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

Thanks Mordred You've been very helpful . Possibly because , as you've stated , your self taught. I know you're right about the study aspect , but I guess I was looking more for a partnership of abilities to develop somewhere along the way. It hasn't happened yet . I have always been amazed at how difficult it is to explain concepts in words in these forum , yet people seem to get complicated (to me) formulas. Obviously different processing methods . However , I think people make as great a study as what we discuss. Cheers iseason

Hi Mordred , Strange, Strange , fi find the multiquote disconcerting and confusing as I feel I give each point less attention if I try to answer this type of post. But I'll see what I can answer. I'll certainly take the time to read that link and any other you might think is helpful. Misusing infinity is more in the nature of conversation I can find using google and the word infinite. Most of these are referring to infinity as " going on forever and ever" . Any forum is full of this use of the term by very well educated posters , so I can find any number of examples of it's misuse in relation to actual physical space. In saying the universe is neither infinite nor finite , I am saying that neither of these options need be the case. I hear your objection already " it must be one or the other" and I do have a reason for rejecting both. It's just hard to explain. I have argued against an infinite universe for a long time before I realised that a finite universe is just as wrong. To understand which way round I approached the problem that I am working on , it would seem to you a little unorthodox. That could be why I can be adamant about my position on something , but it confuses others. What I noticed a while back was that people were looking for the theory of everything and the solution was hampered by what was in between the beginning and the end. So I looked for the solution and worked backwards. The solution is a quantity which is not only the value at the beginning and the end , but never alters . Never. Since we can measure it's parts the soundest starting point is the smallest division of energy we can measure. In fact , it matters not at this point if we find we can measure something smaller some time in the future , since the methodology is not dependant on the size being actually known. In empty space , there is no reference point to measure this single point against , so as long as it remains the only thing " actually" present , then it can keep the balance of the theory intact. So I hold to this methodology no matter what. To satisfy what we observe , it needs to have causality and be able to " do stuff" . I have recently used the reduction idea to show it can do this. I am only happy to use this methodology if it retains the ability to protect the result. The other points such as inevitability are the result of a truly closed system. Not pretend closed where change can occur , but a real closed system which has a completely fixed cycle. The reason for seeing it this way is that we are about the only things in the universe that see this process as personal . In atomic ....it's all process . At universal...it's all process. Us even caring about the process is on a scale of the ant pushing over the house. And there is such a huge dampening effect possible in the size of the universe that what we do matters little. An inevitable universe is tidy and clean and in fact makes everything that happens in the middle essential to the whole. To the very smallest photon. As I said early on . It gives the result. We are very offended by the concept and i know everything screams that it couldn't be correct. But things can be very strange. That's actually a common statement in any science web explainations I have ever looked at . So I am not daunted by it. I have used this analogy before. That it is like watching a DVD. The contents are fixed and we are watching from within the completed process. When you decide to strip reality down to it's basics , the only things you find is atoms and electrons swirling round in mostly empty space. It would be a mistake to give our personal view of the universe much credit and base anything on our limited scope of reality. Cheers iseeson

Hi Mordred ,Strange I am off to work soon , but will give a very quick answer . The best or closest thing to my model is this one Mordred posted. http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ I use 'something TO nothing' and so have a slightly different outcome/ behavioural expectation. When I use the term " dies " I am highlighting the complete and utter collapse of the energy point from having 1 to having 0 energy. I don't have time now but will explain the last two posts slightly better when I get back. Thanks Mordred Nice to see you strange Cheers iseeson

The reasons for the first three points. It embeds the process as a full non negotiable . Prevents it from being either finite or infinite. And completely closes the system with not opportunity to affect the result. If what we observe is a complete event , and yet while remaining as part of the result , can observe it's parts , then it is a review . We tend to object to this by saying. "Look . I can choose to do something random". My answer is that you were always going to do that . It is part of the completed cycle. "The universe doesn't know if I will go left or right". You already chose which way you would go and it's part of the result. The reason for the second points is. Part of it is explained in the above. For the fact that you cannot occupy a single position twice. Most of space is empty , and although every one knows this , we still tend to feel that we fill some area completely . If I run into a brick wall , there must be a good amount of space used up by me and the brick wall. Even an object like a planet like earth could not completely cover every space in it's pathway despite it's size and mass. The reason you cannot use a position twice is the twin or paired aspect of the string . The two values of the reduction pairs create unique keys that can not be used by other pairs. In simplistic terms. At point .25 , -.75 it cannot be occupied by .45 ,-.55 or any other value. There are no matching possibilities which could re- use a position in space , although an object could pass over an area where an object was. This would be radiation and such space travelling 'brooms' sweeping up the leftovers. The corridors for such are specific and rarefied in the wake of a star or planet. This is Bourne out by the fact that nothing from the smallest to the largest remains in one point in space. Everything must be in motion both locally and universally. Locally , every atom is a hive of activity and universally we travel through space. Cheers iseason

Thanks Mordred This model is my favourite. I have been working on it for a while now and I know that the basic principles is as far as I can get with my maths background. The reason for a pinpoint beginning is that it can be no larger than the smallest thing that we can detect. It's the cumulative effect of the rate of variation and the sheer number of variations that gives the impression of lots of energy. Cheers iseason I'm off to read your links Ok I am very pleased to see these links relate to current questioning. I can honestly state that I never knew of them and that my lines of reasoning are my own. As I can see it , the previous link where I stated my core beliefs seems to be the difference. A reduction by one measure over the entire event The universe actually dies. This has already happened We are reviewing the result There are points that go further. Everything can only ever be in motion A position can only be used once Nothing ( not one moment) could have been different The result is an inevitable universe Cheers Iseason

Hi Mordred I'm just posting the model I prefer . I know it is simplistic and it isn't supposed to be a correct string. I am simply showing a better way to account for the reduction concept. The main description is that any reduction is accounted for and although energy doesn't remain with the pinpoint , it is crucial to how we view time and space. So we begin with the original point of energy = 1 or whole The expectation would be that the next lower number would be .999999999999 (9 's to infinity) with a very small number with a lot of zeros and eventually a 1 on the end as it's match. If I give the "whole " a value of ten , then it's a bit easier to show. And I' m assuming a much smaller number of values . 10 5 , 10 , -5 I've chosen a figure straight to a split as this is more logical. If I follow reduction straight down in a progression , it will get hung up at halfway or equilibrium and is just as likely to reverse direction . 10 5 ,-5 4 , -6 3 , -7 2 , -8 1 , -9 0 Of course this is incredibly simple and can't represent compexity . The pairs balance each other and the minus numbers are undetectable. The plus numbers are the actual value of the original pinpoint as it reduces . Naturally the string is going to be rather much longer than this and will all reduce from 1. The reason it is good is that it means the universe always adds up to 1 but can have a huge amount of variation and change in behaviour. There are never two positions in space with the same value despite always adding to 1. Cheers iseason

Hi Mordred I have been very busy following the links you posted. Some I knew , some is news to me. Much of it is better explainations than I have seen before and I really wish these were more publicly shown. I have heard quite a bit about the balloon inflation concept , but I must admit that my image was a classical balloon and a filled balloon at that. I have never considered the flat balloon concept until now. To give you an idea of who I am. I left school at fifteen years after not really particularly enjoying 'being educated'. Life moved on and as an adult , the mind settled into a rhythm that became very investigative. But of course now I am married and running businesses , so going back to school isn't an option. But I have a big talent which at the same time a big problem. I cannot switch my mind off. I am very successful in business because I can analyse every aspect of it's function through investigation and correct the course of the business. For example , my current position , for the last two years , is fruit and vegetable buyer for a wholesale hospitality supply company in New Zealand . Last years increase was 50% gross profit on previous year . This year will run at another 50% on top of that increase. All of this has been because of a bulldog approach to problem solving and I have been doing this for businesses for 25 years. I have read several science biographies and attempted to learn the math of science. Unfortunately , the boy who didn't like school does things his way and the math eludes me. But broad concepts are easy for me to understand. Unlike our conversation as it has developed here , most other conversations in forums are like wading through mud. I'm going somewhere but sorting through the crap is hard work. I don't mean the posters aren't smart , but they tend to lack social skills enough to allow you to learn from them. So that's who I am. I am not new at these discussions. I have been doing this for 15 years and glean much about what is right by being told what is wrong. As in business , I have definite starting points and lines of investigation which have taken me to where I dig my flags in. We can reduce my previous posts from models to " points of view" that I hold and have done from the beginning. So here are a few of the reasons I build different models to see how they match up. Please remember I haven't had as clear models of current science to work from. 1. I am convinced that the mis use of infinity as" forever and ever " is responsible for a lot of bad science and an unachievable result. 2 . That energy conservation law can be applied " right from the beginning" . In other words the expansion theory , giving us a huge universe from a pinhead violates this law in current description. We see and expect to find " a lot of energy" . However , my reduction view point can show the expansion we see without lots of energy " actually being present" . ( I wil have to show you other models which are more in line with my thinking.) 3. That the event we see as our universe has already completed it's cycle and we are in a review. I feel this because we are not just " players in the universe" , but also part of the universal pattern which could not be perceived by us until it was completed. 5. That the universe is created via the original pinpoint " dying". This has no religious conatations. 6. I see the universe as neither finite or infinite( although I argued for a finite universe for some time) the reason is simple. The " death "of the pinpoint was an even which " happened all at once" . The difference between 1 and 0 has stages but not necessarily do they follow the timeline we view. They follow a logical pattern that we have the unique position within . Recently ,I began experimenting with models that used the fact that according to current mathematics the difference between whole numbers can have infinite variation. So a pinpoint that was " whole",can produce as much complexity as needed to explain the universe we see in reduction. Hence a " reduction universe " is as viable as an " expansion universe" . Neither is there any need to have energy present in the universe " all at once" . Since time and space is the result , the method doesn't require them . It's only in review and at the frequency that we inhabit that they become important to us. Cheers Iseason

I'm having a good giggle really. I've learnt more here in a few days than years of arguing in other forums. Thanks heaps. A question though. Is it the current view that space was always there? My understanding was that this was still undecided , in as much as the pre- Big Bang was undecided. I 'm asking this because I've put a lot of thought into behaviours under the premise that space was created along with the inflation in Big Bang. Though I have had trouble getting two people to agree on the same thing except that the current model has it covered . Only I can't seem to find the current model. I found a link on this site which explained the weirdness of time. While I saw a fair bit about stuff I knew and some I didn't , there was something I wanted an answer to . ....the atomic clock proof. Is this THE proof. Or is there further evidence to back this up. My knee jerk reaction was that , ok the clocks were different. Did the other people in the plane continue to live the rest of thier lives a couple of billionths of a second ahead of the rest of us. If not . Then how is that proof. Why isn't it that atomic clocks fail at high speeds. .....regardless what others experimentation supports the theory? Cheers Iseeson

Hi Mordred Understand your confusion here. When we first talked , I used your term " phases" and thought we understood each other. If the universe started with all the energy in one tight packet , then used one measure or lost is the term I used , then this becomes a change in phase. The original then loses another measure of energy which is phase three. Original Original minus one Original minus two The lost energy is below our ability to detect . It would be the pinhead sized original losing something " universally" smaller than the pin head. (Since it contained enough to create this sized universe.) that's why I think it is space itself. Used or lost energy in this way prevents space from having always to have been there or created via expansion. The hard part is that each phase is able to convert the energy loss into one unit of space (conservation) and only the original singularity ever existed. The reason we expect to see lots of energy is that we are just too damn slow. By a long , long shot. So when I refer to a 'reduction model' I am saying that the original pinhead can create the Big Bang scenario without simply releasing a lot of energy to inflate the universe. It can be that we see the same singular position over and over at a huge rate of propagation. Each loss shifts the pinhead in space. I talked about the rate necessary for this to happen and I hadn't given it one as such before , but I was surprised with my answer. If we can see multiples of the pinhead , as we can because we detect anything at all. In fact , because we can measure energy and mass we have the ability to measure the speed of propagation. It would be the universal mass that would determine the answer. I don't really know how to make this clear as the only thing you would see if you could stop the process is that one pinhead in space. So the rate of propagation is akin to recreating the illusion that there is lots of energy. That's why I said if it doesn't work go faster. Now your objection will be multiple I'm sure . And rightly so. Cheers iseeson

Ok. So a bit of homework to do yet.lol The difference as I see in my view is the change from energy expansion as a model to energy reduction. In fact it is predicting that the originating source is in the process of collapse with the phases being the detectable instances of energy we observe. Not expansion of energy as such. The losses are constant. but what we can detect, namely the phases , would have differing values . Thanks for your patient replies Iseeson