0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
However, if there was one more moon, then by definition the Earth spin can't be locked with two moons as they orbit at different velocities.
Yes it can, because their velocities would change and they would end up locked to each other.
And I'm pretty sure the point is moot anyway, since two moons changing their orbital speed and radius due to tidal effects would approach the same orbit over time and collide with each other. Then you'd have one moon.
Hence, when the earth spin would decrease and be fully locked with the orbital motion of the moon, the earth tidal heat would be zero.
Hence, one of them must contribute tidal heat to earth.
Quote from: Halc on 04/10/2022 19:41:20Gravity isn't energy. It has different units.Yes, I fully agree that gravity isn't energy, it is a force
Gravity isn't energy. It has different units.
However, force can do work and work means energy.
You just confirmed that the radius is not effected by the tidal heat.
Hence, as the tidal heat does not change the radius or the mass why can't we claim that the tidal heat does not reduce the gravity force?
So, if we get a tidal heat without any impact on the gravity force, why can't we consider that tidal heat as a free heat due to gravity force?
Gravity isn't measured in Newtons. It's measured either in potential or the derrivative of potential, which is acceleration. A million kg has neither of those either. That's measured in units of mass. But I can specify the gravitational potential at Earth's surface, and I can specify the gravitational acceleration there. I cannot specify the energy at Earth's surface any more than I can specify the force at Earth's surface.
If you want to talk about Yahya's device specifically, then that would be okay.
If you tie a rope to a rock, then push the rock off a cliff then you can use the rope to turn the shaft of a generator and get electricity.But you can only do it once.After that you have to lift the rock back up and that takes exactly the same energy as you could get from it falling.There's nothing magical .
Dave, all of this has already been explained to you in older threads of yours that have been locked. Talking about them here is like evading the lock. Please don't bring that up here unless you want your posting privileges revoked.
So don't you agree that we could get almost unlimited electrical energy for free?
... Try to calculate the Energy for the rocket system that is needed to accomplish one full orbital cycle.So as the gravity can bend the motion of the moon without any rocket, why can't we agree that the gravity contributes same energy in Newtons that would be needed for this rocket system to do the same work?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 07/10/2022 17:18:13... Try to calculate the Energy for the rocket system that is needed to accomplish one full orbital cycle.So as the gravity can bend the motion of the moon without any rocket, why can't we agree that the gravity contributes same energy in Newtons that would be needed for this rocket system to do the same work?Imagine an astronaut alone in their spacesuit orbiting Earth (normal Earth, with mass curving spacetime).They will feel weightless.Now put them out in interstellar space away from any noticeable gravity, and have them take the exact same path as that orbit - with your rocket idea.They will feel the acceleration from the rocket.
Take a look at what "free fall" means. Your equivalence (gravity vs rocket) is false.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 07/10/2022 17:29:26So don't you agree that we could get almost unlimited electrical energy for free?All that would do is drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy for whatever application you end up using the energy for, causing the rock's orbit to decay. It isn't creating energy out of nothing.
I dont see any picture in the .jpg, so i cant understand anything you are talking about.I am surprised that some other are doing some comment, so they probably see something... or perhaps are used about saying nothing about nothing.Of that post, this bitQuote from: Deecart on 03/10/2022 19:55:49I dont see any picture in the .jpgwas informative.
Your logic seems to be physical only. How do you cope?
Do you agree that there is a contrediction between "rock's orbit to decay" to "drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy"
Now, let's assume that we would connect the electrical wire to the moon instead of that rock.Do you claim that the moon's orbit would also be decay and the moon would be drifted inwards, although we know that the moon constantly drifts outwards and decreasing its orbital momentum?
It seems he's trying to rationalize atoms using vibrations as sound energy released (2014 showed artificial atoms having a sound interaction) and the unknown elements of cosmological expansions in magnetic form. There's only two forms that can possibly come close. 2^n with spheres (dangerous at n=d=9)and a line interpretation.
This is the first obvious error.Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 02/10/2022 08:06:39In 2 I use very small force to move the piece of iron Horizontally. There is not a resistance force,
In 2 I use very small force to move the piece of iron Horizontally. There is not a resistance force,