Iseason

I am trying to explain that each moment in time and space has a different universal makeup. Not just here and there , but every single position. My house is in the same position on earth as it was yesterday , but the earth has shifted. This defies the arguement about local relativity being relevant. Our measure of time and space rely heavily on our ability to measure motion. If i were to say " what did nineteen seventy four actually consist of", i would need to rewind the pathways that the universe AS A WHOLE followed until everything was in the same position it was then. It is not just sitting there somewhere waiting for me to revisit it. Equally, if i wanted to revisit the last nanosecond, i would have to do the same. Time and space cannot be seperated. If motion stops, then so does time. Cheers

It's really quite important. If in the wider intrepetation everything is in motion, then there is no requirement that an object has constency. In other words the movement or observance of motion through space doesn't have anything to do with" solid " ojbect. It can be true that we are a series in a pattern rather than something simply moving through space

Well even if i humour you, an object on earth is stationary only if you take it in it's entirety and not look further down . But the further you go up from it's position on earth the greater the degree of motion. So relative to anything you want really ,

Does any object occupy the same postion in space ....ever

That's word games strange. Could anything be considered absolutely stationary...yes or no

I have returned to this topic to see if i can get any agreement on some behaviiours. There are some things which i find fascinating that i don't hear or read about , so hear goes. Something which is important to this line of thought is that there is, never will be and never has been anything that could be considered stationary in the known universe. You could say something is stationary relative to other regional mass , but in the greater sense of things nothing is ever stationary. Even going downwards within an object , you could not see any component as stationary. Lets try that for starters. Cheers iseeson

It will be interesting , if you could be around that long, to observe the counter that nature inflicts on the carbon imbalance. Is there enough evidence to suggest that this has happenned without mans intervention. Are deposits of carbon such as oil and coal any proof? Or does such an event have to be evenly distributed rings around the globe. ? Cheers iseeson

Fantastic! That's the sort of answer that is helpful. What sort of difference does it make as you get away from seas level though. ? Say at the snow line . Would large expances of antartica still be unaffected due to thier hieght above sea level , or is the rate of freezing for altitude affected as well? Cheers Iseeson

Perhaps it's because this discussion was about the effects of water expansion. Not that i was worried as my initial thoughts on the subject were confirmed. However , since the opportunity arrises , how would the calculations work when placed in tandem with the ice cap melts. Surely the volume of the oceans trumps the icecaps big time. Naturally the effect would be staggered by depth . For instance , the surface few metres would expand first. But surely this is a major amount of water. Also iceburgs wouldn't increase water volume . They are already suported by the water, so displacement is already taking place by weight. If they melt , then wouldn't they simply occupy the same space they disperse. I'm looking at ice floating as a result of it's increased volume compared to water, the extra volume is above the water to offset this difference. So floating ice means no change until it gets above zero , when it simply joins the rest of the oceanic water , which is my original point. The greater ocean will increase in temperature and therefore volume well ahead of any region losing all it's fresh water ice into the sea. But much of the focus is on the fresh water entering the ocean and making it rise. So i guess my current question would be.....if the top one meter raises it's temperature by one degree, how much oceanic rise is this? I certainly couldn't do the math. But i would also expect the next four meters (collectively)to increase by the same as the top meter. Naturally it could only be an average as curents and regional tempatures would vary. But then i have another question . Does water increase evenly?does the volume increase by the same amount from zero to ten degrees as from 10 degrees to 20 degrees. This question is relevant as the tropics would have a different initial temperature to polar regions. Cheers Iseason

Hi all I was watching a post which based most of the effects of global sea change on melting ice caps or ice melting in general. My objection might be correct , or I may get educated. I thought water expanded according to increased temperature , therefore a change in global temperature would increase the volume of the oceans as a whole long before the icecaps really came into play. I haven't really heard or read much about the water which is already contained in the oceans having an impact on rising sea levels ,So this is the reason for my comment. Cheers Iseason

Hi guys Thanks for posting. I was sure there would be a catch. That's why I mentioned other methods and uses. So I have 100% extra joules....multi staging? Also systems less than a commercial dam. Say where a river runs by my property. Would it be now more efficient to use a heat pump to warm my cows up in winter , keep a highway clear of snow , warm my two bedroom house. Things where a continuous output was more important than the high temperatures needed for electricity production. Or is a turbine still going to convert better over a longer but slower system. Cheers Iseason

Thanks. What I see as interesting in your answers is what might be possible in other varianions. Say , if you multistage the system. Does the a return v work remain the same if the initial heat transfer is gathered to a different medium? In systems less than 30 meters , does this give scope for more potential sites for gathering energy for power production. By the way. Those figures look heavily in favour of the heat pump. I guess it comes down to a comparison of work required to cool the water and what that equals in litres of water dropped thirty meters. Let me se if I can do this. 1 litre = 250 joules So i need 16.8 litres to get my 4200 joules to run the pump. If I can add (and it's not a given I can) each 16.8 litres of water is now giving me 16.8. Times 250 joules ( that hydro gave me) = 4200 16.8 times 250 joules. ( that ran my pump). = 4200 It seems , if I follow you correctly I have 4200 as extra joules. It couldn't seriously give me a 100% better return? Thanks for you interest Cheers Iseason

Hi studiott You may have misunderstood. I was suggesting using the heat to generate electricity. As I said I'm not claiming to understand whether it could extract the sort of energy to run a steam turbine as an aside to running the turbines. But removing it from commercial scale would a creek now be a viable source to heat your home . There are quite a few possible differences here . In the morning it would have more stored energy than air. But I assume that as the air heats up , it contains a more readily available source. Or is straight turbine electricity still the most efficient. Cheers Iseeson

Hi all Just an interesting thought. Would it be viable to extract the energy in a dam as an aside to running the turbine with it. Just how efficient is it now ? Since the water is already being dropped on the turbines , would it be efficient to use part of that process to run the same technology as we use in our homes to create heat for different generation at the same time. I would imagine the heat to be extracted from the dam body and the same water as runs the turbine to run the heat pump. I'm not claiming to know a whole lot about heat pumps except they are extremely efficient. Cheers iseason

Quote Sorry, but I find it easier to focus on each point, to try and keep the discussion organised. It is easier to see what has and hasn't been answered. Unquote. Yes , but it's polite to use conversation structure that everyone is comfortable with . Especially when one half of the conversation requests it. Quote But you haven't explained why you think this is a misuse, or what you think "infinity" means. Or even if you are talking about spatial extent or duration (which could be independent of one another). Unquote. I don't expect to minutely explain something which I made quite clear by " forever and ever" . And you are quite aware my objection is not mathematical infinity , but infinity in a physical reality. My objection to using either is rather more of not wanting to create a wrong impression of meaning and the reasons are to do with time. From a raw perspective , the single energy is there and then not there. This is neither finite nor infinite because there is nothing else to give the perspective necessary to define either finite or infinite. It is only when you view from within the process that you would consider either of these options. So if you were inside the process then you might conclude it to be finite. However from such a perspective you would have to also consider it infinite( unmeasurable) . So in fact neither is correct nor incorrect. Cheers iseason