Is this the beginning of the end?

[ramset]

Clarity
There is one "1" global moderator at this forum ,
Administrator and owner Stefan .forum handle
Hartiberlin.




There are many subsections or builders topics ...individual "boards" ( hopefully that will grow )
Moderated by persons who experiment and share their work ,
( major prerequisite obviously open source)


So ... no subsection moderator can moderate any other part of forum except their own board.
Also there are a few areas of forum with general moderator (1 example:HHO section Grumage?)


Stefan is trying to get this more organized, and better understood by membership here !


One thing is certain...we need our energies focused on open source FE solutions !
Flamewars between members....not so much !
Respectfully
Chet K

[sm0ky2]

I'm not qualified to do the calculations, but keep in mind that the atmosphere only provides 1 bar to work with.
As you build a higher lift, there are diminishing returns, every minute step of the way.
You play with immense energy but for the OU part you only address their relative mass for buoyancy.

Such a build, even by your calcs, would seek to squeeze out tiny bit of theoretical OU, from a structure that wouldn't be much easier to build than the next tallest building in the world. Using a deep decommissioned mine might be a way around it, but still brings in huge running costs. Playing with H and O underground in, imagine that...

Even IF you somehow find a process that's OU, you won't be able to sell energy at an attractive rate. All this time oldering some wind turbines and solar panels on Alibaba would have been the more profitable thing to do.

I like the creativity of combining chemistry and physics, though...

I see that you were deprived of helium baloons as a child


The higher we go, the less pressure: the point at which hydrogen (and its' mass in oxygen cargo) balances out with the atmosphere (at electrolysis pressures) is higher than the terminal velocity altitude of water.
(above the clouds)


This is thousands of times greater potential energy at this height than anything we would have used in electricity to separate the gasses.


What happens when we electrolyze water in an open vessel?
The hydrogen travels all the way into outer space.

[Dog-One]

Honestly I do agree with an article I read quite a long tome ago that there is no such thing as gravity as people understand it, as it is a push not a pull. Nearing a large body the radiation slows down the push from the other side so in essence you are being pushed into the large body from the unobstructed side. Floating in space unobstructed from all sides until you come to a large body or mass able to slow the push down from one side thus pushed into the planet or mass.

I don't think gravity is actually a primordial force.  It's more likely an
artifact of forces that are primordial.  Mr. Tesla spoke of it.  There is a
force that perpetuates a free flow (of something, maybe energy ?)
within the universe and where there is an obstacle (large mass), this
force builds due to the resistance of the obstruction.  Think of it as
the universe being pressurized.  Or as some scientists speculate,
mass is a condensate of energy and where there is mass, the energy
naturally flows toward it to fill the void of energy created by the
mass.  When near the surface of the mass where there is the maximum
degree of condensation happening, a tiny force develops that we
label as gravity.

I've read some stuff explaining how the planets in our solar system
appear to gaining mass and the calculations seem to indicate not all
that gain can be accounted for by celestial body impacts.  So the
planets are literally growing--converting energy mostly from our
sun into mass.  That's pretty cool when you think about it.  The formula
E = MC² operating in reverse of how we normally think about it.
Imagine how much energy it would take to grow a planet enough to
be noticeable.  That's a lot of Joules.

[sm0ky2]

Downward gravitational acceleration is simply the inverse of the buoyant vertical acceleration.
Both are the same force, with opposite magnitudes.
Displacement


Archimedes describes this using fluids and solids but the same applies also to gasses.
Displacement calculations describe gravity more accurately than any commonly accepted gravitational theory. Which is why when we need accurate gravity data, we still use Archimedes' mathematics. (when less precision is required Newton does the job fine)


We can also perfectly describe interactions between galaxies using this math.
Not just in one direction (gravitational attraction) but in both, to include galaxies that are moving further apart.


As for "what the force is" , it doesnt seem likely that we will ever truly know.
It is imperceptible to most of our senses, much like magnetism.
What we do know is it is governed not by the mass of the object, but that masses density.


the Poisson equation would includes a partial assessment, but fundamentally all of our theories break at large scales. This is why we invent fudge factor concepts like "dark matter" and "dark energy". These represent the magnitude of error in our gravity theories.


Rather than correcting our theories, it is easier for conceited professors to imagine an unknown, undetectable quantity that 'must be' throwing off their equations.
Perhaps.....  but it equally likely that the problems lie in the theories themselves.


Even general relativity breaks, giving rise to the need for special relativity, which also breaks,


Expansion is a complete farce'


Originally conceived to explain why we are curiously moving away from a majority of the closest galaxies to us (and the first ones we were able to observe)
But the premise indicates we cannot ever test or prove these theories.
And also expansion cannot be observed. Not in galaxies, not in entire regions of the universe.


Not because we haven't looked, and not because it isn't there (it isn't, but that's irrelevant)
But because of what it is described as.
In short it says that the distance between any two points is expanding.
The meter (being a measurement of a distance between two points) would therefore be expanding at the same rate.
As would the Joule and the Newton.
We could never possibly observe expansion because our tools for observation themselves would also be expanding: my conclusion: expansion theories are irrelevant to our observations of galaxies, it cannot even be defined as a cause of anything we can observe.


Since the proposal of expansion theories, we have discovered countless more galaxies and observe them moving in all conceivable relative directions. Thus our original observations that led to expansion theories were incomplete to begin with.
It is also important to note that if the Joule is expanding, entropy is broken.


The true age of our universe is now under question as we are now able to observe galaxies beyond the distance we defined as "the beginning of time".
Thus, Big Bang theory is (at very least) inaccurate, at worst: never was real to begin with.

[sm0ky2]

@theDogOne:


Part of this problem comes from the way we classify that data.
'impact' can mean physical: those meteorites that actually hit the ground:
                           Atmospheric: 'shooting stars': those meteorites that burn up in the atmosphere.
But should ALSO include the ice, the dust, and unobserved tiny pebbles, the gasses that accumulate towards a planetary body, etc, etc.
This is a highly controversial subject, because when fully calculated explains rising sea levels
and counteracts trillions of $$$ in climate change research and political agendas.