[Kryptid]

A star isn't an elastic ball that can observe the kick energy and restore it for its kinetic movement.

Stars are very elastic because they are composed entirely of fluid.

It is a solid object that keeps its ball shape due to gravity force.

Stars are "ball-shaped" and are held together by gravity despite the fact that they aren't solid.

Did you try to calculate the energy that holds any atoms in the star?

That's exactly what the gravitational binding energy is.

If an atom at the surface of the star will get that kind of energy, how it should react?

The outer layers of the star would indeed be removed by the explosion (explaining why the star is an O-type subdwarf), but the total binding energy is too high to destroy the entire star.

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.

4.97125 x 10⁴¹ joules is smaller than 5.6741 x 10⁴¹ joules, so you are objectively wrong.

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.

Supernovas don't have have anything solid in them. They are too hot.

Try to do it and verify the outcome.

I don't need to because I already have. The amount of energy needed to destroy the star is known. If the energy applied is less than that, the star won't be destroyed.

Therefore, supernova can't just kick a nearby star in order to gain the 1200Km/s without breaking it to pieces.

The math says otherwise.

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?

Because of the inverse-square law. The other stars are much, much further away from the supernova than the hypervelocity star would have been. That system would have been what is known as a cataclysmic variable, where two stars are so close together that the outer layers of the larger star are slowly pulled off by the gravity of the white dwarf. Such systems can be so compact that it only takes hours for them to orbit each other. That would make them far closer to each other than even Mercury is to the Sun.

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.
Therefore, your model violates a law of physics and must be wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Yes it is.
You discuss on the name of the gravitational conservation of energy in the galaxy.
However, in order to discuss about that key issue, do you really understand how gravity works in the galaxy?
So, we already know the conservation of energy between the potential energy to kinetic energy.
We all know that if we want to lift an object from the surface of the earth, we need to set a kinetic energy.
Therefore, if we shoot a bullet up to the air at very high velocity, that velocity represents a kinetic energy.
That kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy.
Therefore, as the bullet goes higher its velocity is decreasing.
At some point, (if we ignore the friction) when the potential energy is equal to the First moment kinetic energy, the bullet should stop completely and than fall back.
That is how gravity works on earth.
So, let's go back to our galaxy.
As this hyper star is climbing above the center of the galaxy, it increases its potential energy.
Therefore, its kinetic energy should go down as it goes higher and higher.
As it is moving away from the center of the galaxy, every moment it must gain higher potential energy and therefore, it also must decrease its kinetic energy due to the conservation of energy.
Therefore if we want to verify the first moment kinetic energy, we must add to that  4.97125 x 10^41 joules, all the kinetic energy that had been transformed into potential energy.
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 of
4.97125 x 10^(41+n) joules
That first kick energy must be significantly higher than the 5.6741 x 10^41 joules

4.97125 x 1041 joules is smaller than 5.6741 x 1041 joules, so you are objectively wrong.

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.

[Kryptid]

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 of
4.97125 x 10^(41+n) joules
That first kick energy must be significantly higher than the 5.6741 x 10^41 joules

Then do the math and prove it.

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.

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.

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.

This is nothing more than another set of unevidenced assumptions and misundestandings that is irrelevant to the fact that the law of conservation of energy won't let your model work. It's just another attempt to distract me. We wouldn't even need to know how gravity worked (even though we do understand it much better than you do) in order to know that the law of conservation of energy does work. That alone would tell us all we need to know about the energetics associated with gravity.

This first statement is true: your model proposes the creation of energy.
This second statement is also true: the law of conservation of energy doesn't allow energy to be created.
The inevitable consequence of those two statements being true should be obvious. Do you want to take a guess as to what that consequence is? Hint: it's something I have repeated innumerable times.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Let's try to understand the real meaning of Orbital energy conservation especially with regards to potential energy.
Let's assume that in the whole Universe there are only two objects.
Due to the potential energy, the gravity force will convert the potential energy into falling kinetic energy.
Hence, they will move directly to each other until the final collision. The Vector Vp (velocity due potential energy) will be in the direct line between the two objects.
We all know that in orbital kinetic energy, the Velocity Vk (Velocity due to orbital kinetic energy) must be vertically to Vp.
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?
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?

[Kryptid]

Hence, they will move directly to each other until the final collision.

If you're talking about two objects moving in a straight line towards each other then this isn't even an orbit. The concept of "orbital" energy therefore does not apply. Try to keep that in mind.

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?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. On the one hand, you are saying that potential energy can only be converted into kinetic energy and at the same time imply that there is no possibility for converting potential energy into kinetic energy. Can you clear this up?

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?

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.

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?

This is starting to get away from the energy conservation discussion again, but I will say this: it'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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

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.

Dear Kryptid
It seems to me that you didn't understand me correctly.
You discuss on a stable orbital cycle - with eccentric orbit. (Every full cycle, the distance between the objects is constant).
I don't discuss on this case.
Let's start with the meaning of Gravitational Field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy#/media/File:Gravitational_field_Earth_lines_equipotentials.svg
"Image depicting Earth's gravitational field. Objects accelerate towards the Earth, thus losing their gravitational energy and transforming it into kinetic energy."
As you can see from any direction, the vector is pointing to the center of mass.
It is also stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
Common types of potential energy include the gravitational potential energy of an object that depends on its mass and its distance from the center of mass of another object,"
Therefore, Vp represents a Velocity vector between the center of mass of the two objects.
Hence,at any distance (even if we call it - perihelion), the Vp vector will be on the direct line between the two center of mass.
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.

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.

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.

[Kryptid]

Therefore, Vp represents a Velocity vector between the center of mass of the two objects.

No, it doesn't. Potential energy is energy. It isn't a velocity. It isn't a vector.

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?

If we're talking about two objects falling directly towards each other in a straight line with no other forces at work, then no, you won't get any orbital energy because what you have isn't an orbit.

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.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with orbits (since they happen in a vacuum where wings don't work).

Another possibility is by adding external force as magnetic field or rocket.

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. I don't know what this has to do with anything, though. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the fact that gravity doesn't violate conservation of energy.

Why not?

Because stars and particles will have their own random trajectories and velocities before getting anywhere near the black hole. 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.

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.

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 forces.

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.

It won't necessarily force them to get closer each cycle. It all depends on the specifics.

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.

Why would I do that when that's not even what I'm arguing?

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

No, it doesn't. Potential energy is energy. It isn't a velocity. It isn't a vector.

Potential energy is converted into falling kinetic energy that creats a velocity vector between the two objects.

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.

Thanks
So, you agree that Vp represents the direct falling velocity between the two objects.

Because stars and particles will have their own random trajectories and velocities before getting anywhere near the black hole

Actually, I agree with you.
Therefore, I have stated that there might be some initial sort of orbital kinetic energy.

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, even if there is some sort of random orbital velocity - Vk, and that velocity can't hold a stable orbital momentum, than sooner or later the object should fall in (if it is too low) or just cross by and go away if it is too fast.

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

There is no orbital acceleration.
The only acceleration is due to potential energy.
As we all agree that potential energy set the falling in kinetic energy and that energy represents a velocity Vp of a falling object.
So, there is acceleration in the Vp vector as
Ep = MGR
But there is no acceleration in the orbital velocity due to that potential energy.

It won't necessarily force them to get closer each cycle. It all depends on the specifics.

As long as there is a stable orbital momentum with regards to the falling vector (due to potential energy) than the orbital object will get back to the same distance every full orbital cycle.

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.

This is incorrect assumption.
We can see it from our location on Earth
There are many objects/asteroids that orbit around the sun.
From time to time the earth cross their orbital path.
In this case, some of the objects are colliding/falling directly to the earth. We see them as meteorites.
However, if I understand it correctly, none really is attracted by the earth and starts its stable orbital cycle around the earth instead of the sun.
Hence, the Conservation of momentum won't let any object/asteroid/particle suddenly to change its current trajectory/velocity and starts its orbital cycle around the Earth or any other main object including the BH/SMBH.

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?

This is the most important issue in all our discussion so far!!!
I have proved that random trajectories or velocities around the object can't hold a stable orbital cycle by itself.
This proves that our assumption that somehow objects start to orbit around each other is totally INCORRECT.
Our scientists must look for better explanation why there are so many objects that orbits around each other in a stable orbital cycle
Again – you can't convert any falling in kinetic energy into orbital kinetic energy!!!
However, If you are a satellite and you have full control on the power, than there is a possibility to approach the main object at the correct velocity and phase and find the correct window to get a stable orbital cycle, but this can't be done randomly (you can ask NASA about it)
Therefore, the assumption that somehow by random falling/crossing by activity, objects should orbit around each other - is the most fatal mistake of our scientists.
Hence, this issue is much more important than any other open issue including the conservation of energy.

[Kryptid]

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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 that
Total Orbital Kinetic energy = Orbital kinetic energy + Potential energy
However, based on Newton’s orbital cannon it seems to me that we should claim that:
Total Orbital Kinetic energy = Only the Orbital kinetic energy
Total energy = Orbital kinetic energy + Potential energy
Hence, 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/r
That 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.jpg

Conclusion -
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.

 

[Kryptid]

Yes it is.

Okay, good. Now what does the law of conservation of energy say?

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 that
Total Orbital Kinetic energy = Orbital kinetic energy + Potential energy
However, based on Newton’s orbital cannon it seems to me that we should claim that:
Total Orbital Kinetic energy = Only the Orbital kinetic energy
Total energy = Orbital kinetic energy + Potential energy
Hence, 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/r
That 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.jpg

Conclusion -
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_dilemma

Right now, we are to focus our discussion on the energetic mechanism behind your model as per our mutual agreement.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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_dilemma

Right now, we are to focus our discussion on the energetic mechanism behind your model as per our mutual agreement.

Dear Kryptid
Newton 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 No
This 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?

[Kryptid]

Dear Kryptid
Newton 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 No
This 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?

Again, you are trying to point out what you consider to be a short-coming in contemporary cosmological models. 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. You can keep these questions in mind for future use, if you wish, but I am going to ignore all irrelevant issues at the moment. So please don't try to move the discussion to other areas, as I will simply ignore anything that doesn't have to do with how your model is supposed to get around the conservation of energy issue.

You agreed that orbital energy is a form of energy. Next, what does the law of conservation of energy say?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?
Newton have proved with his cannon example that there is no energy transformation between potential energy to orbital kinetic energy. Therefore, that kind of assumption is a fatal error.
He also proved that in order to set a stable orbital bonding you must first set the orbital object at that "magic velocity".
Actually, we have to ask how could it be that there is any sort of change in the orbital radius.
It is a severe contradiction to the orbital magic velocity.
We all know that the moon is drifting outwards.
Due to the conservation of energy, (and as there is no transformation of energy between the orbital kinetic energy to potential energy), it shouldn't change its current kinetic orbital energy.
Therefore, theoretically, it can't increase or decrease its orbital velocity.
So, once it's drifted inwards, the current orbital velocity will be too low to keep it in the orbital path and therefore, it MUST fall in.
In the same token, once it is drifted outwards, it should eventually be ejected from the Earth.
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?

[Kryptid]

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?

How it works is already known. So what does the law of conservation of energy say?

That shows that your understanding about conservation of energy is very poor.

Except that it doesn't. I've provided links to authoritative sources clearly stating what conservation of energy is. Are you saying those links give the incorrect definition? Then what is the correct definition?

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

The question is: What Newton is claiming by its Cannon ball example?
Please look again at that image:

https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Newtons-cannonball-3.jpg

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 system
This is IMAGINATION
If that velocity is too low 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 object
4. 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

[Kryptid]

The question is: What Newton is claiming by its Cannon ball example?

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.

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 system
This is IMAGINATION
If 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 object
4. 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

These are just more misunderstandings that aren't relevant to the definition of conservation of energy. We aren't currently discussing how orbits come to be. One thing is for sure, though: the scenarios you discuss actually violate conservation of energy. Objects can't spontaneously move away from the object they orbit. That would make extra gravitational potential energy pop up out of nowhere. Therefore, conservation of energy in itself automatically demonstrates that your understanding of orbits is wrong.

However, I will address this. In return, I expect you to give me the courtesy of finally answering my question.

If you start with some simplified assumptions (such as making the orbit perfectly circular, removing all other interference such as the gravitational pulls of other objects and make the Earth and Moon perfectly-rigid, perfectly-uniform, perfect spheres) then the scenario you envision where the Moon remains at the "magic velocity" will be true. Under such circumstances, the gravitational force and the centrifugal force will perfectly balance each other and the Moon will continue to move around the Earth with a constant kinetic energy and therefore a constant velocity. In this case, it is true that gravitational potential energy cannot be transformed into orbital kinetic energy or vice-versa because there are no extraneous factors that can cause such a transformation.

As a consequence of all of these things, the orbital distance of the Moon from the Earth must also remained fixed over time. There are two different ways of looking at this: in terms of net forces and in terms of net energy,

Net forces: In order for the Moon to drift away from or towards the Earth, something would have to occur to disrupt the balance between the gravitational force and the centrifugal force. If the centrifugal force became stronger than the gravitational force, the Moon would move outward. If the gravitational force became stronger than the centrifugal force, the Moon would move inward. However, since the centrifugal force is determined by the Moon's velocity, the centrifugal force cannot change because the Moon's velocity is unchanging. The gravitational force is determined by the combined mass of the Earth and Moon. Since that mass isn't changing over time either, then the gravitational force cannot change. So the Moon, under these circumstances, is trapped at its orbital distance for all time.

Net energy: We are considering a system in isolation that has no means of transforming gravitational potential energy and orbital kinetic energy into each other. For this reason, both the gravitational potential energy and the orbital kinetic energy are constant and unchanging. This means it is impossible for the Moon to drift away from the Earth because that would result in an increase of gravitational potential energy. However, there is nowhere for this new gravitational potential energy to come from, since all forms of energy transformation are impossible in this isolated system. Likewise, the Moon can't drift towards the Earth because it has no means of shedding extra gravitational potential energy. The law of conservation of energy won't allow the Moon to spontaneously create or destroy gravitational potential energy.

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

OK
Let me start with the conservation of energy in my model.
Please look again at the following image by Newton:
https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Newtons-cannonball-3.jpg
Let's assume that in the center we have a SMBH and there is a virtual canon up above.
That virtual cannon fire a virtual pair of particles at the exact magic velocity.
I hope that you agree that so far there is no violation in the energy conservation.
The Ultra gravity force of the SMBH keeps that virtual pair in the orbital path with about the speed of light.
We all know that around the SMBH there is a very strong electromagnetic field.
At some point of time that virtual pair is converted by the electromagnetic field/energy into real particle pair.
So, due to energy conservation, some energy from the electromagnetic had been transformed into this new born particle pair.
Now we need to find the source for that electromagnetic field:
The SMBH has a very strong gravity force that holds million (or even billions) of objects in orbital cycles around it.
Those objects set strong tidal force on the SMBH that is converted to extra heat and rotates its core/or even layers in the core.
This activity increases the electromagnetic field/energy of the SMBH.
Therefore, the conservation of energy works as follow:
The SMBH's ultra high gravity force sets a tidal impact on the SMBH itself.
That tidal force generates extra heat/extra core rotatation that increases the ultra high electromagnetic field.
Some of that electromagnetic energy is used to transformed the virtual pair particle into real pair particle.
Any objection?

[Kryptid]

I will wait until you have answered this:

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I will wait until you have answered this:
What is the definition of the law of conservation of energy?.

The Law of Conservation of Energy Defined
https://www.thoughtco.com/law-of-conservation-of-energy-605849
"The law of conservation of energy is a physical law that states energy cannot be created or destroyed but may be changed from one form to another."
So, where is the problem with my model?

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.