0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

So what is the problem with that?

"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, Tidal is based on Gravitational fields, it is renewable and it is not though of to be ceased in near future.

As long as there is gravitational field - there is Tidal.As long as there is Tidal - there is renewable energy source.

Do you still see any contradiction with conservation of energy?

Quote from: Dave LevSo, Tidal is based on Gravitational fields, it is renewable and it is not though of to be ceased in near future."Near future" being the operative word there. It will run out eventually.

Quote from: Dave LevDo you still see any contradiction with conservation of energy?You can answer that question yourself. Just ask yourself "does this create new energy?" If the answer is "yes", then you've contradicted the law of conservation of energy.

You can answer that question yourself. Just ask yourself "does this create new energy?" If the answer is "yes", then you've contradicted the law of conservation of energy.

Well, the answer is clearly YES, while there is no contradiction with the law of conservation of energy .

"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."I bolded four words in that sentence. Can you read them? What do they say?

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.

I bolded four words in that sentence. Can you read them? What do they say?

I will wait until you answer these questions.

Let's look at the Moon.Its face is locked with the Earth.Therefore, The tidal bulge doesn't cross its surface. It is a frozen Tidal Bulge. Hence, there is no new energy due to Tidal and therefore, the moon is a frozen object.That is correct, as long as the object is only affected by one main orbital object.However, let's assume that around the moon we will set four objects. Each object will be in the size of 1/1000 Moon mass and each one orbits at a different radius (R, 1.2R 1.4R, 1.6R) and different direction.Let's assume that the Moon and all of those four objects have totally lost their rotational energy.So, the question is:Could it be that a tidal energy can be created at this moon although it has totally lost its rotational energy?The answer should be -YES!!!If you need an explanation - I will be happy to give.So, we can see that without any need for rotation, tidal forces can set new energy.That is exactly the case with our SMBH.Let's assume that it doesn't rotate at all.Let's even start with the assumption that it is a totally frozen object.However, there are so many objects that are orbiting around that SMBH (Lets also assume that none has a rotation energy).So, each object orbits at a different radius and even at a different orbital direction.Therefore, Each one of them sets a small moving tidal bulge on the SMBH.Each tidal bulge must set some small tidal energy as it cross the SMBH surface.The Impact of millions tidal's bulge that are crossing that surface at different directions and amplitude must cause Ultra high tidal energy at the SMBH.Therefore, even if the SMBH was frozen, after some time it Must be melted from the Ultra high energy of that tidal activity.Therefore, Tidal energy is a NEW energy.It is a direct outcome from gravity force.So, as long as the gravity is there, and there are more than just one orbital object - we should get new tidal energy even if the rotation of all the objects is Zero!.

This statement is fully correct

but it is totally irrelevant for our discussion.

I have clearly proved that tidal gravity energy is/could be a new energy.

energy cannot be created

1. Do you agree that tidal gravity can set energy?

2. If yes, do you agree that our scientists think that this energy is only a transformation from the rotational activity of the main object? In other words, they think that the earth gain tidal energy from the Moon, but that energy must reduce the rotational velocity of the earth.

3. If Yes, do you agree that by using two moons (at a different radius/orbital velocity), than even if all the three objects have totally lost their rotational ability, and the Earth is fully faced locked with one of the moons, the other moon can easily set a Tidal energy on the earth?

4. Do you agree that without the ability to rotate, than this tidal energy must be a new energy by definition???

5. So, do you agree that even if our SMBH has totally lost its rotational ability, all the orbital objects around it must create new tidal energy on that SMBH?

For that reason, any energy present isn't "new" energy. It has always existed in one form or another.Now, do you understand that "energy cannot be created" and "energy can be created" are opposite, mutually-exclusive statements?

It seems that I don't understand correctly the real meaning of the following law:

The main question is: Do we have to count in this law also the gravity forces, especially - tidal forces (or tidal gravity energy)?

1. If the tidal force is part of the " law of conservation of energy" than any energy that it generates can't be considered as new energy. Therefore, any energy that tidal gravity force generates does not violate that law.

QuoteThe main question is: Do we have to count in this law also the gravity forces, especially - tidal forces (or tidal gravity energy)?Yes, because "tidal gravity energy" is energy and "energy cannot be created".

Once we agree on that we have actually solved the main problem with the " law of conservation of energy".

QuoteOnce we agree on that we have actually solved the main problem with the " law of conservation of energy".Only so long as you recognize that the total energy is finite and does not increase over time because energy cannot be created.

when we look at any orbital system, we have to count the following energies:1. Orbital kinetic energy (current orbital kinetic energy due to gravity force)2. Potential energy (Future energy that can be converted into "falling" kinetic energy due to gravity force)3. Current Tidal energy (current heat due to tidal gravity force)4. Potential tidal energy (Future heat due to tidal gravity force)

If gravity forces stay forever in the Milky Way than we can clearly claim that the total energy of the Milky Way is infinite.

What our scientists expect to see in the universe if we will come back 10^Billion years from now (or infinite time from now)?

No. If the galaxy contained an infinite amount of energy, it would collapse into a black hole. The amount of gravity generated by a given amount of mass is finite and it doesn't change over time. Likewise, the gravitational potential energy is finite and (if distance and mass is held constant) doesn't change over time either.

Gravity doesn't get weaker over time.

However, potential energy no 4 is there as long as there is orbital system.

So, as long as there is a gravity force, and as long as the main orbital system has at least two orbital objects, it must gain tidal heat energy.

Therefore, in one hand it doesn't increase at any given moment the current energy to infinity.

However, on the other hand, as long as the orbital system works - the potential tidal energy is converted to real heat.

Therefore, if the orbital system works forever (infinite) the accumulated Tidal heat is also infinite.

So simple and clear.

QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:31:49However, potential energy no 4 is there as long as there is orbital system.No.(1) That energy is finite (if it was infinite, it would be a black hole of infinite size).(2) That energy is converted into other forms over time, eventually resulting in no more tidal heating. Any finite amount of potential energy being changed into other forms over time must mean that the potential energy eventually goes to zero. If you pour water out of a 10 liter bucket, then the bucket will eventually be empty because it has a limited capacity. The bucket cannot create new water. It's the same way with energy.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:31:49However, potential energy no 4 is there as long as there is orbital system.

No. That would violate conservation of energy. We already know that the energy is finite, so that tidal heating converts that potential energy into other forms until it is all gone. Then no more tidal heating occurs. In order for tidal heating to continue forever, new energy would have to be created. Of course, as we know, "energy cannot be created". Gravity alone doesn't cause tidal heating, which is something I've told you many times.

"Energy cannot be created". You seem to keep forgetting that. If you propose that the energy in the future is higher than the energy now, then you have violated conservation of energy.

Why do you struggle so much with "energy cannot be created"? If you were isolated with 78 rubber balls and there was a physical law that stated, "rubber balls cannot be created or destroyed", then you can never have more than 78 rubber balls. You can rearrange them all you want to, wait as long as you want to, throw and catch them as much as you want to, but you'll never have more than 78 of them. It's exactly the same way with energy. Your black hole can never make energy.

So let me ask you this again: do you realize that "energy cannot be created" and "energy can be created" are opposite, mutually-exclusive statements? Which one of those statements is in accordance with the law of conservation of energy?

I will wait until you have addressed this:Quote from: Kryptid on 18/11/2019 08:08:48So let me ask you this again: do you realize that "energy cannot be created" and "energy can be created" are opposite, mutually-exclusive statements? Which one of those statements is in accordance with the law of conservation of energy?

Energy is not created - it is transformed.

The energy is locked in the potential tidal gravitational energy (remember no 4?).

However, as this potential energy is fully based on gravitational force, than as long as gravitational force is working - then the transformation of that potential energy to heat is also working.

To show this, consider the equation to calculate tidal heating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heatingE_{tidal} = -Im(k_{2})(21/2)((R^{5}n^{5}e^{2})/G), where"E_{tidal}" is the rate of tidal heating in watts"-Im(k_{2})" is the efficiency of body dissipation (a dimensionless parameter)"R" is the radius of the body in meters"n" is the body's mean orbital motion in radians per second"e" is the orbital eccentricity, and"G" is the gravitational constantIf I calculate this heating rate for something like Io:E_{tidal} = -Im(k_{2})(21/2)((R^{5}n^{5}e^{2})/G)E_{tidal} = -(0.005)(10.5)(((1,822,000)^{5})((4.1 x 10^{-5})^{5})((0.0041)^{2}))/(6.674 x 10^{-11})E_{tidal} = (-10.5)((2 x 10^{31})(1.159 x 10^{-22})(1.681 x 10^{-5}))/6.674 x 10^{-11})E_{tidal} = -6.13 x 10^{15} wattsBut what happens if we modify the scenario where the tidal forces are constant? That is, what if we take away the orbital eccentricity?E_{tidal} = -Im([k_{2})(21/2)((R^{5}n^{5}e^{2})/G)E_{tidal} = -(0.005)(10.5)(((1,822,000)^{5})((4.1 x 10^{-5})^{5})((0.0)^{2}))/(6.674 x 10^{-11})E_{tidal} = (-10.5)((2 x 10^{31})(1.159 x 10^{-22})(0))/6.674 x 10^{-11})E_{tidal} = 0 wattsThe power is zero watts. No heat is generated at all.

Our scientists think that the Tidal energy dissipation reduces the rotational orbit of the object.I have already proved that this idea is totally incorrect.

However, I start to think that there is a possibility that the tidal heat energy is reducing the orbital kinetic energy.Therefore, as the tidal heat is accumulated over time, the orbital kinetic energy is reducing over time.The orbital kinetic energy sets the orbital velocity.Hence, the orbital velocity is reducing over time.In order to keep the object at the reduced orbital velocity it must increase its radius.Otherwise it must fall in.

If that is correct- than by definition every orbital object is receding from its main central host object over time.

What do you think about it?