Handy andy

Please don't try to answer someone elses thread with an inaccurate response. Space is not a form of matter. It is strictly volume where the standard model of particles reside in. This includes the Higgs field.

 

Euclidean space (ie the volume were all used to dealing with.) has the line element.

 

[latex]ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] there is no time dilation/length contraction under the above. It is strictly volume (space). There is no flow in the above and the above follows Galilean relativity.

 

When you add the time component and assign each moment in time a position (coordinate) you get the line element

 

[latex]ds^2=-dt+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] notice our coordinates are now (ct,x,y,z)

 

We still have no flow as the above coordinates are Static. . The above coordinates define space in the first case and spacetime in the second case.

 

If I want to add a flow I need to make several decisions. Does both observers and there corresponding inertial frames flow in the same direction.? Does the IF frame only flow for one observer? Which direction (vector) is this flow?

 

So now you have to break the equations above to the seperate primed and unprimed observers and add an additional vector component showing this flow.

 

In the FLRW the commoving coordinate system adds a complex vector called the scale factor as the geometry of space for both observers change over time. So we add a(t) to reflect this detail. As were dealing with a sphere we need polar coordinates.

 

 

so our first equation now becomes

 

[latex]ds^2 = dr^2 +r^2[d\theta^2 + {sin^2} d\phi^2][/latex]

 

When you combine the time component and commoving coordinates (expansion/contraction) with the scale factor the above equation becomes.

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-c^2dt^2+a(t)^2[dr^2+S,kr^2d\Omega^2][/latex]

 

We have now added a scale factor and a curvature term k.

 

[latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sinr/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex]

 

to put it simply space by itself is defined by the first equation. It is static coordinates. The Minkowskii metric is static as well. (So is the Schwartzchild metric). If you add a flow these coordinates that define space or spacetime will require some vector showing the flow over time.

 

If you do not see such a vector in the line element [latex]ds^2[/latex] then your space or spacetime global metric is static.

 

The FLRW metric showing expansion/contraction is one example. However the vector in this case is expansion/contraction not flow.

 

Recall those questions lets say we have both observers flowing in the same direction x over time. We will need a third reference (event) point lets assign this [latex]ds_{outside}^2[/latex] for outside the flow.Critical point: We need to also preserve the Euclidean space for the original two observers.

 

the first equation becomes

 

 

[latex]ds_{outside}^2=d\vec{x_{outside}}^2(t_{elapsed})\pm(ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)[/latex]

 

now we have a flowing space. Your Euclidean geometry (space) is preserved as it flows in the x direction. So two observers within that space agree on the same geometry.(translational symmetry).

 

This is the power of understanding the math of the articles you are posting and not relying on misleading verbal descriptives. I can merely look at the line element of any model and give you all the dynamics involved. Once I identify all the variables in said equation. Without even reading the said article.

I know this is a question I have asked before, and received no answer, Einstein mentioned it also. It strikes me there is something missing from Relativity and the curvature of space. Has anyone ever tried to rejig Relativity in terms of inertia instead of time. Inertia is missing from the equations. It strikes me that there is an equivalence between change in measured time and change in mass, both due to inertia, clocks undergoing different rates of acceleration will measure different times due to inertia. Objects undergoing acceleration will experience different masses due to inertia.

When an accelerated mass comes to rest it measures the same as a mass on the ground, when an accelerated clock comes to rest it ticks at the same rate as a clock on the ground. There is no change in mass or time once returned to a stationery reference frame, even if a difference is measured due to different accelerations. Both results are due to the additional acceleration of the inertias involved, in the clock it is the fundamental particles, and in the mass it is the mass it self.

The insinuation that this is common and/or accepted practice is both off-topic and bullshit, and is (as usual) an assertion that arrives unaccompanied by any support.

 

 

It would be hard to care less about your opinion, seeing as it is quite obviously not based in much knowledge of the topic.

 

Also, CERN's website is not peer-reviewed. I doubt that many websites are.

I would never claim to be at your level of understanding, this takes years . I was merely pointing out how misunderstandings are perpetuated by the so called scientific community by publishing results or speculations which are later found to be incorrect, and then not with drawn from the internet. Cerns web site being an example.

I would agree what I have forgotten probably out weighs what I now know . I am re-learning a lot of what I once knew . I would also add in order to think we need to question. In order to know what questions to ask takes a little understanding Not everything written is correct, unless you believe science is religion.

Thanks for your patience.

In QM it is possible to be in two places at the same time. A superposition of spatial states.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a18756/atoms-exist-two-places-simultaneously/

 

So your premise is false

Are you convinced the process of superposition is fully understood by science, is there any scope for error in your claim.

"Not everything written is correct" is part of the problem. Lots of crap is available. One needs to know some science in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is basic science, not the "latest".

 

Gravitons, should they exist as described, would be bosons. Integer spin.

Exactly, and a lot of it comes directly out of science sites that should know better than publish nonsense, however even scientists need to generate funding, and sometimes stretch the truth. This is not helped by the media or scientists either, coming out with nonsense multiple universes and time travel stories etc. Having said that science fiction can be amusing if close enough to perceived reality.

Gravitons being bosons have 2 integer spin if they exist, which I and many others, possibly yourself included, strongly suspect they don't. Gravitons are an example of the scientific community promoting an idea as fact then quietly dropping it when they found it may be wrong. The Big bang theory is yet another example of ludicrous science giving a beginning of time and all matter appearing out of a singularity, this theory is still evolving single bang to multiple bangs, to its only space expanding really.

The school is still out on gravity, and will be for some time to come, it is therefore intriguing. I do not think therefore that there is any harm in speculating. Others may disagree who have their own pet theories of gravity, or the origins of the universe. The standard model promoting gravitons, big bangs the beginning of time and the edge of an expanding universe are looking a bit dodgy. Cern could do with updating its peer reviewed website.

In my defence I am not the only one who has thought there is something not quite right about relativity and time dilation.

This is a web page with a more recent attempt to separate space and time. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/ the more I look into space and time the more I find.

The concept of a version of the aether or space, having properties of one kind or another will keep coming up for a few more years to come. A flowing space is not the only possibility out there, when you start looking. Adding an extra space dimension is also very interesting when considering gravity.

Science is not religion for most people, not everything is written in books and not everything written in books is correct, regardless of what the standard model says. Why should people stop thinking, just because they don't have access to the latest peer reviewed theories. Thinking is amusing, putting forward controversial ideas and getting them knocked down is amusing, even if we don't believe them. Maths is OK, but I have only ever met one person who found maths amusing in university, he was doing his Phd and like many Phd's I know he was not normal.

Thanks all, for the input on flowing space,

( The concept of space having properties still makes sense to me . Fermions and bosons exist in space and have spin why should space(graviton) have spin, unless it becomes a fermion or boson, when excited, why should bosons entering black holes not become fermions, atoms can combine and become heavier atoms, which then breakdown and become bosons, why shouldn't bosons combine in a black hole with sufficient energy to become stable atoms? clearly I have enough to keep me amused for a while longer )

Windows 10 is not backwardly compatible with all software. What editor are you using, it may be the problem and not windows 10, have you checked for up grades to your editor.

Is the Larsen C ice shelf important. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40113393 its breaking off.

I note mr trump is likely to be excelling himself this afternoon when he pulls out of the Paris accord. Cynically will this announcement help oil giants share price rise and possibly push the Dow up and improve the economy and employment in the US, at the expense of the environment.

 

I don't disagree, but that's just the only time I personally encountered such a person, which was what dimreepr asked for examples of. No intention there whatsoever to "single out" Islam.

Understood but not wanting to single out just religion, nutters are every where. None religious nutters however normally operate alone and can be managed. Religion has very large organised gangs of nutters, which try to run countries and harm those that want to leave the gang. This is going to sustain religious belief for a long time to come. Even none believers living amongst the nutters might claim belief to survive or to enjoy some social activities. Religious nutters are free to move amongst normal people and are supported by politicians.

The problem I find with all nutters, with religious belief, once provoked they can get a bit aggressive or emotional.

Please don't try to answer someone elses thread with an inaccurate response. Space is not a form of matter. It is strictly volume where the standard model of particles reside in. This includes the Higgs field.

 

Euclidean space (ie the volume were all used to dealing with.) has the line element.

 

[latex]ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] there is no time dilation/length contraction under the above. It is strictly volume (space). There is no flow in the above and the above follows Galilean relativity.

 

When you add the time component and assign each moment in time a position (coordinate) you get the line element

 

[latex]ds^2=-dt+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] notice our coordinates are now (ct,x,y,z)

 

We still have no flow as the above coordinates are Static. . The above coordinates define space in the first case and spacetime in the second case.

 

If I want to add a flow I need to make several decisions. Does both observers and there corresponding inertial frames flow in the same direction.? Does the IF frame only flow for one observer? Which direction (vector) is this flow?

 

So now you have to break the equations above to the seperate primed and unprimed observers and add an additional vector component showing this flow.

 

In the FLRW the commoving coordinate system adds a complex vector called the scale factor as the geometry of space for both observers change over time. So we add a(t) to reflect this detail. As were dealing with a sphere we need polar coordinates.

 

 

so our first equation now becomes

 

[latex]ds^2 = dr^2 +r^2[d\theta^2 + {sin^2} d\phi^2][/latex]

 

When you combine the time component and commoving coordinates (expansion/contraction) with the scale factor the above equation becomes.

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-c^2dt^2+a(t)^2[dr^2+S,kr^2d\Omega^2][/latex]

 

We have now added a scale factor and a curvature term k.

 

[latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sinr/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex]

 

to put it simply space by itself is defined by the first equation. It is static coordinates. The Minkowskii metric is static as well. (So is the Schwartzchild metric). If you add a flow these coordinates that define space or spacetime will require some vector showing the flow over time.

 

If you do not see such a vector in the line element [latex]ds^2[/latex] then your space or spacetime global metric is static.

 

The FLRW metric showing expansion/contraction is one example. However the vector in this case is expansion/contraction not flow.

 

Recall those questions lets say we have both observers flowing in the same direction x over time. We will need a third reference (event) point lets assign this [latex]ds_{outside}^2[/latex] for outside the flow.Critical point: We need to also preserve the Euclidean space for the original two observers.

 

the first equation becomes

 

 

[latex]ds_{outside}^2=d\vec{x_{outside}}^2(t_{elapsed})\pm(ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)[/latex]

 

now we have a flowing space. Your Euclidean geometry (space) is preserved as it flows in the x direction. So two observers within that space agree on the same geometry.(translational symmetry).

 

This is the power of understanding the math of the articles you are posting and not relying on misleading verbal descriptives. I can merely look at the line element of any model and give you all the dynamics involved. Once I identify all the variables in said equation. Without even reading the said article.

Its not even a particularly good paper as it literally uses a preferred frame. Not too uncommon for eather based theories.

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain the above, I had not realised it was yet another aether based theory.

Do you or anyone else have any opinion regarding his experiments to verify his claims ref the swan song of the shrinking space theory or of relativity, and do you disagree that his results matched almost identically the results obtained via relativity.

Edit

After a little more digging Mr Martin has done another paper whereby he almost states that GR must be correct. For amusement if anyone is interested here it is http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-011011.pdf jump to the conclusion before trawling through it.

 

Once in the 1990s, before there really was a web but when there were early chat-type things online, I fell into a random chat with a young woman in the middle east. She said the very thing - told me point blank that it was the teaching of her religion that disbelievers should be killed. So, I didn't really "meet" her in person, but I did encounter someone who held that belief. I questioned her about it, along the lines of didn't the idea of killing bother her. Her reaction was more or less a "shrug" - all she was focused on was what her faith told her to do.

It isn't just Moslems that become homicidal. My wife and I were invited for dinner by some people I helped out of bother on my travels. They thought it would be a good idea to talk to us about how wonderful Christianity was. They lost the discussion on all fronts, but in the end came up with the wonderful idea that killing anyone who was not Christian during the next world war to irradicate the world of non believers was a good idea. Around this time we left due to none reconcilable differences of opinion.

Before I answer your question../ what is ref 5th force,?

"By watching the stars move over 20 years using very precise measurements taken from Keck Observatory data, you can see and put constraints on how gravity works. If gravitation is driven by something other than Einstein's theory of General Relativity, you'll see small variations in the orbital paths of the stars,"

This is the first time the fifth force theory has been tested in a strong gravitational field such as the one created by the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way. Historically, measurements of our solar system's gravity created by our sun have been used to try and detect the fifth force, but that has proven difficult because its gravitational field is relatively weak.

I was hoping some one could explain more Thanks In advance. I find digging around ref gravity, lots of scientists seem to be trying to find anomalies or problems in Einsteins relativity.

!5000 yrs ago the glaciers over North America went as far South as the Ohio valley.

By 12000 yrs ago they were quickly retreating North, carving out the Great Lakes system..

Could that have contributed to the rise in sea levels ?

 

Melting floating ice does not contribute to sea level rise.

Melting ice over land does.

So while melting the ice cover of Antarctica would raise sea levels considerably, melting The Arctic ice would not.

Is Antarctic gaining or losing ice. Apparently the amount of sea ice may be increasing whilst the land ice is reducing. How quickly can sea levels rise if the Antarctic ice sheet melts over land.

The Greenland ice sheet is also melting.

Is coastal property a good investment, beyond 2100, should we be looking to sell now.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Is the sea level going to rise significantly or not? 28mm might not be too serious, unless it arrived via a comet at several thousand km/hour.

The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet melting is in a different league to a comet. The media pays little attention to it, should we be concerned, worried or just PANIC.

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/?utm_term=.d6868ec661e4

It seems depending on where you look different predictions are made. Do we need to wait until sea level rises to find out which academic argument was right or wrong.

Does doing this prevent the bacteria from the toilet bowl from flying off all over after one flushes the toilet?

i.e. does toilet seat block any bacteria from flying off had the seat not acted as a barrier for any bacteria to be thrown on your face as you flush?

 

Do you normally close the toilet seat before you flush?

What is the science showing in regards to this issue?

Your question pre supposes the toilet was clean to start with. Think, flies, stench, 45C, 100% humidity.

In some foreign places outside your own home toilet seats are not obligatory. Your question could start at the toilet door if it has one, what is on the handle, is it better to open the door with a foot. On the inside and you have found a toilet with a seat, not a just hole in the floor. Do you even want to sit down or are you going to squat like the locals who normally use a hole in the floor, and would not dream of putting their holy arse onto a public toilet seat. On completing your business how do you then clean up, is there a hose pipe in the corner or a bucket full of water and a scoop. Hopefully you have a hand towel to dry your self afterwards. Towels are not supplied in many fly ridden toilets in some parts of the world where hygiene is not the same as in the west. Once having been to the toilet, like under islam you will then want to consider which hand you eat your food with.

Do I conclude that the strange claim ref the flow of space was totally wrong? or just not definitely correct?

I will answer my own question, I do not believe the flow of space towards a mass to be totally wrong, it is a viable method for transmitting gravity according to gravity research paper attached.

http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-010515.pdf

I think the jury is still out.

 

The ones that will find it hardest to drop the BS are the those in the Middle East in countries where religion is still totally compulsory. The rest of the world just needs to be patient in waiting for them to catch up and ditch their ancient superstitious ways. This could indeed take decades or even centuries. It is a depressing thought, but you have to hope that the whole world will see the light eventually and be at peace.

Patience is a virtue, however when a vicious religion is trying to spread its self globally by what ever means possible. Some proactive counter measures might be a good idea, such as global advertising campaign pointing out religion was a joke spread by the ruling elite to control society.

It is a little difficult not to take people seriously in extremist areas, because people can get a little bit psychotic when religion is discussed. The media and internet can reach them without danger to life and limb. Religious organisations with vast funding use these modern tools to spread their belief system, and atheists do little to counter it. Religion and Atheism are not on a level playing field, governments and the media promote religions, they do not promote atheism.

 

 

But apparently no second answer sprung into your head.

You are so wrong Many answers have sprung into my head. The most interesting one, is more to do with the amount of ice that would have to arrive in the oceans to facilitate a significant sea level rise. A 30km diameter block of ice might be too small giving approx 14 139km^3 of water. How about a piece of ice the size of Antarctica with an area 14 000 000 km^2 and depth of approx. 1.9km. This would give approx. 28 000 000 km^3 of additional water in the oceans.

Total surface area of earth: 510,072,000 sq km Total water surface area: 70.8% (361,132,000 sq km) Total land surface area: 29.2% (148,940,000 sq km).

Very approximately if all the ice in Antarctica was to melt and spread evenly over the earths surface, the global sea level would rise 14/510 *1900 m of additional water depth globally = 52m . I hope I have put a decimal place in the wrong place, if I haven't don't panic because politicians don't think it is a problem and we are all safe, because climatologists are wrong and global warming isn't going to happen.

How much would the earths temperature have to rise to melt Antarctica and how long would it take?

Let's assume comet is sphere, and that density of water is equal to ice, for simplification.

 

Volume of sphere is:

[math]V = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3[/math]

 

r=15km = 15000m

[math]V = \frac{4}{3} \pi 15000^3 = 1.414 * 10^{13} m^3[/math]

 

Divide by area of Earth:

r=6370 km = 6370000m

[math]A = 4 \pi r^2[/math]

5.1*10^14 m^2

 

[math]1.414 * 10^{13} m^3 / 5.1*10^{14} m^2 = 0.028 m = 28 cm[/math]

 

30 km large ice comet would rise sea level only 28 cm.

Thanks for the sums, There are places in the world where 28cm more than a 1/4m can make a huge difference. The San Blas Islands in the Carribean for instance, Venice, Amsterdam, Bangladesh, too many places to mention.

 

 

I don't see anything about space flowing toward a mass in that link.

I think I was mislead by another poster ref the link, but was assuming a gravitational gradient can represent a flow of space. This is possibly incorrect, the stretching of space could be due t a multitude of speculative ideas. However I think it is generally agreed that gravity is caused by the stretching of space. All matter stretches space around them and are attracted to each other, unless the space between them is expanding in which case they move apart in space effectively in freefall away from each other. Gravitational waves have been detected travelling through space from black holes spiralling around each other. What I was thinking about would it be possible in some way to stretch space above on object, or to expand space below it, to cause it to rise up.

All gravitational potential wells attract, but a gravitational potential well appearing above a small object might attract a small object to it Ie cause it to become lighter. The moon for instance causes sea levels to rise. (side thought getting weighed on a solar eclipse are we lighter ) Photons of light create their own gravitational field could focused radio waves above a body in some way effect the mass of the body. Does radio waves being emitted from a body increase its mass, or decrease it in any measurable way.

Are the two links below speculative, what makes scientists think current theories are wrong?

Is general relativity a little wrong and is there a 5 the force.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-relativity-potentially-gravitational.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

Did the big bang happen according to the standard model.

https://phys.org/news/2013-09-goodbye-big-black-hole-theory.html

enjoy

 

He is a greater figure in German literature than Shakespeare is in English. Born 1749, I guess he wrote this around 1800. Certainly not the Dark Ages, but a time when it was very courageous to suggest that religion was unnecessary. It seemed appropriate for this thread.

Ok point taken, I don't read Shakespeare either

The thread however is about " When will religious belief, or belief in gods become a thing of the past? 100 years? 300 years? Never?

Do you think most of humanity will ever drop superstition and embrace scientific and secular worldviews? "

I was merely pointing out above that, religion protects itself and is self perpetuating. It is supported by governments via tax incentives, ie no taxation.

I think it is generally accepted that Religion is a tool used for control of people. I think also it is a tool which can run out of control when not checked and people are allowed to develop blind belief in religious stories, which might in some way be based on natural disasters claimed to be acts of god, or on the movement of the stars.

With all the correlations between religions as highlighted by zeitgeist groups and many others, it would be easy to suspect religion is the same tool used over and over again to control peoples minds and thoughts.

I did a long time ago give some thought to what an alternative belief system might look like for an atheist. It might include a version of a big bang, evolution, political history, hopes for a better world etc. This is not a million miles from religious belief except it would not be praising religious leaders for human sacrifice(occult) or genocide, or world subjugation by some religion or other. In my version of history the conquerors don't come out as being good people.

Jupiter has a mass >300x of earth.

 

"Shit happens" doesn't cut it for defending conjecture.

 

Keppler belt? Did you mean Kuiper belt?

Sorry again I know "shit happens" is not a defence, but it is the first answer that sprang in to my head and I thought it was amusing not annoying .

Yes I meant Kuiper belt which was studied by the Kepler mission. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~gaudi/kvk.pdf

!5000 yrs ago the glaciers over North America went as far South as the Ohio valley.

By 12000 yrs ago they were quickly retreating North, carving out the Great Lakes system..

Could that have contributed to the rise in sea levels ?

 

Melting floating ice does not contribute to sea level rise.

Melting ice over land does.

So while melting the ice cover of Antarctica would raise sea levels considerably, melting The Arctic ice would not.

So do you still think climate change models are still accurate ref sea level rise and we can expect many low lying islands and coastal cities such as London and Washington DC to go under water, along with Bangladesh and other highly populated land masses.

Would you further state that worrying about star wars and asteroid or comet impacts diminishes into insignificance against the human disaster that is possibly predictably approaching that some politicians and world leaders don't seem to be to concerned about.

I don't think spending a few dollars more will do much to avoid the problem if it is going to happen. But carrying on driving around in huge petrol guzzling pink cadillacs isn't going to help either.

I guess !5000 is 15000

A Further point that will sustain religion is it is a multi million dollar tax free business, encouraged by governments, and religious people like the social aspects of meeting together and having a bit of a sing song.

Many evangelists and religious folk actively seek out converts, and expand their views.

Atheists don't do this, and have no movement to spread the word that gods and religion are based on myth. Atheists except the likes of Dawkins don't get on soap boxes and lecture people on street corners, every sunday. This gives the appearance of a one sided battle with atheists just turning the other cheek.

How many atheists actively enjoy pointing out the insanity of religious belief with religious folks. How many just avoid discussion.

 

Your translation fails totally, because you did not spot the subjunctive "habe" in the fourth line, which is the whole point. I thought the quotation was obvious - that anybody who has science and art has no need for religion. If you don't have these, then you might as well take up religion. And do you really have to ask when Goethe lived?

Your statement was unclear and I was asking you to be clarify your grammar. Most people on the planet do not read German poetry and would have no idea who Goethe was or when he lived.

I think Goethe sums it up perfectly:

 

Wer Wissenschaft und Kunst besitzt,

hat auch Religion;

wer jene beiden nicht besitzt,

der habe Religion.

 

I find this fiendishly difficult to translate accurately, mainly because I can never find a satisfactory word for Wissenschaft. Science or knowledge are the best, depending on context. Anyway, I'd say

 

He who has science and art

also has religion.

He who has neither of these,

let him have religion.

The devils in the detail, with translations.

Who owns science and art,

has also religion;

who does not have those two,

He got religion.

What exactly do you want the quote to mean?. Are you trying to say religion is included in science and art?. How old is the quote? Is it from the dark ages, when religion was assumed to over rule science, and the earth was thought to be flat?

I think the initial impact would give us more to worry about than a sea level rise. If it was that big then it would be a catastrophic event anyway. I am not sure any one would be left to witness the ensuing sea level rise.

Assuming we survived the initial impact or multiple impacts, and were not wiped out in some mini glacial period such as the younger dryas period, could this explain sea level rise approx 12000 years ago.

The climate change models which predicted massive sea level rise when the ice caps were all melted seem to have over estimated the effect of global warming and sea level rise.

Global warming of the oceans provides more energy for stronger storms, and coastal storm surges during bad weather, but the mean sea level does not seem to be changing noticeably.

I am just wondering if the many sea level rises over the history of the earth have another explanation.

There is no reason why all genetic mutations should be advantageous, and benefit the evolutionary process of the human race.

How would that happen?

Shit happens

Comet Shoemaker Levy was captured in the orbit of Jupiter circa 1992 it took an estimated 2 years to break up. Finally impacting with the planet in 1994, it was first observed in 1993 orbiting the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9

Was all the water on the planet in place when the planet was formed or could there have been a more recent addition 12000 years ago causing sea level rise.

There is no reason why a comet could not hit the planet, the moon shows multiple impacts and it is just next door, we have had many near misses, and there is no reason it couldn't happen again.

There are lots of huge lumps of ice in the Keppler belt, some of which are orbiting the opposite direction to the other blocks of ice, these could collide causing them to change their orbit and hit the earth, that is if Jupiter does not get in the way.

The planet has been hit in the past, could a comet breaking up in the earths atmosphere cause sea level rise, on a biblical scale

Could an ice comet 12000 years ago have initiated the younger dryas period and sea level rise globally? could it happen again?. A ice comet approx. 30km diameter could raise sea levels globally 20m, and could have initiated a global extinction event, and global climate change.

A comet would not need to have a direct hit on earth it could be captured in the earths gravitational field and orbit the planet slowly breaking up before coming to earth.

A link from the scientific American magazine

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-a-comet-hit-earth-12900-years-ago/

Nasa on sea levels

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

One of many near miss links

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/16/mars-comet-near-miss-planet-collide/17370459/