JohnDBarrow

It is a water or gravity powered railroad? Is gravity itself a form of energy?

Yes, sir. Very so much. Thank you. ENERGY Physics. the capacity to do work; the property of a system that diminishes when the system does work on any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done ENERGY Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com WORK Physics. force times the distance through which it acts; specifically, the transference of energy equal to the product of the component of a force that acts in the direction of the motion of the point of application of the force and the distance through which the point of application moves. WORK Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com I like to think of ENERGY as the capacity for material changes (as the form, shape, size, composition, color or temperature of a mass, and the velocity, acceleration or deceleration of a mass) to occur in the universe. An automobile must consume energy if it moves from one position on earth to another under its own power because there are changes in the car's relative position and changes in velocity (transition from a still position to a state of being in motion for a certain amount of time and distance and vice-versa) in order to make such a move. A car is basically and inert hunk of metal until the internal combustion and mechanical process take hold. Such travel of the car in question might be deemed a unit of work. While the Earth revolves in orbit about the sun, is any energy being consumed in that action alone? is any work being accomplished from mere planetary movement in our solar system?

Is chemistry the best scientific discipline for a person interested in a renewable energy career that is technically oriented? I have a special interest in emerging renewable energy technologies and advancing wide-spread human uses of renewable energy in various forms including ocean wave generated electricity. I have a special interest in eliminating man's dependency upon fossil fuels and other finite forms of energy such as nuclear power as soon as possible. I enjoy breathing clean air and having clean water to drink, fish in, swim in, dive in and go boating in. I have a keen interest in the emergence of the world's most advanced battery-rechargeable automobiles, trucks, buses, motorboats, vans and SUV's that are both fire-safe and practical to operate on public roads (and waterways) and I particularly admire Toyota's solid state battery project now in the works. There is a big concern in the consumer car-buying market about the limited range and load capacity of a plug-in EV operating on conventional rechargeable batteries for automotive use, including light-duty trucks that are often asked to tow trailers long distances, and of the fire dangers of conventional Lithium-Ion batteries. A practical plug-in EV full-size pickup truck, in theory, would be able to travel at least as far and as fast under maximum trailer load conditions and in the harshest of weather conditions on a single charge as any comparable gasoline or diesel truck could do on a tankful of fossil fuel. Perhaps solid-state batteries will one day have at least as much energy density as do petroleum-based fuels. It takes so many calories to do so much work over a given amount of time. If I could drive a full-size plug-in pickup truck at least 400 miles at Interstate speeds on a full charge with a travel trailer in tow, I would be indeed one happy camper. The question is how much would the electricity from a recharging station along the way cost me out of pocket to fully recharge that wonderful plug-in EV truck vs the cost to refuel a comparable fossil-fuels-powered truck after making a similar travel trailer trip? A prudent buyer has to consider both practicality and economics when shopping for a vehicle. Besides chemistry, what other scientific disciplines are applied to the field of renewable energy? Physics? Ecology?

That is a very closed-minded attitude. Even Dr. Carl Sagan once said he could not prove of disprove the existence of God. The bottom line is only time will tell as to what the hand of fate shall ultimately dish out. Perhaps living people should strive to live as if their current life is the only one they shall ever have. But I have no crystal ball. I personally feel that not only is the hereafter even possible, it is quite probable in my mind.

That is the most honest answer in many cases? Will I ever experience consciousness beyond physical death? You know the answer to that question as much about that as I do. Nature holds many secrets from the minds of men.

For any change to have happened, something had to have caused the said change in the first place. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. How did motion arise from a total static state of all existence?

Was there ever a time motion DID NOT exist anywhere?

And if the 'universe' is only 14 billion years old, what came before that even? How do you even define "universe"? You mean to tell me none of any or all the following ever existed before 14 billions years ago? time space matter energy gravity motion Everything just suddenly sprang from a complete void 14 billion years ago as if by magic? This Latin phrase should be the basis for all rational human thought: ex nihilo nihil fit To succumb to the notion that everything sprang from absolute nothing is utter madness.

I'm interested in all facets of human thought. It is my endeavor to seek what is TRUE.

Somebody converted my thread of renewable energy to laws of thermodynamics somehow. My highly orderly thread must have slipped into some degree of disorder. We have a case of conversational entropy here. However, we all here should agree that whatever is bound to happen will happen. Shall my conscious soul both enjoy and suffer an eternal existence in whatever and however many incarnated bodies it happens to find itself in? ? Only the hand of fate will decide. I cannot easily accept that manmade science has my future sealed to absolute eternal death. Man spends so much precious energy and time worrying about what may or may not happen tomorrow.

My mother once told me so about the universe. Mother knows best. Can you please show me the limit line of the universe? Can you show me where time began? If it did indeed begin, then what was the cosmic trigger that set it off in the first place? Some initial cause to beget time had to have preexisted time if that was the case. Scientists often overlook first principles. Here is an interesting link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover If God exists then what are his/her/it's origins? What or who made God? Remember, nothing comes from nothing. It's hard to put an end on the existence of something if you can't even pinpoint its very beginning. My definition of UNIVERSE is the absolute sum total of everything, known or unknown, to any and all conscious beings. It's hard to quantify the absolute sum total of everything. Human scientists don't know everything.

Please explain why there is still life, motion and consciousness after the literal passing of an infinite amount of elapsed time. Look at our very solar system with its highly orderly planetary orbits. I don't think thermodynamic laws can correctly predict the absolute enteral fate of everything. Nature is much more complex and mysterious than that. The universe is infinitely large with no limits, no boundaries. Things still move. Stars still emit light.

Studiot brought thermodynamics into my thread. He got me started on that one. This is a Science discussion site and technically 'renewable energy' is a contradiction in terms since it contravenes the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics laws might only hold true in a closed system but the universe is an open system. The universe consists of matter, energy and other components. None of those items could have ever had a beginning. I personally hold the universe to be infinitely old and to be eternally changing. Energy is an essential component for change. Nature will not ever permit a universal heat death. https://www.noemamag.com/life-need-not-ever-end/ Boltzmann’s model also ignored the influence of gravity, which is often described as an anti-entropic force due to its clumping effects on matter. Gravity’s effects on small objects like gas molecules are essentially so tiny that they are negligible for all practical purposes, meaning you can leave the force out of the model and still make accurate predictions about the state of the system. But at the scale of the universe, the effects of gravity become extremely important to the evolving structure of the system. Gravity is one factor driving the growth of order in the cosmos, and a good example of why the evolution of the universe looks very different from a gas spreading out in a box. Of course, the attractive force of gravity doesn’t explain the emergence of life, which has been defying Boltzmann’s tendency toward disorder for about four billion years. Not only does life represent the formation of complexity, it constructs more of it. What explains this paradox? How does the biosphere grow more complex and organized if there’s a tendency for organized systems to fall apart? If cosmic complexity is to grow continuously, the process would then seem to curiously depend on life, the only form of complexity that can create more organization and actively sustain itself. The quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger explained this paradox in his 1944 book “What is Life?”. What Schrödinger noticed was that instead of drifting toward thermodynamic equilibrium — which for life means a state of death and decay — biological organisms maintained their ordered living state by consuming free energy from the environment (which he called “negative entropy”). Boltzmann’s law of increasing disorder only applies to closed systems, and life on Earth is an open system. It is constantly receiving usable energy from the sun, which drives it away from thermodynamic equilibrium.

Thermal equilibrium of the entire Universe seems to my mind impossible. My very state of living right now contradicts it. The universe will constantly change into the infinite future as it has done forever already. I understand that matter and energy both cannot emerge from a complete void nor vanish into one. I can logically conclude that matter and energy have both been in existence forever and shall remain in existence forever.

There is a heat death paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox#:~:text=The heat death paradox%2C also,of an infinitely old universe. Assuming that the universe is eternal, a question arises: How is it that thermodynamic equilibrium has not already been achieved? How is that after the literal passing of forever (an infinite amount of time since there is no beginning to the collective sum total of existence) that I am still here breathing, thinking, living and typing this right now in 2024 AD? I am living human proof that energy (the capacity to do work) is still in existence after the literal passing of forever. Why hasn't the total capacity to do work in the one and only one Universe been terminated a long, long time ago? Universal heat death would make my conscious life impossible so it seems. The living human body itself is not even possible without the consumption of energy. I say one or more laws of thermodynamics are false. According to this article, the universe might never die: https://www.noemamag.com/life-need-not-ever-end/ At his blog Preposterous Universe, Sean Carroll writes: “If there exists a maximal entropy (thermal equilibrium) state, and the universe is eternal, it’s hard to see why we aren’t in such an equilibrium state — and that would be static, not constantly evolving. This is why I personally believe that there is no such equilibrium state, and that the universe evolves because it can always evolve.”

When considering renewable energy forms in lieu of fossil fuels for transportation, you have to consider range, working capacity and speed as well as safety and operational costs. Nothing seems to be as energy dense as petroleum-based fuels except for maybe biofuels. Would hydrogen ever be more practical than electricity for aviation? Who knows. Fossil fuels would be the perfect fuel for most everything man does but the trouble is they are both finite and dirty. Here is a video about hydrogen power for airplanes but there are a number of catches. They say that hydrogen can't be stored in wings unlike fossil fuels and biofuels. You lose cargo-carrying capacity.

Well, as long as SOMEBODY in the renewable energy fields know what they are doing. I have thought to myself if I could start my life all over again I would want to devote it to civil engineering or ecology. It sounds exciting to have a professional career in the renewable energy fields. It's sort of a new frontier of sorts. It certainly would require an open mind and being versed in one or more scientific disciplines. I bet most of the naysayers to renewable energy have stock in Big Oil.

I meant biofuels might have to someday be used for jets if nothing else more "doable" is available by then. Your guess is as good as mine.

Sounds good. But to get us past most of the way there to ALL the way there, tidal, wave and biofuels might fill in that little gap. I believe that jet airplanes will require some sort of biofuel to make them work unless man can invent a propulsion system something like the Starship Enterprise has on board. I don't see how electricity can be converted into jet propulsion.

Ok, discussion. If you were to have YOUR way, how would you go about advancing the cause to one day have a planet running totally on renewables vs non-renewable energy forms? The combined off-shore wave and wind production method of electricity seems like a fine idea since wind action at sea is greatest during the summertime and wave action is greatest during the wintertime. I think we should use the various renewable methods to produce electricity in combination and in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. Use whatever works best. Necessity is the mother of all invention. We went from thousands of years of transportation by horses to automobiles because somebody felt a need to do so. The Wright Brothers felt the need to build a working airplane. America, under the leadership of John F. Kennedy, felt a need to put Armstrong on the moon. Man's ambition to "go renewables" full bore is eventually going to be driven by his needs to do so. My mother has been a proponent of green energy and protecting the ecology since the early 1970's. When I was a boy she told me there is but so much crude oil in the earth. Chevron in the 1970's advertised that it took nature a million years to create an oil field and man just 30 to use it up.

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy#:~:text=Renewable energy sources are all around us&text=In contrast%2C renewable energy sources,from renewable energy by 2050. Do you believe as the UN and I believe? I am not numbered among the naysayers. Man can actually make it happen if there is a will. 1. Renewable energy sources are all around us About 80 percent of the global population lives in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels -- that’s about 6 billion people who are dependent on fossil fuels from other countries, which makes them vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and crises. In contrast, renewable energy sources are available in all countries, and their potential is yet to be fully harnessed. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 percent of the world’s electricity can and should come from renewable energy by 2050. Renewables offer a way out of import dependency, allowing countries to diversify their economies and protect them from the unpredictable price swings of fossil fuels, while driving inclusive economic growth, new jobs, and poverty alleviation. 2. Renewable energy is cheaper Renewable energy actually is the cheapest power option in most parts of the world today. Prices for renewable energy technologies are dropping rapidly. The cost of electricity from solar power fell by 85 percent between 2010 and 2020. Costs of onshore and offshore wind energy fell by 56 percent and 48 percent respectively. Falling prices make renewable energy more attractive all around – including to low- and middle-income countries, where most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from. With falling costs, there is a real opportunity for much of the new power supply over the coming years to be provided by low-carbon sources. Cheap electricity from renewable sources could provide 65 percent of the world’s total electricity supply by 2030. It could decarbonize 90 percent of the power sector by 2050, massively cutting carbon emissions and helping to mitigate climate change. Although solar and wind power costs are expected to remain higher in 2022 and 2023 then pre-pandemic levels due to general elevated commodity and freight prices, their competitiveness actually improves due to much sharper increases in gas and coal prices, says the International Energy Agency (IEA). 3. Renewable energy is healthier According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 99 percent of people in the world breathe air that exceeds air quality limits and threatens their health, and more than 13 million deaths around the world each year are due to avoidable environmental causes, including air pollution. The unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide originate mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and economic costs, about $8 billion a day. Switching to clean sources of energy, such as wind and solar, thus helps address not only climate change but also air pollution and health. 4. Renewable energy creates jobs Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall increase in energy sector jobs: while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by 2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9 million jobs. In addition, energy-related industries would require a further 16 million workers, for instance to take on new roles in manufacturing of electric vehicles and hyper-efficient appliances or in innovative technologies such as hydrogen. This means that a total of more than 30 million jobs could be created in clean energy, efficiency, and low-emissions technologies by 2030. Ensuring a just transition, placing the needs and rights of people at the heart of the energy transition, will be paramount to make sure no one is left behind. 5. Renewable energy makes economic sense About $7 trillion was spent on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in 2022, including through explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels. In comparison, about $4.5 trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 – including investments in technology and infrastructure – to allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The upfront cost can be daunting for many countries with limited resources, and many will need financial and technical support to make the transition. But investments in renewable energy will pay off. The reduction of pollution and climate impacts alone could save the world up to $4.2 trillion per year by 2030. Moreover, efficient, reliable renewable technologies can create a system less prone to market shocks and improve resilience and energy security by diversifying power supply options. Learn more about how many communities and countries are realizing the economic, societal, and environmental benefits of renewable energy.

Ok, as I type this line right now, how is my Windows 10 machine actually performing prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed? I depress an R on my keyboard and one appears on the monitor and I highlight this line and left click on the Bold tool above with my mouse and nothing happens.

I understand a computer must have so much hardware and software to make it "do something productive". Is the dictionary definition of computer concise and accurate enough for laymen to understand?

COMPUTER Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com noun a programmable electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations. Mainframes, desktop and laptop computers, tablets, and smartphones are some of the different types of computers. Compare analog computer, digital computer. When we use our computer, say your Microsoft Windows 10 desktop PC, to type or read a message like this at this site, play an arcade game, play with airplane simulator software, work on an Excel spreadsheet, read an email or type a letter in Word, is data being accepted, are prescribed mathematical and logical operations being performed at high speed and are the results of such operations being displayed? How is this done in a nutshell? Dictionaries used to define COMPUTER in terms of "electronic machine".

CHRYSLER comes from Swiss or Germanic origins according to a quick Google search. In German it is KREISLER.