Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390824
Show key headers only | View raw
Am 24.08.2016 20:23, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > On 24/08/16 15:37, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 24.08.2016 03:19, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> >>>>>> Question is, how to get the salt out. >>>>> >>>>> That takes ENERGY...lot of it! >>> >>>> Well, yes. But energy isn't a big problem neither. It is a problem, but >>>> not of the kind, which could not be solved. >>>> >>>> So, now (cheap!) energy sources are required, which enable to de-salt >>>> huge amounts of sea-water. >>>> >>>> Should be possible, but I actually do not to speculate about the >>>> details. >>> >>> Have you heard of Dubai? It has been using oil for desalination but its >>> reserves are now running out. Right now, 3,000,000 people live in >>> inhospitable desert. What do you think will happen to them without >>> energy? Incidentally, Dubai has no sewerage system an has to cart all >>> waste into a remote spot in the desert where it is dumped. >> >> >> I have heard about a process called 'reverted osmosis', which allows to >> desalt water. >> >> Possibly the Dubains could buy a few of these machines and create >> desalted water. > > I think they do that already...but it is still uses a lot of > energy....pushing water through membranes at 400 psi.... > >> As possible energy source they have actually the sun, which shines a lot >> in Dubai. > > The world will need lots more solar panels in future....but their energy > payback time is still quite long. > The economy of a certain system for production of electric energy does not really fall into the realm of physics. Sure, we would like to create machines, which are also a economic success. But prices of things depend too much on human decisions, hence are not a subject of sciences like physics. Whether or not solar panels are a good investment depends on the price of these panels, their output of electricity and competition in the market of electricity. Physicist usually are not concerned with attributes like prices, since what something costs on some market is not a question, that scientists decide. The Chinese have made the decision, that they want to produce lots of cheap solar panels and therefore panels get cheaper. Since Dubai has really a lot of sunshine, the investment in solar panels could eventually be profitable. But there are other possibilities, which also would solve the water-problem. E.g. they could build a water-pipelines to somewhere, where is enough water. Or they could hire ships (or build own) which transport water around the globe. There are even more possibilities and which one they chose is not a scientific question. >>> >>>> There's not much hope in such a situation, since humans have no >>>> influence upon Earth' interior, hence cannot stop the process itself. >>> >>> The Earth's interior is not to blame. The problems are mainly due to >>> human activity. >> >> Sure, human activities is causing trouble on planet Earth. >> >> But the effect you describe, which causes desertification, is not caused >> by humans, but by Earth itself. > > Sure, there are regions that get little rainfall...and they have been > deserts for many thousands of years. The changes of today have occurred > mainly in the last hundred years and are rapidly increasing in rate. Geology is not changing in a few hundred years. The proper grid for geological developments is one million years. A year for Earth is equivalent to a blink of the eye for us. Even a thousand years is a rather short span. ... >> >> I am actually kind of 'expert' in this field and have done some sort of >> 'research' for several years. Mainly I have looked at certain formations >> in Peru and Chile (on Google.Earth) and tried to figure out, how these >> landscape have formed over millions of years. > > You don't seem to know much about the Earth at all. Do you know what > sedimentary rock is? Have you heard of sub-oceanic plate movement? The > desert in Chile has been caused by the uplifting of land as the eastern > pacific plate moves underneath the W coast of S America. A combination > of cold water currents, dry trade winds and the 'rain shadow' effect has > resulted in almost zero rainfall in that whole area. Define 'knowledge'. I tell about what I think is true. If you do not agree, this is your right, as it is mine to disagree with what you regard as true. Truth is not a democratic decision and even tradition or multitudes of supporters does not render a statement valid. There is only one scale and that is nature itself, upon what a certain idea is measured. And if I say, that 'Growing Earth' is true, this is what I think is true. If this statement matches an aspect of the real world, this is true, whether or not people agree. I say, that plate tectonics is wrong in the point called 'subduction' and in the assumption of the constant size. You disagree and assume, the Earth had always the same size. These are now two distinct statements, from which one is correct while the other is not. You would apparently bet on 'steady state Earth' and I would bet on 'Growing Earth'. And I believe, that I would win. > >> Answer: the Earth was once smaller and current surface was once >> sea-floor. Former island are now mountains. And with growth of the >> planets the sea-floor went higher in respect to the mean sea-level, >> since the water flows into deeper locations, leaving former sea-floor >> behind. > > This is nonsense. Why don't you read a decent book about the geological > history of the Earth. The earth's axis regularly changes its tilt. Its > magnetic field moves around. The continents were once all connected and > are more or less 'floating' on magma. Most large mountain ranges such as > the Himalayas and Swiss alps have been formed by one land mass colliding > with another. Ice ages come and go regularly...of course there is > constant change... but the changes caused by human activity hav Actually I did not want to study geology, but was locking for an counter example to the standard model of QM. I wanted to prove, that atoms are not composed from distinct entities called 'particles' (as the standard model assumes), but are 'one thing'. I wanted to prove this, since I wanted to prove, that matter is 'relative'. So matter could be created out of nothing and 'Growing Earth' would prove this possibility - if proven. So I spent my time in trying to prove 'Growing Earth'. It was actually a lot of time and now I'm among the experts in this field. Certainly I'm not an expert in geology and do neither claim to be or actually want to become, since my aim was to prove a certain statement from the realm of theoretical physics. .. TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 15:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-17 06:56 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-18 08:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:51 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:30 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:55 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-20 06:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 08:59 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 06:51 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 19:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 04:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 22:50 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 11:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-24 07:37 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:26 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 22:14 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-27 10:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:36 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 03:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 20:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:46 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-31 09:17 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-01 18:26 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 21:04 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-03 07:05 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:52 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-04 05:20 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:20 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-05 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 20:34 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 07:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 05:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 22:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-08 13:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-09 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-09 06:53 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-10 01:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 00:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 06:50 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-10 06:16 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 19:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-10 13:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 03:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:39 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-12 06:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 07:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 03:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:37 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 18:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 07:45 +0200
csiph-web