicated and multidimensional, involving scientific, technological, political, economic, and social initiatives. Even though we may not be able to "stop" climate change entirely at this time, we can surely lessen its worst consequences and adjust to the changes that are already occurring. It is true that advances in science have allowed us to gain an in-depth knowledge of the mechanisms causing climate change as well as the tools and techniques that can be used to slow it down. Scholars from diverse fields such as ecology, engineering, economics, climatology, and social sciences are actively investigating climate change and devising remedies for it.
Sudhir Shukla added a reply:
Global climate changes are at Macro- Mega scale changes basically induced by the continuing geological processes, hitherto invisible to present human generation because of their slow pace. The modern human race might have accelerated this change by adopting industrial expansion and ever-growing greed for conventional energy. Human effect is most visible in weather changes and weather anomalies more profoundly visible now-a -days when compared to global climate changes.
Think of climate changes in the past / geological history when human did not exist at all?
Reply to this discussion
Hong Yin added a reply:
Talking about global climate change without time and space scale is not science. The earth has its own rules to change while human is relatively nobody. What human could do is to try best to understand and respect the earth and find the balanced way to survive better.
"How do we understand special relativity?"
The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.
Reply to this discussion
Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply:
Abbas Kashani
A lot to work with, Abbas.
However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.
My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.
Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.
To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.
Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.
--
Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.
We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.
Now comes the mistake:
The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.
Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.
Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).
--
I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.
Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:
Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...
Wolfgang Konle added a reply:
"Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum."
Richard Feynman's idea is perfect, and there is no reason to reject it. The existence of vacuum energy, or better dark energy is consistent with Einstein's field equations with a positive cosmological constant.
The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.
The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?
As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:
This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.
On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.
But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.
But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
"How do we understand special relativity?"
- the answer to this question, which is really fundamental one, since is about what is some physical theory as a whole; what really means – why and how the postulates of a theory, in this case of the SR, really are formulated, and why and how the postulates
- which in any theory fundamentally – as that happens in mathematics, where axioms fundamentally cannot be proven – aren’t proven; while are formulated only basing on some experimental data, which fundamentally prove nothing, though one experiment that is outside a theory prediction proves that this theory is either wrong, or at least its application is limited.
Returning to the SR, which is based on really first of all four postulates – the SR-1905/1908 versions relativity principle, SR-1905 also on the postulate that light propagates in 3D XYZ space with constant speed of light independently on light source/ an observer’s speeds; and, additionally,
- in both theories it is postulated (i) that fundamentally there exist no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) - [so] that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.
In the standard now in mainstream physics SR-1908 additionally to the SR-1905 it is postulated also that observed contraction of moving bodies’ lengths, and slowing down of moving clocks tick rates, comparing with the length and tick rates when bodies and clocks are at rest in “stationary” frames, is caused by the “fundamental relativistic properties and effects”, i.e. “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc..
Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;
- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that
- Matter’s spacetime is absolute, that so some “absolute” frames that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space can exist, while applications, i.e. measurements of distances and time intervals, of moving in the space inertial frames aren’t completely adequate to the objective reality; and
- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.
Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.
That is another thing that
- according to SR-1905 relativity principle there is some extremely potent entity “light”, the constancy of which for/by some mystic reasons/ways forces moving bodies to contract and moving clocks to slow down tick rates; and
- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.
All that above in the SR really is/are only postulated illusions of the authors, nonetheless, again, the Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle is really . extremely mighty, and the SR indeed in most cases at everyday physical practice is applied in completely accordance with the objective reality. The fundamental flaws of the SR reveal themselves only on fundamental level.
The post is rather long now, so here
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”
In the SS post above it is pointed that Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, however to say more it is necessary to clarify - what are “space” and “time”, just because of the authors of the SR – and whole mainstream physics till now - fundamentally didn’t/don/t understand what these fundamental phenomena/notions are, the really mystic and simply fundamentally wrong things in the SR were/are introduced in this theory.
What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,
- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., which is/are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics,
- can be, and is, clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely in physics in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
More see the link above, here now only note, that, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the model, Matter absolutely for sure is some informational system of informational patterns/systems – particles, fields, stars, etc., which, as that is shown in the model, is based on a simple binary reversible logics.
So everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
The disturbances are created in the lattice after some the lattice FLE is impacted, with transmission to it, by some non-zero at least 4D space, momentum P[boldmeans 4D vector] in utmost universal Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z). The impact causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, which, since the flipping cannot propagate in the lattice with 4D speed more than the flipping speed c=lP/tP [really at particles creation and motion c√2, more see the link, but that isn’t essential here].
Some FLE flipping above along a direct 4D line can be caused by a practically infinitesimal P impact; but if P isn’t infinitesimal, that causes flipping FLE precession and corresponding propagation of the “FLE-flipping point” in the 4D space above along some 4D helix,
- i.e. causes creation of some close-loop algorithm that cyclically runs on FLE “hardware ” with the helix’s frequency ω, having momentum P=mc above, mis inertial mass, the helix radius is λ=λ/P;
- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply
So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.
In the SS posts above it is pointed that everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of FLEs, which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, spacetime,
- and that happens always in utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), and corresponding spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z ct), where ct is the real time dimension.
At that particles, most of which compose real bodies, at every time moment exist as “FLE –flipping point” that move along some4D helixes that have frequencies ω, having 4D momentums P=mc, m are inertial masses, a helix radius is λ=λ/P;
- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.
So in Matter there exist two main types of particles – “T-particles”, which are created by momentums that are directed along the cτ-axis [more generally – by 4D momentums cτ-components, but here that isn’t too essential], and so, if are at rest in the 3DXYZ space, move only along cτ-axis with the speed of light, and at that a T- particle’s algorithm ticks with maximal “own frequency”, the particle’s momentum is P0=m0c, where, correspondingly, m0 is the “rest mass”.
If a such T-particle, after some 3D space impact with a 3D space momentum p, moves also in 3D space with a velocity V, having 4D momentum P=P0+p, its speed along the cτ-axis decreases by the Pythagoras theorem in (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. in reverse Lorentz factor,
- and, at that, despite that the helix’s frequency increases, the algorithm is “diluted by “blank” 3D space FLEs flips. So the “own frequency above” decreases in Lorentz factor, so the algorithm ticks slower; and so, say, moving clocks that are some algorithms as well, tick slower in Lorentz factor as well; if a particle algorithm has some defect, and so at every its tick it can break with some probability, so the particle is unstable and decay, such moving in 3D space particles live longer.
Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.
In the SS post above it is explained why and how internal “own” processes rates in moving having rest mass [and it is explained what is “rest mass”] particles, bodies, etc., are slowed down comparing with the case when the bodies are at rest; and to derive that it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem; Matter is rather simple logical system,
- but that isn’t a unique physical effect that differ “rest and motion”. As that is pointed in 2-nd SS post, particles are some “4D gyroscopes”, the 4D “rotation axis” of which is always directed along particles 4D momentums P.
So if a T-particle is at rest in 3D space, the axis is directed along the cτ-axis, if the particle moves in the space, say, along X-axis, it rotates in the (X, cτ) plane so that the Cosine of the angle between P and X-axis is, again by Pythagoras theorem, equal to (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. reverse Lorentz factor, while Cosine of the angle between P and cτ –axis is V/c.
If particles constitute some moving rigid body that has, if is at rest in 3D space, length L, they rotate the body as a whole in the (X, cτ) plane on the angle above, and so:
(i) - the body’s length 3D space observable projection is contracted comparing with when it is at rest in inverse Lorentz factor, what is observed experimentally, say, that was yet at M&M experiments, at that, of course , nothing happens with the 3D space; any postulated in the SR “space contraction” fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t exist; and
(ii) - the body’s front end has lesser coordinate value on the cτ –axis than the back end, the difference is correspondingly –VL/c.
Since the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is indeed extremely mighty, motion of everything in real time ct-dimension in mainstream physics, and, of course, in everyday humans practice, till now isn’t observed, so in the mainstream the rather specific really space cτ- dimension is used as the time dimension in both – classical 4D Euclidian with [usual, when t-coordinate isn’t multiplied by the c constant ] metrics (t,X,Y,Z) , and the SR Minkowski with metrics (it,X,Y,Z) [“i” is imaginary unit], spacetimes.
So in this metrics a moving body’s front end is “younger” than the back end on –VL/c2,
- what is the Voigt-Lorentz decrement in the Lorentz transformations.
Correspondingly, if we remember that moving body’s [including moving reference frames] clocks showings are slowed comparing with the rest case, and that
Lorentz transformations – quite equally as that Galileo transformations are also, really are equation of motion of points of the moving body’s [including systems of the bodies that are inertial reference frames systems of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks] in a stationary “K” frame with using data of measurements that are made in the moving “K’ ” frame,
- we above, by using Pythagoras theorem, derived these transformations.
At that, again – these equations/transformations relate only to points of rigid bodies /rigid systems of bodies that they occupy in the 4D space /mainstream spacetime at a current time moment. If in a system the bodies are free, that above, including the Lorentz transformations, is applicable only limitedly, so, say, the Bell paradox exists,
- but what is much more important in this case, by using a system of free bodies it is possible to observe motion of the bodies in the absolute 3D space and to measure the absolute velocity of a system, while, say, Poincaré stated that that is impossible. Corresponding experiments were proposed yet in 2013-16 , more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.
In the SS post above some introductive clarification of what is the SR, and what happens in Matter really, relates mostly to physics and physical practice when the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle really practically completely acts; and so the SR is well applicable [and the case when doesn’t act completely, so it is possible to observe the 3D absolute motion], is given,
- here below a few comments that relate to cases where the SR isn’t applicable, and so its application resulted/results in some really strange/mystic things in mainstream physics.
First of all that happens because on the SR Matter’s spacetime is 4D , and, while the strange fact that in the SR time coordinate is imaginary, really isn’t too essential – as that Poincaré showed in 1905, Lorentz transformations can be derived by condition that the quadratic form s2= x2+y2+z2-(ct)2 is invariant in a 4D “spacetime”, where the time coordinate is imaginary. That is another thing, that while for Poincaré that was interesting mathematical result, Matter’s spacetime is, of course Euclidian one, but Minkowski postulated that this spacetime is real Matter’s spacetime.
But, again, really all what humans, as they think, observe in 4D Euclidian/Minkowski spacetime, they really observe only in 4D space, while the utmost universal “kinematical” real Matter’s spacetime has [5]4D metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, ct) [in the mainstream the space cτ-dimension is the time t/ct-dimension].
Correspondingly in the SR [and in classical mechanics] energy of a particle/body is [as √from] E2= (m0c2)2+p2c2– what is “Hamiltonian” , while really that is equation for absolute value of 4D momentum P [more see the SS posts above], by Pythagoras theorem P2=(m0c)2+p2,
- where m0 and m0care particle/body rest mass, and Pmomentum’s cτ-component; pis 3DXYZ space momentum/3D Pspatial component.
So in mainstream QM Hamiltonian is energy operator Ĥ, which was used in indeed nice 1928 Dirac’s derivation of relativistic electron Ψ-function time dependent equation, iћ∂Ψ/∂t= ĤΨ.
In this case really the non-adequacy of SR spacetime metrics above revealed itself in that this equation [though that relates also to Schrödinger equation] the evidently derivative by time dimension variable – while in QM derivatives by space dimensions variables are momentums operators is, as that is postulated in QM the energy operator;
- and, at that, the equation really was valid for ± Ĥ. So to interpret the negative Hamiltonian Dirac assumed existence of some really evidently mystic “sea of negative energies” and states of some particles in this sea.
Nonetheless particles “positrons”, which, of course, have quite positive energy, were really detected.
In the late 1940 to fit quantum electrodynamics with experiments it was necessary to introduce in QED “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation”, where antiparticles for/by some mystic reason and way move back in time, while really in time only motion in the positive direction is possible.
All these mystic points in QED [including in Dirac’s equation] become to be quite natural in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case more see
- really the operator ∂/∂t is quite naturally momentum P operator, which relates not to the scalar always positive E, but to vector, which can have ±directions, as that in QED assumed, etc.
The post is long already, so now
Cheers
Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply:
Sergey Shevchenko
Thank you, Sergey, for lots and lots of information. I am just picking one aspect to focus the discussion.
"Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute."
I fully agree here but only if I understand you correctly. It is matter that is the source for spacetime; space and time are actually not part of the discussion. Rather, all words apply to the behavior of matter and nothing of these words applies to space or time. though the words are implying they are.
Einstein did not yet know about the Big Bang when he wrote his relativity theories. That means he completely missed out on the most important behavior for matter.
With the Big Bang, we have matter moving at its fastest speed in a singular direction.
In plain English: a straight line for matter will not be based on gravity.
So, there are four motions for matter, and Einstein's spacetime is based on just three of the four.
First Motion: matter moving through space in a straight line.
Second Motion: matter moving collectively in galaxies, circular motion.
Third Motion: matter revolving as planets around stars, circular motion.
Fourth Motion: Planets spinning (moons in tow), circular motion.
Einstein worked with Second, Third, and Fourth Motion. He did not know about the First Motion.
Since his motions are all gravity-based and the First Motion is not gravity-based, Einstein did not have to recalibrate spacetime to end up with correct answers. Because... spacetime is not about all motions of matter but only about matter's behaviors in light of gravity.
That is the point I'd like to discuss, Sergey. Do you agree that spacetime was taken out of its limited (and correct) context of matter in their gravitational settings, and that this got applied by others incorrectly to the universe as a whole?
The relevance of the topic is justified by the diversity of unique natural ecosystem objects in the territories of Kosovo and North Macedonia, where forestry activities are traditional. The aim of the study is to analyse the current state of ecosystem services provided by forests in Kosovo and North Macedonia in the context of their assessment and development prospects. Several general scientific empirical and theoretical research methods were employed, including comparison, generalization, analysis, synthesis, and abstract-logical methods. The article characterizes the current state of forest resource utilization in Kosovo and North Macedonia, highlighting key issues in the management of forest lands, including those hindering the development of ecosystem services. The study justifies indicators of the level of forest resource utilization in Kosovo and North Macedonia, examining the percentage ratio of forest cover indicators in the Western Balkan countries. The relationship between land areas of different categories and purposes in Kosovo is analysed, along with the designation of protected areas within forested areas in North Macedonia. The necessity of conducting an economic assessment of specific ecosystem services provided by forests is justified. Six methods used in the economic valuation of natural goods resulting from forest resource utilization are detailed, deemed most suitable for the Western Balkan countries. A comprehensive list of the most relevant functions of forests requiring economic assessment is compiled. Throughout the justification of all stages of the work, specific ecosystem services provided by forests that may gain greater importance in the future are identified. The practical significance of the study lies in forming the fundamental methodological aspects that can be utilized in the assessment of ecosystem services provided by forests
I recently published, for the first time, in Fire, an MDPI Journal. I felt the peer review process was weak in comparison to other journals; I essentially had one substantive peer review, and comments from the 2nd reviewer were mediocre at best but did not help improve the article I wrote; yet the editor chose to publish my article anyways - of course, this was a special issue publication.
Having served as a peer-reviewer for Forests and Fire before, I had considerable questions on their timelines and ethics of publishing and feel that the pay-to-publish and short timelines result in questionable peer-review processes, though it is neither universally good nor bad.
Now, Forests is asking me to serve as a guest editor and I admit I feel both flattered and baited into their system. They offer incentives (free publications for myself and people I invite), but I also admit that I feel like this is a bit of a predatory and bait scheme to help them get more articles and more special issues to support their business model.
They also are suggesting that by serving as a guest editor they may invite me to join their editorial board... which has a large number of recognizable and admirable scientists on it, however, I fear my ethics are leading me to think that the great good of science would benefit by not supporting these predatory styles of journals.
I feel conflicted, what are other peoples thoughts on these matters and MDPI?
"How do we understand special relativity?"
The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.
Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply
Abbas Kashani
A lot to work with, Abbas.
However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.
My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.
Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.
To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.
Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.
--
Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.
We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.
Now comes the mistake:
The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.
Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.
Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).
--
I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.
Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:
Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...
Wolfgang Konle added a reply
"Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum."
Richard Feynman's idea is perfect, and there is no reason to reject it. The existence of vacuum energy, or better dark energy is consistent with Einstein's field equations with a positive cosmological constant.
The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.
The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?
As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:
This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.
On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.
But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.
But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply
"How do we understand special relativity?"
- the answer to this question, which is really fundamental one, since is about what is some physical theory as a whole; what really means – why and how the postulates of a theory, in this case of the SR, really are formulated, and why and how the postulates
- which in any theory fundamentally – as that happens in mathematics, where axioms fundamentally cannot be proven – aren’t proven; while are formulated only basing on some experimental data, which fundamentally prove nothing, though one experiment that is outside a theory prediction proves that this theory is either wrong, or at least its application is limited.
Returning to the SR, which is based on really first of all four postulates – the SR-1905/1908 versions relativity principle, SR-1905 also on the postulate that light propagates in 3D XYZ space with constant speed of light independently on light source/ an observer’s speeds; and, additionally,
- in both theories it is postulated (i) that fundamentally there exist no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) - [so] that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.
In the standard now in mainstream physics SR-1908 additionally to the SR-1905 it is postulated also that observed contraction of moving bodies’ lengths, and slowing down of moving clocks tick rates, comparing with the length and tick rates when bodies and clocks are at rest in “stationary” frames, is caused by the “fundamental relativistic properties and effects”, i.e. “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc..
Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;
- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that
- Matter’s spacetime is absolute, that so some “absolute” frames that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space can exist, while applications, i.e. measurements of distances and time intervals, of moving in the space inertial frames aren’t completely adequate to the objective reality; and
- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.
Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.
That is another thing that
- according to SR-1905 relativity principle there is some extremely potent entity “light”, the constancy of which for/by some mystic reasons/ways forces moving bodies to contract and moving clocks to slow down tick rates; and
- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.
All that above in the SR really is/are only postulated illusions of the authors, nonetheless, again, the Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle is really . extremely mighty, and the SR indeed in most cases at everyday physical practice is applied in completely accordance with the objective reality. The fundamental flaws of the SR reveal themselves only on fundamental level.
The post is rather long now, so here
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply
So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”
In the SS post above it is pointed that Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, however to say more it is necessary to clarify - what are “space” and “time”, just because of the authors of the SR – and whole mainstream physics till now - fundamentally didn’t/don/t understand what these fundamental phenomena/notions are, the really mystic and simply fundamentally wrong things in the SR were/are introduced in this theory.
What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,
- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., which is/are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics,
- can be, and is, clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely in physics in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
More see the link above, here now only note, that, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the model, Matter absolutely for sure is some informational system of informational patterns/systems – particles, fields, stars, etc., which, as that is shown in the model, is based on a simple binary reversible logics.
So everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
The disturbances are created in the lattice after some the lattice FLE is impacted, with transmission to it, by some non-zero at least 4D space, momentum P[boldmeans 4D vector] in utmost universal Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z). The impact causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, which, since the flipping cannot propagate in the lattice with 4D speed more than the flipping speed c=lP/tP [really at particles creation and motion c√2, more see the link, but that isn’t essential here].
Some FLE flipping above along a direct 4D line can be caused by a practically infinitesimal P impact; but if P isn’t infinitesimal, that causes flipping FLE precession and corresponding propagation of the “FLE-flipping point” in the 4D space above along some 4D helix,
- i.e. causes creation of some close-loop algorithm that cyclically runs on FLE “hardware ” with the helix’s frequency ω, having momentum P=mc above, mis inertial mass, the helix radius is λ=λ/P;
- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
My study area is in eastern Himalayan foothill landscape which is a tropical to sub-tropical forest; elevation ranges from 150 to 1300 meter. The forest is some parts dominated by sal, tick and bamboo plants. The area is not plan at all that's why line transect can't be possible whereas the area having ample of epigeic termite mounds, intermediate mounds, subterranean mounds.
Investigating tree connections in forests showed that some are connected to many others via direct root connections or via funghi. These connections via funghi seem to be evolutionary at least 300 Mio years old. Is it already settled, how the trees communicate (substances) and if electrical signals also play a role?
Are the Amazon forests considered the breath of the earth?
The great forests of the earth such as the Amazon and Southeast Asia such as Borneo and the tropical forests of Africa, next to the Congo River, may be mentioned as the breathing of the earth. Because every broad leaf (broad leaves) is a factory of oxygen production on the planet and this humus brings the forest in nature. But unfortunately, some countries like Brazil have started to destroy forests and have livestock farming, especially cattle farming, to produce beef. . In Brazil, where they have destroyed the Amazon forests and started cattle ranches instead, they have destroyed both the vegetation and the soil of the forest. And the cows themselves, because they have 4 stomachs, produce methane gas in the air, which destroys the ozone layer.
Isn't it time to prevent the destruction of broadleaf forests?
In your opinion, are so-called "carbon credits" consisting of some corporation taking a specific patch of natural forest cover, including, for example, a patch of natural Amazon Rainforest, for an additional ton of CO2 emissions, an effective instrument for real reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere?
To consider the question of the role of so-called "carbon credits" in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, one would have to assume that such a system actually reliably works. However, from what is reported by independent journalists, environmentalists, people who care about protecting the climate, biosphere and biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems, including the forests of the Amazon, even those declared patches of natural Amazon Rainforest taken for protection under the so-called carbon credits are nevertheless often cut down.
Perhaps something will finally begin to change, to improve, in terms of protecting the climate, biosphere and biodiversity of the natural ecosystems of the Amazon Rainforest in connection with the first Amazon Forest Conservation Summit in 14 years, currently being held in Belém, Brazil. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell by 60 percent in July compared to the same month last year. The announcement of the positive trend coincides with the start of a summit in Belém of the 8 countries whose territories include the Amazon forest. This summit is attended by representatives of the governments of the 8 countries whose territory includes the natural Amazon Forest. Perhaps plans and commitments will be made to realistically protect this largest terrestrial reservoir of natural biodiversity and natural forests characterized by a particularly high contribution to absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and producing oxygen. It may also be that the processes of increasing the scale of protection of these forests and reducing their still large-scale logging will be accelerated so that by 2030 at the latest, the deforestation of these forests will be completely ended. This is a particularly important issue because more than 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has already disappeared due to human activity.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
In your opinion, are the so-called carbon credits, which consist in the fact that some corporation, for an additional ton of CO2 emissions, will take under protection a certain patch of natural forest cover, including, for example, a patch of natural Amazon Rainforest, an effective instrument for real reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere?
Are so-called carbon credits an effective instrument to realistically reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere?
What do you think about this topic?
What is your opinion on this issue?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Counting on your opinions, on getting to know your personal opinion, on a fair approach to the discussion of scientific issues, I deliberately used the phrase "in your opinion" in the question.
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
We are looking to investigate changes in soil enzyme activity under the influence of different management practices in Hyrcanian forests. I would be grateful if someone could guide me in measuring the activity of some soil enzymes.
The study are is large. The sampling will include the river and the forest area along the river. In forest area, vegetation type will be determined and in river area, food abundance (prey) will be determined.
Do help me, I don't have good understanding on it though I went through various articles.
Thank you
I know that equation varies based on factors such as species' types, etc.
however, is it possible to use the formula used to calculate below carbon content/ stock for mangrove forests for reserve forests?
I want to convert biomass from herbaceous/grassland plants to carbon. Most of the formulas I have come across are formulas for trees/forests. I am looking for a formula for herbaceous plants.
How do altitudinal gradients impact the biomass and carbon stock of coniferous forests?
Will the impact be significant or non-significant? If the effect is substantial how would conifer trees' growth response toward different elevations?
please suggest some valued work related to this topic preferably from Elsevier or Springer.
Why do you think that in the context of the progressive process of global warming, deforestation, logging, cutting down of old-growth forests in natural forests and even in areas that should be converted to landscape parks or national parks is still going on in some countries on a large scale?
For example, why is it that in Europe, where environmental policy has been one of the priorities for several years, deforestation, logging, cutting down old-growth forests in natural forests in the Carpathian Mountains has been going on on a large scale in some countries?
In Europe, where environmental policy is taken seriously and is one of the priorities in recent years, afforestation of areas has begun to outweigh deforestation. This is in line with climate and environmental policy, against the ongoing process of global warming. Unfortunately, however, there are serious sad exceptions to this rule. Currently, according to Greenpeace, an area of 5 soccer fields is disappearing every hour throughout the Carpathians. According to what Greenpeace reports, in some countries only 3 percent of the natural forests of the Carpathians are legally protected from investments like road construction. In the country where I operate, thanks to the intervention of people who care about conservation, it was possible to defend the natural forests of the Bieszczady National Park from predatory logging by a government-controlled company that manages most of the country's forests. A company that has the issue of nature conservation and forest biodiversity written into its internal regulations as a priority function. But realistically this function is not treated as a priority. Thanks to the intervention in the bodies of the European Union, thanks to grassroots social movements, thanks to the activities of Greenpeace, it was possible to defend the natural forests, including the National Park in the Bieszczady Mountains from predatory pseudo-forest management. Thanks to the defense of the Bieszczady Mountains, nature in the Bieszczady Mountains is reviving. In addition, some 300 social grassroots movements to defend the natural forests in the Carpathians have since sprung up. Accordingly, the company that manages most of the country's forests have it written into their norms that social and natural functions come first and economic functions last. And in recent years these relationships have been turned on their head. According to what is reported by Greenpeace Poland, currently the natural forests in Poland are treated by the government-controlled forest management company primarily as a source of money for all sorts of social, economic and political ventures and the issues of nature conservation, in addition to natural forests, landscape parks and national parks, protection of the natural biodiversity of forest ecosystems is at the end and in many aspects realistically there is none at all. The revenue of the company that manages most of the country's forests where I operate in 2022 has increased by more than half from 10 billion zlotys to more than 15 billion zlotys. This gives food for thought. In 2022, a fund controlled by an organized political group allied with the government is credited with PLN 3 billion. This fund is used to finance various pre-election goals, including those that have nothing to do with forest conservation, protection of the biodiversity of natural forest ecosystems. And yet forests, including natural forests, whose ecosystems have developed over thousands or millions of years, are a very important factor also in protecting the climate from the ongoing process of global warming. Deforestation of forest areas accelerates the progressive process of global warming. A In the entire Carpathian Mountains (which together are found in the area of several countries in Europe), an area of 5 soccer fields disappears every hour.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
Why do you think that in the context of the progressive process of global warming, deforestation, logging, cutting down of old-growth forests in natural forests and even in areas that should be converted to landscape parks or national parks is still going on in some countries on a large scale?
Why is it that in Europe, where environmental policy is one of the priorities for several years in some countries, deforestation, deforestation, cutting down of old-growth forests in natural forests in the Carpathian Mountains is progressing on a large scale?
Why is deforestation in the Carpathians in Europe, where environmental policy has been one of the priorities for several years, rapidly progressing?
Why, in the context of the progressive process of global warming, is deforestation still going on in some countries on a large scale?
What do you think about this topic?
What is your opinion on this issue?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Counting on your opinions, on getting to know your personal opinion, on a fair approach to the discussion of scientific issues, I deliberately used the phrase "in your opinion" in the question.
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
As forests are large ecosystems, their inventories require use of representative sample. Then, what is the minimum percentage of forest area to be sampled to minimise the errors and get acceptable results in forest studies? Thanks
Agroforestry systems were developing throughout human development. Despite its ecological and socioeconomic benefits, some agroforestry practices have an adverse impact on the ecology and social security. A few specific agroforestry techniques are employed as motivations to convert natural or semi-natural forests into plantations, which degrades natural forests.
I have several hundred frass samples collected over the spring season to estimate woodland caterpillar phenology - should they be oven-dried to remove moisture content before sorting frass vs non-frass (leaf litter etc) and taking measurement of frass mass? If so, what temperature and how long? Literature varies between not dried at all, air-dried, and oven drying for durations 6hr, 24hr, 48hr at temps 50-70 degrees C
Recently, I published two new spider species in Forests and registered two new species in Zoobank after the paper was published.
However, the World Spider Catalog currently contains the following. https://wsc.nmbe.ch/refincluded/17040
- Jang, C. M., Yoo, J. S., Kim, S. T. & Bae, Y. S. (2023). Rocky area inhabiting daddy long-legs spiders, Pholcus Walckenaer, 1805 (Araneae: Pholcidae) in mountainous mixed forests. Forests 14(538): 1-8. [N.B.: this is an electronic journal and the Zoobank registration is missing, see ICZN Article 8.5.3; therefore the two described species are not valid.] doi:10.3390/f14030538
- Pholcus deokjeok: 3, f. 2a-j (mf, nomen nudum, Zoobank registration in this electronic journal is missing, see ICZN Article 8.5.3)
- Pholcus gangneung: 5, f. 3a-j (mf, nomen nudum, Zoobank registration in this electronic journal is missing, see ICZN Article 8.5.3)
I knew what regulations I violated. Since this journal is an electronic journal, it should have been registered and specified before publication or in publication.
I want to reinstated zoological nomen nudum (invalid name) to be valid. But I don't know the procedure how to solve this.
While writing a simple paper with a list format, I want to know if I register these two new species in Zoobank again, simply present the LSID number (newly registered number, not original), and explain why it became nomen nudum by giving the rev. stat., stat. revalid., or sp. revalid. with species name.
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could let me know if there is anything I can do to make these two species as valid species not a nomen nudum.
I look forward to someone's positive response.
Thanks for reading.
I understand that Importance Value is a measure of how dominant a species is in a given forest area and It is a standard tool foresters use to inventory a forest. But does it have sense on epiphytes? And what do you suggest as a better way to describe structure of epiphytic community?
Hi, I was trying to calculate the boundary layer height of different ecosystems, such as forests and grasslands. Apart from the Lidar measurement, is there other calculation algorithms to calculate this, based on the wind speed, friction velocity or Monin-Obukhov length?
Climate change is a major concern for the future which bad impacts already functioning by increasing natural calamities. But global climate change is a buzzword rather than work for climate adaptation, polar icebergs are melting, and natural forests are diminishing by destroying biodiversity, and ecological balance in the forest, wetlands, and sea. World leaders must be serious regarding climate economics, climate refuses and for adaptation policy that is climate resilience,
Voluntary work should include saving our future world by reducing carbon footprint, and CFC gas emissions, and saving natural forests.
WHAT WE CAN DO MORE? HOW DO YOU LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE?
Picture: Internet
Dear all,
On the occasion of the International Day of Forests on March 21st, a group of forest scientists of the Forests and Societies Research Unit of Cirad, will publish in the French online newspaper Reporterre which has about 1.5 million readers per month an opinion column to recall the urgent need to conserve and to safeguard the tropical forests. Please take few minutes to read it and if you agree with the contents, please sign it by filling the form available on this link: https://forms.gle/r981va1BNEEz8yfC9
before March 13th, Midnight CET.
By signing this paper you are signing as an individual but you can also indicate your institution. The list of signatories and their institution (if you indicate it) will also be published on the Reporterre website with the paper.
We hope that this opinion paper will reach a large public and will be of interest for others medias. With this, we hope that we will be able to increase our visibility and get opportunities to talk further about the urgency in saving the tropical forests.
Please do not hesitate to disseminate this message to your scientists and students networks.
So far we gather 350 signatures
cheers
How can we reduce the scale of predatory forestry, improve forest management processes and plans, systematically improve forest management so as to simultaneously preserve natural forest ecosystems and protect forest animals, many of which are already endangered, and increase the atmospheric uptake of CO2 by forest ecosystems, reduce the planet's greenhouse effect and slow down accelerating global warming?
International Day of Forests, which is celebrated annually on 21 March and was established by the UN General Assembly on 28 November 2012, is an opportunity to reflect on the systemic improvement of forest management in order to simultaneously preserve natural forest ecosystems, enhance the protection of biodiversity, the biosphere and the planet's climate. The celebration of the International Day of Forests aims to raise human awareness of the importance of forests for humans, including the crucial importance of forests in the context of protecting the planet's climate and biosphere. Taking into account the protection of the planet's climate, biosphere and biodiversity of natural ecosystems, it is urgently necessary to transform rabid forest management into rational, pro-climate and pro-environmental forest management. Forest management carried out within the framework of rational, pro-climate and pro-environmental forest management should be carried out in such a way that natural multi-species forest ecosystems are restored as much as possible instead of monocultures of homogeneous stands. When monocultures of forests based on a small number of tree species or even with the dominance of a single tree species are carried out, the incidence of various viral, fungal diseases and tree pests increases significantly. In addition, monocultures dominated by coniferous species are much more prone to the appearance and development of forest fires during the summer season. Tree monocultures are also unfavourable for the coexistence and development of many forest animal species that are found in natural, multi-species forest forests and primeval forests. Unfortunately, in terms of pseudo forest management, archaic forest management practices of monocultures based on a few tree species are still in use, which also causes a significant decline in the biodiversity of natural ecosystems. Accordingly, forest management should pursue rational, pro-climate, pro-environmental, biodiversity-sensitive forest management instead of commercial-oriented predatory management. In addition, forest management plans should respect the principles of nature conservation, protection of rare and endangered species of fauna and flora, protection against the felling of old trees, protection of the biodiversity of natural ecosystems, etc., which is also important in the context of the scale of CO2 absorption from the atmosphere, and is therefore an additional factor in limiting the scale of the ever-increasing greenhouse effect and the global warming process.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
How can we reduce the scale of the applied predatory forest management, improve forest management processes and plans, systemically improve the conduct of forest management so as to simultaneously take care of the state of natural forest ecosystems and protect forest animals, many of which are already endangered, and to increase the scale of CO2 uptake from the atmosphere by forest ecosystems, reduce the scale of the planetary greenhouse effect and slow down the increasingly rapid global warming process?
What do you think about this topic?
What is your opinion on this subject?
Please respond,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Sandra Leonie Field wrote that Francis Bacon once created a "Sylva Sylvarum" (a forest of forests) book which "contained a miscellany of travellers’ tales, everyday observations, magical recipes, and botanical descriptions" (see, for more: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/data-mountains-and-usable-concepts-a-lesson-from-francis-bacon/).
Bacon's aim in this book was to generate "a collection of empirical materials on which to build a new adequate science, freed from habitual suppositions. Nothing, in Bacon's view, was too trivial, too curious, too odd, to be salient for the construction of our scientific knowledge of the world."
What if we were to do this for democracy? What, say, hundred facts about democracy would you include in such a book? What would your angle be?
How can the drying up of natural lakes be stopped in order to reduce the negative effects of this process?
How can the drying up of natural lakes caused by the progressive process of global warming and excessive water consumption through unsustainable agricultural development be stopped?
In different regions of the world, on different continents, more and more negative effects of the progressive process of global warming, of the ongoing climate crisis, etc. are appearing. These include, above all, the natural effects of the loss of biodiversity of natural ecosystems, the effects on water resources of increasingly severe and prolonged droughts, water shortages in certain areas, decreasing rainfall, the drying up of lakes and rivers, the barrenness of soils, the decline in agricultural productivity, etc. In recent years, there has also been an increase in the scale of the emergence of the global crisis. In recent years there has also been an increase in the occurrence of hot weather, increasingly high summer temperatures, the occurrence of forest fires, etc., the drying out of forest litter in forests, a decrease in the humidity of the microclimate in areas of forests, agricultural fields and urban agglomerations. In this way, the living conditions for people in increasingly large areas of land are steadily deteriorating year by year. More and more lakes are drying up. A significant proportion of the large lakes, too, have already reduced their surface area and the water reserves they have accumulated over thousands of years. For example, the surface area of the saline Great Lake in the state of Utah in the USA has decreased significantly over the last few years. This is a result of excessive water consumption (mainly by agriculture) and the ongoing process of global warming. There are many harmful, toxic heavy metal and other compounds on the bottom of this lake. It is a drainless lake, i.e. all waste and toxins settle in the lake. Already half of the lake bottom is above the water surface. The drying up of the lakes results in negative changes in the microclimate around the lake, the barrenness of the soils, the desertification of the surrounding natural environment, the possibility of sandstorms, a decrease in the moisture content of the soils around the lake, a decrease in the productivity of the soils in terms of their use for agricultural purposes. In addition to this, the negative effects of lake desiccation include the negative natural effects of a decrease in the level of biodiversity, both in terms of the lake biosphere and the natural ecosystems functioning in the vicinity of the desiccating lake. In view of the above, it is increasingly important to improve and increase the scale of protection of lakes from drying out and to create solutions to counteract or slow down this unfavourable process. These solutions include prohibiting the extraction of water from a drying-up lake for industrial, agricultural, municipal, etc. purposes. If the drying-up lake is located in a predominantly agricultural area, an important solution may be the creation of new deep wells, rainwater harvesting systems, a change in the agricultural model from unsustainable to sustainable ecological agriculture and, in areas close to the seas and oceans, the development of seawater desalination systems.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
How can we stop the drying up of natural lakes caused by the progressive process of global warming and the excessive use of water by unsustainable agricultural development?
What is your opinion on this?
What is your opinion on this subject?
Please respond,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
What are the possibilities or the initial research works to start in an area (forest) which has not been researched or worked in before except for Biodiversity data list?
How can new ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0 help in environmental monitoring and conservation of the tropical Amazon Rainforest and other areas of forests, green spaces?
The technological advances taking place are contributing to the improvement of computerized analytical techniques implemented on large data sets. The development of technological solutions typical of the current fourth technological revolution, including the improvement and creation of new generations of ICT and Industry 4.0 information technologies, makes it possible to carry out multi-criteria analysis and simulation and forecasting models carried out on large sets of information and data. Such analyses are carried out using computerized analytical tools including Big Data Analytics in conjunction with other Industry 4.0 technologies. When the aforementioned analytical tools are enriched with Internet of Things technologies, cloud computing and satellite-implemented sensing and monitoring techniques, the possibilities for multi-criteria analytics of large areas, e.g. nature, climate and others in real time conducted using satellites, emerge. When artificial intelligence technology, machine learning, multi-criteria simulation models, and digital twins are added to these analytical and research techniques, opportunities arise for creating predictive simulations for multi-factor, complex processes realized in real time. These can be complex multi-factor natural, climatic, ecological processes, etc., and concerning changes in the state of the environment, environmental pollution, changes in the state of ecosystems, biodiversity, changes in the state of soils in agricultural fields, changes in the state of moisture in forest areas, etc. caused by civilization factors. In view of the above, new ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0 can also help monitor the state of the environment and protect the tropical Amazon rainforest and other areas of forests, green areas.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:
How can new ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0 help in environmental monitoring the biodiversity status and protection of the tropical Amazon Rainforest and other areas of forests, green spaces?
In what configuration of individual Industry 4.0 technologies should computerized environmental monitoring systems be built as essential elements of the system for protecting the tropical Amazon Rainforest and other areas of forests, green areas?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Hello,
I would like to ask if any of you started to look at effects of EMFs generated by telecons installations, mobile phones, digital TV, other... on the protected forests, trees in particular.
In Italy we have many antennas on high mountans in national parks and I found some evident effects in a largish area of Aspromonte national park. Anyone experienceing or working on that?
In some case studies use the GPS location of a nearby village or station when describing study sites, which can be problematic, especially if we want to use information about the site location to extract some data from gridded (mapped) datasets where we need to use the specific location of the experimental plots. For example, the GPS location may indicate urban land whereas the experimental plot lies in forests. Is there any online resource to check the land use type in which a given GPS (longitude, latitude) location lies?
How can instruments and systems for the conservation of the nature, biosphere, highly biodiverse ecosystems of the Amazon rainforests be improved?
The Amazon rainforest is the largest natural forest complex on planet Earth and is characterised by an exceptionally high level of biodiversity of natural forest ecosystems. Most of the millions of species of flora and fauna of the Amazon rainforest biodiversity are found exclusively in this forest formation. However, due to predatory logging management and increasingly frequent forest fires, the area of the Amazon's biodiverse rainforests is declining rapidly. The increasing incidence of fires in these forest formations is a consequence of the progressive process of global warming and the burning of the forest for the purpose of acquiring additional areas on which to grow crops according to a model of unsustainable, intensive agriculture. As the biodiverse rainforests of the Amazon absorb large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere, they are one of several key factors in slowing down the progressive process of global warming. It is therefore urgently necessary to replace programmes for the deforestation of the Amazonian biodiverse rainforests and to replace this process of aforestation of civilisationally degraded areas, which is very negative for the climate and the biosphere of the planet.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:
How can instruments and systems for the conservation of nature, of the biosphere, of the highly biodiverse ecosystems of the Amazon rainforest be improved?
What is your opinion on this?
What do you think about this topic?
Please reply,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Forests are the biodiversity wealth of natural ecosystems and a key factor in the wealth of the planet's biosphere. However, this natural wealth is rapidly being eroded by human civilisational activities. The scale of forest fires has been increasing in recent years. The increasing scale of forest fires is a result of the ongoing process of global warming. In some regions of the world, forests are also being burned in order to acquire more land for the cultivation of agricultural crops, which is usually carried out under predatory and unsustainable farming practices. It is well known that forests are one of the key factors in reducing the rate of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, an important factor in slowing down the greenhouse effect and consequently also in slowing down global warming. It is therefore essential to increase the scale of forest fire protection.
The following questions are therefore becoming increasingly topical:
How to protect forests from fires?
What is your opinion on this subject?
What do you think about this topic?
Please reply,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Regards,
Dariusz
Dear Colleagues and Friends from the Research Gate portal,
Thanks for the answers given. From the answers above, it is clear that there are various ways and methods to protect forests from fires. Some of them are already in use but need to be scaled up, such as educating the public about the importance of the role of forests for the survival of most of the planet's biodiversity, the role of forests in limiting the scale and effects of the progressive process of global warming and therefore also in terms of human survival on the planet over the next at least several decades. On the other hand, some of these methods need to be further improved and also scaled up. These include, for example, creating new species of trees and shrubs that will be more resistant to abiotic (e.g. climate warming) and biotic (viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitic diseases) environmental factors. In addition to this, improving forest planning and management techniques by replacing disease- and fire-prone forest monocultures with multi-species, biodiverse forests, rich in natural forest ecosystems. Forest harvesting techniques are also among the methods that need to be further improved and developed. Well, instead of full felling, full deforestation in a specific area of the forest, which leads to rapid sterilisation and reduction of soil moisture, it is necessary (if at all) to cut only some, selected, individual trees in areas where the forest was planted without devastating the surrounding biosphere, without destroying the rest of the biodiverse natural forest ecosystem. It is also necessary to improve forest fire extinguishing techniques, creation of reservoirs for extinguishing water from rainfall, creation of systems limiting the rapid spread of a forest fire (clearing belts devoid of dry undergrowth, etc.), limiting the scale of draining of areas adjacent to forests, improving the system for detecting low levels of moisture of litter and undergrowth, improving systems for noticing micro-fires in order to increase the efficiency of action and shorten the time of fire development and its extinguishing by fire brigades. To this end, the new information technologies of ICT, the Internet and Industry 4.0 and satellite analytics should be used, as well as rapid transmission of information and informing specific public services and citizens as quickly as possible. In view of the ever-increasing scale of forest fires, which are increasingly caused by the progressive process of global warming and by their deliberate burning by humans, the problem is still very serious. In my country from January to July 2022, the number of forest fires increased compared to previous years and was already the same as in the whole of 2021. By 25.7.2022, there were already more forest fires in Poland than in the whole of last year 2021. In addition, an unusually high number of hot days have already been recorded. The scale of forest fires occurring in different regions of the world has once again intensified in recent months. In recent months, there have been forest fires in many countries in Europe, North America and on other continents. In some countries, record-breaking forest fires are still developing. Firefighters from various countries are involved in extinguishing them as part of international assistance. The problem is serious. The level of seriousness of this problem will increase in the years to come if mankind does not stop the increasingly rapid process of global warming. In addition, in the context of the above problem, it is particularly important to significantly increase the scale of afforestation in wasteland and post-industrial areas, areas degraded by civilisation. It is urgently necessary to bring about the prevalence of afforestation processes over deforestation on a global scale and to stop the deforestation of natural, biodiverse forest ecosystems. Why should we wait until the end of this decade to do so, as agreed at the UN-ET Climate Conference COP26. After all, what we do now in terms of a pro-environmental transformation of the economy on an individual, one-year scale translates into a potential slowdown in the progressive process of global warming on a multi-year scale. In some countries, the issue of the need to urgently and swiftly carry out a pro-environmental transformation of the economy is still downplayed and ignored in the political and business spheres. This is also the case in the country in which I operate. The issue of the key determinants of carrying out a pro-environmental transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear economy of excess to a sustainable, green, zero-carbon zero-growth and closed loop economy, in which the issue of the development of aforestation programmes and the protection of the planet's biosphere and climate is one of the essential elements, is described in my articles posted on my profile of this RG portal. Links to these articles can be found on the homepage of my RG profile. I invite you to collaborate, to set up joint international research projects in this important issue for the future of humanity, the biosphere and the planetary climate. I also invite you to continue discussions on the important issue of improving techniques, instruments and systems for forest fire protection.
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Hi all, I am searching for some values of Crop Evapotranspiration Coefficient (Kc) for natural forest habitats (coniferous forests, broadleaves forests...). On FAO database they only refer to crops like beans, rice, and wheat, but no data on forests. Thank you very much to anyone who can help
Globally, deforestation processes continue to outpace aforestation processes.It is well known that forests are one of the key influences on the climate, on the stability and sustainability of the climate, the maintenance of a humid microclimate, local water management, the state of biodiversity in regions.
Forests are also one of the key factors in reducing the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere. At the UN climate summit COP26, it was agreed that by the end of this decade, i.e. by the end of 2030, national and global forest deforestation processes should be completed and forest afforestation processes should be accelerated. The restoration of forest ecosystems should be carried out in accordance with the principles of ecology of specific environmental formations of forest ecosystems consisting of replacing monocultures of tree crops with biodiverse restored, tree-rich forest ecosystem formations adequate to the specific local environment, geological and climatic setting.
But why do we have to wait so many more years for this? Why have such decisions not been taken earlier?
Why do the processes of afforestation not already prevail over deforestation?
Why are forests still being cut down when we know how important they are for slowing down the progressive process of global warming?
What needs to be done so that aforestation processes already prevail over deforestation?
How can afforestation processes be implemented quickly and effectively?
How can afforestation processes in civilisationally degraded areas be carried out quickly and efficiently?
How can afforestation be carried out with a high level of biodiversity in restored natural forest ecosystems?
What do you think about it?
What is your opinion on this topic?
Please reply,
I invite everyone to the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Kind regards,
Dariusz
I am looking for an equation similar to Priestley-Taylor (1972) but with the fewest parameters.
I'm working on the ecological assessment of one herb species, which basically entails its status assessment from nearly 30 different study locations using the quadrat sampling method. When we do phytosociology of herbaceous species, which includes all of the plants in that particular forest, we proceed like 10x10 for trees, then 5x5 for shrubs, and then 1x1 for herbs. But how many quadrats/sites will be needed to evaluate the status of a single herb?
I appreciate the suggestions in advance. Thank you
How do I add the influence of different land uses, for example, grasses, forests, and crops, in the structural equations modeling?
I have soil moisture dataset of woodland from four different soil depths like 0-5 cm,5-20cm,20-40 cm and 40-70 cm. I also have rainfall, and other climate data for Hydrus 1d model but I don't have any data about root water uptake. please suggest me what should I can do in place of the trees roots parameters. My woodland have Cypress trees.
Hello everyone!
I am participating in a conservation project related to the illegal harvesting of species of high commercial value (Granadillo, Tzalam, Hormigo, Mahogany, etc.) in the Mayan Forest on the mexican side.
Illegal logging of high-value species is one of the main threats to forest conservation in southeastern Mexico. It is an ultra-complex subject that surely requires several branches of science to understand. Do any of you know if anyone is actually studying the illegal logging occurring in Mexico's tropical forests?
Thank you all in advance for your answers!
The quantitative calculations of usage of forests are widespread everywhere. What is the human and philosophical meaning of preserving the forests?
Forests provide a wide spectrum of ecosystem services starting from timber to carbon sequestration
MODIS-NPP algorithm is valid for biomass assessment in tropical forests? or are there any better remote sensing products? (except the Vegetation Dynamics Models to estimate NPP)
