[Kryptid]

"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."

Very good.

So, where is the problem with my model?

Your model posits the creation of energy, violating the "energy cannot be created" part of conservation of energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Your model posits the creation of energy, violating the "energy cannot be created" part of conservation of energy.

My model is based on Tidal renewable Energy:
https://energyfive.net/2017/10/07/tidal-energy/
"Tidal energy sources come from the gravitational movements of sun and moon as these creates high and low tides. When you think of it, it means that the ocean wave energy sources are renewable as compare to fossil fuels and nuclear reserves, moon and sum gravitational fields is not though of to be ceased in near future"
So, Tidal is based on Gravitational fields, it is renewable and it is not though of to be ceased in near future.
Therefore:
As long as there is gravitational field - there is Tidal.
As long as there is Tidal - there is renewable energy source.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.468..952B/abstract
"Tidally driven flow in the Earth's liquid core develops internal shear layers, which distort the internal magnetic field and generate electric currents."
As long as there is Tidal renewable energy source - There is renewable Magnetic Field
As long as there is renewable Magnetic Field - There is renewable electromagnetic energy
So what is the problem with that?
Why can't we use that renewable energy source for the pair particle creation?
Do you still see any contradiction with conservation of energy?

[Kryptid]

So what is the problem with that?

If you posit that it creates new energy, then this is the problem:

"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."

Renewable energy is not the creation of new energy nor is it unlimited.

So, 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.

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

Nope. Go back and look at the tidal energy equation. More than a source of gravity is needed.

Do 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.

[Halc]

So, 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.

In fact, over 80% of it has been used up already.  It will run completely out in 7.5 billion years, more due to the breakdown of the mechanism than to the tank running dry.  In one billion years, the energy will become very difficult to access. The energy source for tidal energy is kinetic energy, not gravity at all.  Gravity is a field or a force, not energy.

Do 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.

The whole discussion is summed up here .https://m.xkcd.com/2217/
Note the hover text, which is almost exactly your response Kryptid.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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 .
In order to understand it, let's start with the following:
http://www.isustainableearth.com/energyefficiency/tidal-power-facts-understanding-how-tidal-energy-works
Quick Fact on How Tidal Energy Slows Earth Rotation
"During our research, we found an interesting detail surrounding tidal energy and the effect its generation could have on the Earth.  Naturally the movement of tides causes a loss of mechanical energy that is associated with the Earth’s rotation.  According to some studies, our planet has actually lost 17 percent of its rotational energy in the past 620 million years."
So, our scientists assume that the Tidal energy is taken from the rotational energy of the objects.
This is incorrect assumption.
I can prove that there could be a tidal energy without any need for any rotation.
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!.

[Kryptid]

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

You said this yourself:

"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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

"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?

There is no contradiction.
Force can generate new energy:
http://energywavetheory.com/forces/force-equation/
"Force is energy over distance (F=E/r)."
In the same token we can claim that
Energy is as follow:
E = F * r
Gravity force is also a force.
Therefore, Gravity force can create new energy by tidal.
In the articale about the tidal it is stated clearly that the Tidal is a direct outcome of a gravity force.
Therefore:

1. Do you agree that Tidal energy is a direct outcome of gravity force?
2. Do you agree that by using orbital system with one main object (BH/SMBH) and several orbital objects around it (that are orbiting at different radius/directions/velocity) they MUST set tidal energy on the main object, (even if all the objects do not rotate)?

If so, do you agree that the SMBH can gain new tidal energy from all the objects that are orbiting around it (without any need to transfer the rotation energy into tidal energy).
That new energy is the source for the ultra high magnetic field around the SMBH and also for all the new particles in the accretion disc.

Let's look again at your following answer:

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.

Yes, I fully agree with your explanation that the Moon (or any orbital object) can't increase its orbital kinetic energy (with or without changing the potential energy).
We all know by now that the potential energy can't be converted into orbital kinetic energy.
So how the moon has got its orbital velocity for the first time?
How all the orbital objects in the galaxy have got their magic orbital velocity?
What was the source for the first orbital kinetic energy???
Your answer was - By random.
Sorry - there is no way to convert potential energy to orbital kinetic energy and it is very clear that there is no "random" in that Magic orbital velocity.
The answer is very simple:
All the objects in the galaxy got their first orbital energy at the moment of their creation.
Each particale in the galaxy was born around the SMBH, while it orbits at a magic velocity which is as high as the speed of light.
Those new particles had been converted into real atoms and molecular in the accretion disc and later on they were used to form new stars/planets/moons in the gas cloud around the SMBH.
From that moment, each star/planet/moon can only lose some of its magic orbital velocity (or orbital kinetic energy) over time.
That is a key element in any orbital system.
They can lose orbital kinetic energy over time but they can't gain it.
Therefore, there must be a "friction" in real orbital kinetic energy.
That "friction" force the orbital object to reduce its velocity and be drifted outwards.
Hence, the moon is drifting away from the earth over time and the Earth is drifting away from the Sun over time.
In the same token, the Sun is drifting away from the center of the galaxy over time.
As they are drifting away, they are also decreasing their orbital velocity.
Eventually, they must be ejected from the spiral Arm/disc.
Therefore, there are so many stars outside the galaxy.
Actually, for any star in the spiral galaxy, there is at least one outside.
All of those stars have been ejected from their spiral galaxy home.
None of them can come back to any spiral galaxy.
They have all lost forever.
One day, our solar system will be ejected from the Milky Way galaxy without return.

[Kryptid]

I will wait until you answer these questions.

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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I will wait until you answer these questions.

"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."

Dear Kryptid
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.
How long are you going to hide behind this irrelevant statement
Why are you so afraid to deal with my simple explanation???
Please read it again:

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!.

If you think that tidal energy can't be a new energy - than please answer the following questions:
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?
Please don't be afraid and stop hiding behind your irrelevant statement. Please face directly those key questions!

[Kryptid]

This statement is fully correct

If the statement is fully correct, then that means it is correct when it says that energy cannot be created. So why is there even any debate here? Your black hole can't create energy. You said so yourself.

but it is totally irrelevant for our discussion.

Now you believe the definition of conservation of energy is irrelevant to a discussion about conservation of energy. Right...

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

That contradicts what you said here:

energy cannot be created

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

Depends on what you mean by "set".

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.

It depends on the specifics, but it all boils to down to this: something must be moving relative to something else.

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?

Again, that depends on what you mean by "set".

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

You answered your own question here:

energy cannot be created

For that reason, any energy present isn't "new" energy. It has always existed in one form or another.

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?

You answered your own question here:

energy cannot be created

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

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

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.
2.If the tidal force (or tidal energy) isn't part of the " law of conservation of energy" than any energy that it generates should be considered as new energy. In ant case, as it was not part of the law at the first stage, than it also can't violate that law.
So please - which one is correct?

[Kryptid]

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

It's pretty self-explanatory. It says that energy can't be created. Plain and simple.

The 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".

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.

This only works if you mean "changes previously-existing energy from one form into another" when you say "generate". If you mean "create energy" when you say "generate", then that still violates conservation of energy because "energy cannot be created". This should not be so difficult to grasp.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The 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".

Thanks!

So, any tidal energy that we see in our universe is already part of the " law of conservation of energy".
However, we know that the source for that energy is Gravity.
Therefore, one of the impacts of the gravity - which is Tidal energy -is clearly part of that law.
Hence, in each gravity system there must be a "potential tidal energy".
It is actually similar to potential energy that can be converted to "falling" kinetic energy.
Therefore, 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 all of that is part of " law of conservation of energy" than the issue is quite clear.
As the potential energy can be converted in the future into "falling" kinetic energy, the "potential tidal energy" can also be converted (in the future) into heat energy without any need to be taken from any other source.
Once we agree on that we have actually solved the main problem with the " law of conservation of energy".

[Kryptid]

Once 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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Once 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.

Wow!

Thanks for this confirmation!!!
So we agree that:

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)

We see clearly that the total energy in any orbital system is based on (1+2+3+4).
However, all of those energies are fully based on gravity force.
Therefore, if the gravity force is finite, than the energy must also be finite
However, as long as we have gravity force in the system - than by definition all the four energies are still there.
So, the main question is as follow: Could it be that the gravity force in the galaxy (for example) stays forever?
If gravity forces stay forever in the Milky Way than we can clearly claim that the total energy of the Milky Way is infinite.
If the gravity forces in the milky way is limited (finite), than by definition the energy in our galaxy must also be finite.

In order to verify this issue let's assume that in the whole Universe there is only one galaxy.
This galaxy is the Milky Way as we see it today.
So, the question is as follow:
What our scientists expect to see in the universe if we will come back 10^Billion years from now (or infinite time from now)?

[Kryptid]

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

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.

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

The galaxy would certainly be much different after such an enormous time (all the stars would have long since burned out and even all of the black holes would have evaporated due to Hawking radiation). Even all of the chemical elements may have decayed (if proton decay is a real phenomenon). If so, then it may be that the entire mass of the galaxy had been converted into subatomic particles and radiated out into space. I don't think the galaxy would even exist anymore. However, the gravity created by each subatomic particle would still remain unchanged. Gravity doesn't get weaker over time. If it did, that in itself would violate conservation of energy because it would make the total gravitational potential energy of a gravitationally-bound system decrease over time even if it wasn't converted into other forms. But that can't happen because energy can't be created or destroyed.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Yes, I agree with your key message.
At any given moment the energy is finite.
We can clearly see it in the following total 1-4 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)

Energies - 1 and 3 represents current real kinetic energy.
Those energies must be finite.
Energies 2 and 4 represent potential energies.
Potential Energy 2 must be finite.
However, potential energy no 4 is there as long as there is orbital system.
You calim that:

Gravity doesn't get weaker over time.

So, let's read it again:
4. Potential tidal energy (Future heat due to tidal gravity force)
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.
That energy is very low..
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.

[Kryptid]

However, 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.

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.

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.

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

It doesn't increase at all. Ever. Waiting a long time won't change that. That would violate the "energy cannot be created" part of conservation of energy.

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

No, see above.

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

"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.

So simple and clear.

So simple and wrong. 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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:31:49
However, 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.

Let me ask you the following:
Do you agree that the potential tidal gravitational energy is based GRAVITY force?
If so, you have to agree that as long as there is a gravity force - there also must be Potential tidal energy.
How can you compare any sort of "bucket" to gravity force.
If gravity force works forever, than the "bucket" must be unlimited.
Please be aware that in tidal energy we actually use the gravity force to create Energy.
Therefore - why can't you agree with the simple idea that the "bucket" is full as long as there is gravity force?

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.

You insist that the potential Tidal energy must be limited.
Let's assume that this is the case.
So, you agree that at some point of time the tidal energy should be zero.
Therefore, do you agree that even if there is a gravity force and the orbital system is still working, the tidal heat must go to zero?
However, I have proved that any main host with at least two orbital objects MUST gain tidal energy as a direct outcome of the gravity force (even it it had already created infinite tidal energy over infinite time).
So, if you wish to show that the Potential tidal energy is limited, you have to show how it could be that a host with more than two main orbital objects (at different radius) won't create tidal energy any MORE.

"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.

Again - you miss the whole idea of Tidal gravitational energy.
That energy is a direct outcome of gravity force.
Therefore, as long as there is gravity force there is a potential room for Tidal energy.
I don't see any contradiction between that explanation to the law of energy conservation.
We have already agreed that the potential tidal energy is an integrated part of this law.
Therefore, as long as the gravity can converts potential tidal energy to real heat - it will continue to do so.

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.

I really don't need 78 rubber balls.
Two gravity balls are good enough.
As long as they keep their gravity force my SMBH will gain more heat energy.
Yes - so simple and clear.

[Kryptid]

I will wait until you have addressed this:

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?