/sci/ - Science & Math

The main problem of eating meat to me is the unavoidable suffering that animals experience while alive in the supply chain. I say unavaidoble because I think that even if everyone were to eat reasonable amounts of meat, instead of gorging themselves, that suffering would still be present. We just have too many mouths to feed, and if the conditions in third world countries improve it will just add to the problem, so regardless of how much people stop eating, the problem isn't going away.
I'm part of the problem, I still eat meat, and for me that's non-negotiable.

But what if... hear me out guys
What if, we had a lineage of brain dead animals used exclusively for farming? No life means no ethical considerations, and no suffering for that matter. Is it too far fetched to engineer brain dead animals?

Animals could still exercise, since that probably is important for meat quality. Just get a treadmill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiLLplofYw

You could probably grow them in artificial wombs once that technology is sorted out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt7twXzNEsQ

Stuck a tube up its ass to harvest manure and natural gas. A source of food, energy and environmently safe fertilizers, all in one!

Eh, this is probably impossible in some degree. Still fun to imagine a big warehouse filled with zombie pigs walking on treadmills and farting into tubes.

>>10026736
Humm isn't p being higher better? It means that results need to show up at a higher rate than 1/20 to not be considered random, right? If p=0.001 any random result would be conclusive. RIGHT?

Please tell me I'm not being retarded right now.

>>9986474
>More energy absorbed during the day means more energy radiated at night
that explains why nights are warming. it does NOT explain why nights are warming faster than days.
>Why would it not make sense that if the earth is a reservoir with an increasing amount of stored energy (heat) that the coldest parts stand to rise fastest towards the mean?
you're going by what seems plausible to your tiny brain rather than what actually results from physics.
if you have a gradually warming pot of water on the stove, the bottom of the water warming faster than the top would imply that the burner has been turned up (greater heat input from below), while the opposite would imply that the pot had been covered with a lid (lesser heat loss to above). greater insolation would cause more intensely illuminated areas to warm faster than areas that get their heat indirectly from the illuminated areas.
>If you charge up a capacitor bank, will energy flow fastest towards the capacitors with the least or most existing charge?
heat isn't separation of charge. they are different things that behave differently.

>https://principia-scientific.org/applied-physics-disproves-the-greenhouse-gas-effect/
>The atmosphere can only warm the surface or cause it to rise in temperature if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. Therefore, the greenhouse effect is wrong.
This statement comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how radiative heat flow works differently from advective heat flow.
By the same argument, an overcoat at 20 C cannot possibly warm a human at 37 C. And yet it does, not by actually adding heat to the human, but by scattering and redirecting the outward flow of heat, reducing the net outward flux.
>>>/x/

oh boy, it's this guy again. I recognize him by his TOTAL IGNORANCE OF OPTICS.
hey, remember when I posted this video:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOsxgGeABGM
and you claimed that the observed curvature was caused by distortion from the camera lens despite the pan over the instrument panel clearly proving that not to be the case?
good times, you delusional brainlet.

>>9888174
>If you lie down on the floor and look straight ahead, and someone starts walking away from you, their feet will start disappearing, then their legs, etc etc.
...have you ever actually tried this? because that's not what happens. they'll appear to get smaller and smaller, but at no point will any part of them disappear behind an object that isn't physically between you and them.
>Newton was wrong.
Not An Argument

>>9888265
>It could be a hologram for all we know
you can literally see the ISS transit in front of the sun. if you think a hologram can block out light, you have no idea what a hologram is.

>>9888281
>The moon is self-illuminating
with a $50 telescope you can see shadows cast by the rims of the moon's craters.
>Because the sun is small and localised, it acts like a spotlight
a lightbulb is also small and localized but it emits light in all directions, not in one direction.
>The simplest answer people give is density and buoyancy
density and buoyancy only work if gravity exists.

>>9888285
>the vacuum that our atmosphere supposedly co-exists side by side with without a solid barrier
the atmosphere and the ocean already co-exist side by side without a solid barrier.

>>9888334
>Gravity is not strong enough to stop a pressurised atmosphere of the earth equilibrating with an infinite vacuum of space.
if you think gravity doesn't exist, how do you know it's too weak to keep the atmosphere on the earth?
>I've done over a 100 hours of research on this subject
lmao
nibba you literally think that the view from the bottom and the middle of an infinite hallway will be the exact same.

OP, you like to disparage radiochronology, but you still haven't got an answer for what >>9656295 >>9656345 said.
If radiometric dating isn't reliable, why would all these different lines of evidence (different decay series, different samples) all point to the same age of ~4.5 Ga?