nonameyet

I’m thinking of something like a silo that would be placed in the middle of a body of a water when the water level gets too high it would pump water into the large volume silo. Now the silo’s could be built in space orbit the planet and be connected to nano carbon tubes then feed the water to the silo by siphoning up when the vacuum on the silos is released, filling the silo and decreasing the water level. Would this be feasible if we had no choice with global warming as a preventative measure to stopping global flooding, if not what makes this impossible now?(besides nano carbon not being ready, and obvious fact we should be trying to save the planet). ps not trolling.

Alright, for starter i’m just a guy who is curious about some aspects of science. I completely agree with the way scientist describe gravity but I’d like to build some familiarity with terms used and names of scientist and names of theories to correct or add to my understanding of gravity. I’ll explain my level of how I visualize it even though it doesn’t completely consider every. This is just how i visualize it to understand the actual theory. Ok so to begin the way I imagine gravity working vs the way its described to me. The way I imagine gravity working is sort of like oil and water in the sense that matter and space aren’t the same thing you can’t mix them together and get something in between, Without an emulsifier at least. So I imagine the earth and the sun being suspended in water rather than space. and the matter is oil. alright so in this scenario I cut the earth in half. 2 thing are apparent. the surface area increases but the volume of water being displaced does not. Which means now that they(as 2 separate parts of a whole) have more surface area but the same mass. So the most efficient way they want to exist in space is to have the the least amount of surface area but the greatest mass. So basically I don’t find gravitons feasible because all it really takes for 2 objects to get pushed together is for it to be more efficient to have the same the same amount of mass with the least amount of surface area. also isn’t it possible that the big bang was rather a diffusion of particles in a high concentration and time is like the reverse of a emulsifier as in when all the highly concentrated particles in the vastness of space had the highest concentration gradient because space has negative density the gradient cause a super fast explosive diffusion upon the introduction of time. But then as the heavy particles began to lose energy and mass and became smaller the particles. so basically space has no mass no density no energy but mass as it loses energy it begins to settle. if you understand where i’m going or know what I might be thinking incorrectly to see it that way feel free to let me know or share resources which will help me get a better understanding. Thanks for reading all comment are appreciated. btw negative comments or calling me dumb wont bother me as i’m here to increase my understanding so feel free to say what you like no matter how harsh because i’m here to learn and appreciate it regardless of form.