0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A star isn't an elastic ball that can observe the kick energy and restore it for its kinetic movement.
It is a solid object that keeps its ball shape due to gravity force.
Did you try to calculate the energy that holds any atoms in the star?
If an atom at the surface of the star will get that kind of energy, how it should react?
It is quite clear to me that if you kick a star with an energy of 4.97125 x 10^41 joules, that energy is much stronger than the total gravity energy that keeps the atoms together in order to set the ball shape.
However, Supernova is not just a pure energy. It comes with big broken objects.We all know the outcome of one big object collision with the earth 65 million year ago (and it was not due to supernova, just a free falling object).If some of the big broken objects from the supernova hit a nearby star at that ultra energy, they should cross though the star even before the star can open his eyes.So, in a few moments the whole star should be broken to pieces by that ultra energy that comes with big broken objects.It is similar to shooting a ballet into a water melon.
Try to do it and verify the outcome.
Therefore, supernova can't just kick a nearby star in order to gain the 1200Km/s without breaking it to pieces.
There is another issue - Star density.We have a solid observation that in our aria the star density is 512 stars per 100 Ly.So, if the supernova took place in the same radius as we are, it should affect several hundreds of stars.Therefore, even if we accept the impossible mission and somehow it could deliver the requested energy, than why do we see only one lonely star at 1200Km/s?Where are all the other nearby stars that were affected by that mighty supernova energy?
I'm finished talking about this hypervelocity star issue. It doesn't have anything to do with conservation of energy.The logic is very simple.Does your model create energy? Yes.Does the law of conservation of energy forbid the creation of energy? Yes.Is the law of conservation of energy a law of physics? Yes.
4.97125 x 1041 joules is smaller than 5.6741 x 1041 joules, so you are objectively wrong.
If you set this calculation you would surly find that the requested current potential energy represents 10^n times the current kinetic energy. Therefore, the Kinetic energy at the first moment due to the supernova, should be in the range of4.97125 x 10^(41+n) joulesThat first kick energy must be significantly higher than the 5.6741 x 10^41 joules
Therefore, by using your idea of the conservation of energy, I have proved that the requested first moment kinetic energy that is needed for this Hyper star, must break it to it's atoms.
Therefore, by using your idea of the conservation of energy, I have proved that the requested first moment kinetic energy that is needed for this Hyper star, must break it to it's atoms.We can ask also, why none of those Hyper stars don't fall back to the center of the galaxy?Actually, the galaxy is crossing the space at a speed of 600Km/s.It radius is more than 50,000 Ly.We already know that there are more stars in the open space outside the galaxies than the total number in all the galaxies.So, any star outside the galaxy had quite high potential energy (with regards to the galaxy center)Therefore, it is expected that all the stars in the path of the milky way should fall in.Similar to the falling meteorites on Earth.How many fall in stars do we see?One Million? One Thousand? or none?How could it be that not even a single star can fall into the galaxy?Don't they have any basic knowledge about the conservation of energy?How could it be that they refuse to convert their high potential energy to Kinetic energy and fall in? Sorry, the outcome is very clear - Our scientists don't have a clue how gravity really works in the galaxy.Once you understand how gravity works in the galaxy, then let's discuss about the gravitational conservation of energy in the galaxy.
You haven't proven anything until you've done that math. You're simply assuming that it's higher than the star's binding energy. Even if you did prove it to be the case, it wouldn't matter because it has nothing to do with the fact that your model violates conservation of energy.
Hence, they will move directly to each other until the final collision.
Therefore, do you agree that the potential energy can ONLY be converted into falling kinetic energy (which is represented by Vp).We know that in the open space objects maintain their momentum.So, if Vp represents a velocity vector between the two objects, Do you see any possibility to convert that Vp to Vk?If we can't convert Vp to Vk how could it be that Potential energy is part of the total orbital energy?
If we can't convert Vp to Vk how could it be that Potential energy is part of the total orbital energy?How can we discuss on conservation of orbital energy, if in the reality, a potential energy can't be transformed into orbital kinetic energy?
In the same token, let me ask how the accretion disc had been formed?Let's assume that once upon a time there was a BH or a SMBH without any accretion disc.Do you agree that any in falling atom or star should fall directly to that BH/SMBH?So, how could it be that suddenly the Vp (in falling velocity vector due to potential energy) which was in a direct line between the Atom/star to the BH/SMBH is shifted by 90 degrees in order to be converted into a Vk (orbital velocity vector) at almost the speed of light?
QuoteIf we can't convert Vp to Vk how could it be that Potential energy is part of the total orbital energy?How can we discuss on conservation of orbital energy, if in the reality, a potential energy can't be transformed into orbital kinetic energy?It can be converted. It's happening constantly in eccentric orbits. As a planet approaches perihelion (the closest point to the Sun in its orbit), it speeds up. This speed increase comes from a conversion of the planet's gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. Once it passes perihelion, it starts moving further away from the Sun and begins to convert its kinetic energy back into potential energy, slowing it down.
t's unwise to assume that all stars and particles will be traveling in a straight line towards the black hole. Conservation of momentum and the initial trajectories and velocities are relevant.
Therefore, Vp represents a Velocity vector between the center of mass of the two objects.
If they don't have any orbital velocity, is there any possibility for the Vp to be shifted by 90 degrees in order to be transformed into new orbital velocity Vk?
I assume that if we could add wings to the object than this might help.So, if one of the objects is an airplane or shuttle, it could convert its Vp into Vk.
Another possibility is by adding external force as magnetic field or rocket.
Why not?
Let's assume that the objects have already some low orbital kinetic energy (too low for a stable orbital cycle)So, due to the Conservation of momentum they will keep that orbital velocity.
However, as the Vp (Falling velocity due to potential energy) is forcing the objects to get closer every cycle, eventually - they must collide with each other.
If you have an idea how to convert the Vp by 90 degrees to - new Vk (orbital velocity), without external force or wings - than please show it mathematically.
No, it doesn't. Potential energy is energy. It isn't a velocity. It isn't a vector.
If two objects are falling towards each other in a straight line, yes, some other force would have to be added in order to get an orbit out of it.
Because stars and particles will have their own random trajectories and velocities before getting anywhere near the black hole
No they won't. The black hole's gravity will accelerate them. Momentum will be conserved because some of the momentum will be transferred to the black hole via gravitational force
It won't necessarily force them to get closer each cycle. It all depends on the specifics.
Probability alone strongly suggests that any given star or particle will not be traveling directly towards the black hole on a straight path. Conservation of momentum won't let the particle or star suddenly stop its current trajectory and fall in a straight line towards the black hole. It will follow a curved path instead.
Enough of this. No more irrelevant talk. You have consistently avoided the key issue. So answer this question: Is orbital energy a form of energy?
Hence, this issue is much more important than any other open issue including the conservation of energy.
It doesn't matter how important you think it is, we both agreed that we will focus on conservation of energy until that particular issue is resolved. So answer my question: is orbital energy a form of energy?
Yes it is.
In order to get better understanding about the gravitational conservation of energy let me use the following example for Newton’s orbital cannon:https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/images/269-newton-s-orbital-cannon"Newton reasoned that, if the cannon ball was fired with exactly the right velocity, the ball would travel completely around the Earth, always falling in the gravitational field but never reaching the Earth, which is curving away at the same rate that the projectile falls. It would be placed in orbit around the Earth."What do we understand from that:1. Potential energy: it is stated clearly that the ball is "always falling in the gravitational field" to the Earth (actually to the center of the Earth.That proves that the potential energy of the ball is converted constantly to a falling kinetic energy.2. Orbital kinetic energy - It is also stated that "if the cannon ball was fired with exactly the right velocity" "It would be placed in orbit around the Earth"So, if its orbital kinetic energy can exactly compensate its free falling energy (due to its potential energy) "It would be placed in orbit around the Earth".In other words:If we shoot that ball at the correct velocity (with correct orbital kinetic energy) high enough from the earth surface than although the ball is always converts its potential energy to in falling kinetic energy "It would be placed in orbit around the Earth" - forever (assuming that there is no friction as air),.So, the ball keeps its orbital velocity/Orbital kinetic energy.The Potential energy has one mission. To force that ball to meet the earth, while the orbital kinetic energy keeps that ball in the same shooting velocity.Therefore, when we discuss on conservation of energy in orbital cycle, we actually discuss on conservation energy of orbital kinetic energy.That proves that the potential energy can't be converted into orbital kinetic energy.On the contrary. the potential energy is constantly forcing the ball to fall directly to earth while the kinetic energy keeps it in a constant orbital cycle.Therefore, I wonder what is the added value of Total Kinetic Energy?Our scientists claim thatTotal Orbital Kinetic energy = Orbital kinetic energy + Potential energyHowever, based on Newton’s orbital cannon it seems to me that we should claim that:Total Orbital Kinetic energy = Only the Orbital kinetic energyTotal energy = Orbital kinetic energy + Potential energyHence, due to the Momentum conservation in space (no friction) there is a conservation of energy only in the Orbital Kinetic energy.Now, let's assume that we gave that Newton's cannon ball the correct orbital velocity in order to keep it at constant orbital cycle around the earth.As there is no friction, the orbital velocity should stay at the same orbital radius forever.The value of the requested velocity is:V^2 = MG/rThat velocity is called the "magic velocity"https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/what-is-orbital-velocity.html"Newton realized that when the ball is propelled at a certain, magic velocity, it will never fall."It is also stated:"One can infer from the expression that first, the velocity decreases with r, the orbit’s distance from the center of Earth. This means that satellites orbiting closer to Earth’s surface must travel faster than satellites orbiting further away. The moon, which lies almost 385,000 km away, races around us at 1.002 km/s, while the International Space Station (ISS), merely 400 km away, completes a lap every 1.5 hours, racing at 7.67 km/s. Secondly, the velocity is independent of the mass m of the orbiter, which means that a multimillion-ton moon or a single-gram nail must travel at the same velocity to achieve orbit around Earth (at the same distance, r, that is)."It is clear that as the ball will be placed higher from the Earth the requested orbital velocity should be lower and vice versa.Hence, if the ball or Moon is already in a stable orbital cycle and we push it inwards (to the earth) its current orbital velocity would be too low to keep it in a stable orbital velocity (at a shorter radius) and therefore it should eventually fall in.In the same token, if the ball or Moon is in a stable orbital cycle and we pull it outwards (from the earth) it's current orbital velocity would be too high too keep it in a stable orbital velocity (at a higher radius) and it should eventually escape from the gravitational Earth.https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Newtons-cannonball-3.jpgConclusion -I have proved that the potential energy can't increase the orbital kinetic energy.At the maximum, due to the momentum conservation or energy conservation, that energy will stay as is forever.Therefore, the assumption that a practical can increase its orbital velocity to almost the speed of light as it falls into the SMBH is a pure imagination.
This sounds like you are attacking existing orbital models instead of defending your own model. As I said before, evidence against an existing model is not evidence in favor of your model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaRight now, we are to focus our discussion on the energetic mechanism behind your model as per our mutual agreement.
Dear KryptidNewton have proved by it's "orbital cannon" that Potential energy can't be transformed into orbital kinetic energy.Do you agree with that?Please answer: Yes or NoThis is the most important issue in our discussion on the energetic mechanism for orbital systems.How could it be that there are so many orbital systems in our galaxy/universe while there is no way to increase any orbital kinetic energy by potential energy.If the potential energy can't be used as a source of orbital kinetic energy, than what could be the source for that?Newton have found that "if the cannon ball was fired with exactly the right velocity", and gaining the "magic orbital velocity" "it would be placed in orbit around the Earth".So, we all understand that a canon can set the requested energy that is needed for a stable orbital system.What kind of "canon" the Universe is using in order to set all of those orbital systems in the galaxy?How that "canon" could set the magic velocity that perfectly fits any orbital system?What is the real source for the orbital kinetic energy in our universe?
We are not focusing on that right now as per our prior agreement to focus purely on how your model deals with conservation of energy.
If you wish to focus on my model or any sort of model, don't you think that first you must know how the gravitational conservation of energy really works?
That shows that your understanding about conservation of energy is very poor.
So how can you speak in the name of the conservation of energy in my model while your current understanding/assumption in this key issue is totally incorrect?
It seems like you are now claiming that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is not the definition of the law of conservation of energy. Is this what you are saying?
https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Newtons-cannonball-3.jpg
The question is: What Newton is claiming by its Cannon ball example?
Newton shows that any orbital object must be boosted horizontally at the magic velocity in order to keep it in an orbital path.Nothing is random in orbital system. You can't just hope to boost an orbital object at a random velocity and wish that that somehow those objects will set an orbital systemThis is IMAGINATIONIf that velocity is too law it will fall directly to the main object, if it is too high it will be ejected outwards.Newton gave us the clear understanding that potential energy can't be transformed into Kinetic energy.So, the outcome is quite simple.1. There is no way to increase the Orbital kinetic energy by decreasing the potential energy.2. Therefore, there is no way to increase the orbital velocity of the object by decreasing the potential energy. This is the most important issue in all our discussions so far!!!3. Hence, if an object orbits at the magic velocity which keeps it in the orbital path, it can't increase that velocity (even if it falls in). In other words - Orbital objects couldn't increase their orbital velocity as they decrease their radius to the main object4. Therefore, due to the conservation energy (kinetic orbital energy) if the orbital object is decreasing its radius while it can't increase its orbital velocity, it breaks the magic orbital velocity and therefore it must collide with the main object.5. In the same token - if the orbital object is increasing its radius while it can't decrease its orbital velocity, it breaks the magic orbital velocity and therefore it must ejected outwards.Do you agree with all of that?If you don't agree than you don't accept Newton's cannon ball explanation for gravity
No, the question is about conservation of energy. This is a question that you seem to be afraid of answering because you know it kills your model.
So now that I've addressed that, it's time for you to do your part and finally answer my question:What is the definition of the law of conservation of energy?If you respond with an answer that isn't the conventional one (and you know what it is), then I will ask for you to supply an authoritative, scientific source to back up your definition. I will not respond to any further arguments from you until you have finally answered this question in a non-dodging manner.
I will wait until you have answered this:What is the definition of the law of conservation of energy?.
The SMBH's ultra high gravity force sets a tidal impact on the SMBH itself.That tidal force generates extra heat/extra core rotation that increases the ultra high electromagnetic field.Some of that electromagnetic energy is used to transformed the virtual pair particle into real pair particle.