[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

Dear Kryptid
 
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.
Therefore, the tidal heat energy is a direct outcome of the current tidal potential energy and orbital cycles due to gravitational force.

With regards to energy transformation:
If you don't accept the idea of direct tidal heat energy transformation from the potential tidal energy, I'm ready to consider other source of energy transformation.
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.
Therefore, if the Tidal energy is taken from the Orbital kinetic energy, then this activity must increase the radius over time.
This could be the ultimate answer why the moon is receding from the earth and the Earth is receding from the Sun.
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?

[Kryptid]

Energy is not created - it is transformed.

Good. Then you must realize the consequences of this.

(1) The amount of energy contained within any system at any given time is finite (including all forms of potential energy).
(2) Since energy cannot be created, the amount of energy now must be the same as the amount of energy later.
(3) This precludes the idea of unlimited heat because that would mean more energy is present later than is present now.

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

Which is finite.

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.

No. Particular circumstances are needed for tidal heating to occur. Gravity alone is not enough. The orbit must be eccentric, for one. I demonstrated this earlier in the thread with the tidal heating equation. Here is what I said:

To show this, consider the equation to calculate tidal heating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating

E_tidal = -Im(k₂)(21/2)((R⁵n⁵e²)/G), where

"E_tidal" is the rate of tidal heating in watts
"-Im(k₂)" 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 constant

If I calculate this heating rate for something like Io:

E_tidal = -Im(k₂)(21/2)((R⁵n⁵e²)/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 10³¹)(1.159 x 10^-22)(1.681 x 10^-5))/6.674 x 10^-11)
E_tidal = -6.13 x 10¹⁵ watts

But 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([k₂)(21/2)((R⁵n⁵e²)/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 10³¹)(1.159 x 10^-22)(0))/6.674 x 10^-11)
E_tidal = 0 watts

The power is zero watts. No heat is generated at all.

When the orbital eccentricity is zero, you don't get any tidal heating. Do the math for yourself if you don't believe me. Since tidal heating causes an orbit to become increasingly circular over time (closer to an eccentricity of zero), the heat isn't unlimited. It stops when the orbit is a circle.

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.

No. No you have not.

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.

You have it backwards. The orbiting object gets closer, not further away. Remember, objects that are more distant from a source of gravity have more total energy (potential plus kinetic) than those that are closer. So if the total energy of the object is being reduced, it must be getting closer over time instead of further away. If it was getting further away instead, then that would mean that energy is being created because the total amount of energy the orbiting object possesses is increasing despite the fact that you claim it is also being drained of energy. Conservation of energy won't let energy be created.

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

Phobos and Deimos are not. They are getting closer to Mars over time. This is because they orbit Mars faster than Mars rotates. The tidal acceleration drains the orbital energy from those two satellites, causing their orbital radius to decrease.

What do you think about it?

I think that, despite everything I've tried to teach you, you still don't understand how orbits work.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

(1) The amount of energy contained within any system at any given time is finite (including all forms of potential energy).

Agree - as long as we agree for - "at any given time"

2) Since energy cannot be created, the amount of energy now must be the same as the amount of energy later.

Again - the energy is not created.
It is transformed from the potential tidal energy.
In the article it is stated clearly:
"This energy gained by the object comes from its gravitational energy,"
So, the potential tidal energy - is the source for the tidal heat.
However, that tidal potential energy represents a gravitational energy.
Therefore - as long as the gravity works, there is a possibility to gain tidal heat energy.
Hence - the tidal energy is a direct outcome from Tidal potential gravitational energy.
There is no way to gain infinite energy at any given time frame, however, as long as the gravity is working, than the tidal energy is available.
In any case, if you wish, I agree that some of it might also be transformed from the orbital kinetic energy (not from the rotational energy).
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating
"Tidal heating (also known as tidal working or tidal flexing) occurs through the tidal friction processes: orbital energy is dissipated as heat in either the surface ocean or interior of a planet or satellite. "
But in this case it must come from the kinetic orbital energy and not from the rotational energy.
Actually you didn't answer this issue.
Do you agree that the Orbital kinetic energy could also be the one that the tidal heat is used for it's energy transformation.
I really can't understand why our scientists have decided that the rotational energy must be the only source for the tidal heat.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 07:53:45
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.

No. No you have not.

Yes, I did.
 

Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2019 16:11:42
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 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 still disagree, than would you kindly show why a tidal energy can't be transformed for any system with two orbital objects.
With regards to eccentricity

When the orbital eccentricity is zero, you don't get any tidal heating. Do the math for yourself if you don't believe me. Since tidal heating causes an orbit to become increasingly circular over time (closer to an eccentricity of zero), the heat isn't unlimited. It stops when the orbit is a circle.

The formula is clear.
However, it seems to me that our scientists have a severe error in there assumption about the eccentricity.
The main question is - how do we get the tidal heat?
One option is as stated in the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating
"When an object is in an elliptical orbit, the tidal forces acting on it are stronger near periapsis than near apoapsis. Thus the deformation of the body due to tidal forces (i.e. the tidal bulge) varies over the course of its orbit, generating internal friction which heats its interior. This energy gained by the object comes from its gravitational energy,"
However, let's assume that the object is in a pure orbital cycle (eccentricity - 0)
Let's assume that the main host object had lost its rotation. Same issue with the orbital object.
So, as the orbital object orbits around the host, it must set a tidal bulge at the surface of the host that run forward with its orbital cycle.
Why that bulge (which run on the surface of the host) can't generate the requested tidal heat?
So, in this case - even without any rotational energy from both objects and while the orbital eccentricity is Zero, a tidal heat is generated on the surface of the host.

You have it backwards. The orbiting object gets closer, not further away. Remember, objects that are more distant from a source of gravity have more total energy (potential plus kinetic) than those that are closer. So if the total energy of the object is being reduced, it must be getting closer over time instead of further away. If it was getting further away instead, then that would mean that energy is being created because the total amount of energy the orbiting object possesses is increasing despite the fact that you claim it is also being drained of energy. Conservation of energy won't let energy be created.

Do you remember Newton?
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."
So, let's assume that the orbital object is a cannon ball.
Hence, if the orbital velocity is too low (from the requested magic velocity) - it must getting closer.

However, it seems to me that there must be some sort of mechanism in any orbital system that decreases the orbital velocity and push the orbital object outwards over time.
I'm not sure how this mechanism really works, but it is surly there (although there might be some exception for that mechanism).
So, if 99% of all orbital Moons are drifting outwards, only 1% are drifting inwards.
Phobos and Deimos are excellent examples for the exceptions.
They clearly represent the exceptions of that mechanism.

Phobos and Deimos are not. They are getting closer to Mars over time. This is because they orbit Mars faster than Mars rotates. The tidal acceleration drains the orbital energy from those two satellites, causing their orbital radius to decrease.

Yes, they are getting closer.
However, I totally disagree that "This is because they orbit Mars faster than Mars rotates"
This assumption is totally wrong!
There must be other explanation for those exceptions.
I still need to verify the source for this issue (Mars atmosphere Friction- as they are too close?).

[Kryptid]

Agree - as long as we agree for - "at any given time"

It has to be for all time. If the total energy later is higher than the total energy now, then energy must have been created. Conservation of energy won’t let that happen.

Again - the energy is not created.
It is transformed from the potential tidal energy.

That “potential tidal energy” is finite. If it was infinite, then the system would collapse into a black hole of infinite mass.

In the article it is stated clearly:
"This energy gained by the object comes from its gravitational energy,"
So, the potential tidal energy - is the source for the tidal heat.
However, that tidal potential energy represents a gravitational energy.
Therefore - as long as the gravity works, there is a possibility to gain tidal heat energy.

No. Once the eccentricity goes to zero, the tidal heating is gone. I showed this with the math.

There is no way to gain infinite energy at any given time frame, however, as long as the gravity is working, than the tidal energy is available.

You can’t have infinite energy at all. Back to my bucket analogy: if you claim that the bucket is always full regardless of how much water is poured out of it, then that means that bucket must be creating water to replace the water that has been poured out. If I have a one gallon bucket that is magically full all the time no matter how much water has been poured out of it (which is what you seem to be arguing, except with energy), then I can start off with one gallon. Then, I take an empty bucket and fill it up with water from the magic bucket until it is full as well. Now I have two full buckets and two gallons of water. Since I now have two gallons of water but started off with only one gallon, that means that one of those gallons wasn't there before. If it wasn't there before, then that water was created.

That's what you are trying to do with energy. But you can’t do that. Energy cannot be created.

Actually you didn't answer this issue.
Do you agree that the Orbital kinetic energy could also be the one that the tidal heat is used for it's energy transformation.

Only if the bodies are not tidally locked with each other.

Yes, I did.

Then you are claiming a violation of conservation of energy. An increase in tidal heat must be compensated for by a decrease in energy elsewhere. If tidal heating occurs without such a decrease elsewhere, then the total energy of the system has increased over time. That would mean that energy has been created. That is not allowed.

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 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!.

Let's say that we do indeed wait until the Earth-Moon system is both tidally-locked and the orbit is fully circular. All tidal heating has ceased. It is still possible for an asteroid to swing by and be captured by the Moon's gravity (or brought there by an advanced spaceship, if you prefer). It is true that the addition of that asteroid will cause new tidal heating. However, that asteroid would have brought its own gravitational potential energy with it when you set it in orbit around the Moon. That potential energy is finite, however. Since it would be orbiting the Moon faster than the Moon rotates, its orbit would decay over time and it would eventually collide with the Moon. That collision will obviously mark an end to any tidal heating it could cause. So you still do not have a perpetual motion machine.

If you still disagree, than would you kindly show why a tidal energy can't be transformed for any system with two orbital objects.

Tidal locking plus zero eccentricity equals no tidal heating because there would no longer be any flexing due to local changes in force.

However, let's assume that the object is in a pure orbital cycle (eccentricity - 0)
Let's assume that the main host object had lost its rotation. Same issue with the orbital object.
So, as the orbital object orbits around the host, it must set a tidal bulge at the surface of the host that run forward with its orbital cycle.
Why that bulge (which run on the surface of the host) can't generate the requested tidal heat?
So, in this case - even without any rotational energy from both objects and while the orbital eccentricity is Zero, a tidal heat is generated on the surface of the host.

Orbiting objects become tidally-locked long before their orbits become circular (Pluto and Charon are tidally-locked even though their orbit is still slightly eccentric). That tidal locking means that the tidal bulges will be at the same place on their surfaces at all times. No movement of the tidal bulge equals no tidal heating.

Hence, if the orbital velocity is too low (from the requested magic velocity) - it must getting closer.

That’s exactly what happens.

However, it seems to me that there must be some sort of mechanism in any orbital system that decreases the orbital velocity and push the orbital object outwards over time.

Too bad, because that's wrong. That would violate conservation of energy because it would mean that objects are moving from a state of lower total energy to a state of higher total energy without any energy input. That would mean that energy is being created. That is not allowed.

So, if 99% of all orbital Moons are drifting outwards, only 1% are drifting inwards.

Because they actually have a source of energy to lift them into a higher energy state. It’s called tidal acceleration.

Yes, they are getting closer.
However, I totally disagree that "This is because they orbit Mars faster than Mars rotates"
This assumption is totally wrong!

That “assumption” is based on the known physics of gravity and Newton’s laws. Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

I still need to verify the source for this issue (Mars atmosphere Friction- as they are too close?).

They are about 6,000 and 23,000 kilometers from Mars, and Mars’ atmosphere already has a surface pressure a mere 0.6% that of Earth’s. Atmospheric drag would be a non-factor.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Kryptid
I do appreciate all your effort in answering my questions.
I will reply back on all the open issues.
However, I prefer to deal with them one by one

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:37:02
Hence, if the orbital velocity is too low (from the requested magic velocity) - it must getting closer.

That’s exactly what happens.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in this message.
I had to say: "Hence, if the orbital velocity is too low (from the requested magic velocity) - it must "falling in".
So, if the orbital object is decreasing its orbital velocity than it must "falling in" - but not "getting in".
This is not the same.
"Falling in" means that it breaks the requested "magic velocity".
"Getting in" means that as it moves in it is increasing its orbital velocity in order to meet the "magic velocity" at any given moment.
Therefore if  Phobos is decreasing its orbital velocity than after just few orbital cycles it should collide with Mars.
So, we have to distinguish between "falling in" to "getting in".
In other words - It is increasing its orbital velocity as it is reducing its radius.
So, let's look again at your explanation:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 21/11/2019 07:53:45
If that is correct- than by definition every orbital object is receding from its main central host object over time.

Phobos and Deimos are not. They are getting closer to Mars over time. This is because they orbit Mars faster than Mars rotates. The tidal acceleration drains the orbital energy from those two satellites, causing their orbital radius to decrease.

So, you offer an examples of Phobos and Deimos.
You claim that their orbital radius is decreasing.
However, based on Newton - as their orbital radius is decreasing they must increase their orbital velocity.
This was very clear by Newron cannon ball explanation.
At any given radius - there must be a "magic velocity"
So, if 10,000 years ago - Phobos radius was R and its "magic orbital velocity" was V;
Than today - as its radius is R-r its magic orbital velocity MUST be V+v.
So, we clearly see that if we wish to keep the orbital activity of the object, than as the radius is decreasing - the orbital velocity is increasing. That is the simple outcome from the "magic orbital velocity" request.
Therefore, as Phobos is decreasing its radius, it also must increase its velocity - (if it still wish to keep itself in a clear orbital cycle.)
However - if Phobos is just decreasing its orbital velocity without increasing its radius - than, it breaks the key request for "magic orbital velocity. Therefore it MUST fall in and after few cycles it has to collide with Mars.
However, we know for sure that currently Phobos is orbiting at the "magic orbital velocity"
That is very clear to all of us.
Therefore, 10,000 years ago when its radius was higher, its orbital velocity was lower.
So do you understand by now that if the object is willing to keep its orbital activity while it is "getting in", it must increase its velocity, while at any given moment it's velocity must meet the "magic orbital velocity"?


 

[Kryptid]

So do you understand by now that if the object is willing to keep its orbital activity while it is "getting in", it must increase its velocity, while at any given moment it's velocity must meet the "magic orbital velocity"?

Yes, the net result of a decrease in orbital radius is an increase in orbital velocity. Although the kinetic energy of Phobos has increased, its overall energy (potential plus kinetic) has decreased. This is why a loss of total energy must result in the orbit becoming smaller, not larger.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes, the net result of a decrease in orbital radius is an increase in orbital velocity. Although the kinetic energy of Phobos has increased, its overall energy (potential plus kinetic) has decreased. This is why a loss of total energy must result in the orbit becoming smaller, not larger.

So, do you mean that the extra kinetic energy is getting from decreasing the potential energy?
If so, you have a severe error.
Let me explain:
Let's converts the energies into velocities
The potential energy represents a falling in velocity vector.
Actually at any given moment - the orbital object is falling in at a vector velocity - Vf (falling in velocity).
The kinetic energy represents a forward kinetic velocity vector - Vk (kinetic velocity).
If we will shut down the potential energy - the object will keep its Vk momentum and will be ejected from the main host.
If we will shut down the kinetic energy - the object will fall in directly to the center of the main host.
So, Vk is fully orthogonal to Vf, therefore, each one of them is working on a totally different dimension.
They can't have any effect on each other (as they are working on a different dimension).
If we increase or decrease the Vf it can't set any impact on Vk.
The orbital system works as long as the falling in velocity fully match the forwards kinetic velocity vector in order to keep a fixed radius (let's focus only on a pure cycle orbit).
So, it is clear that the potential energy sets only the falling in kinetic energy (which is based on Vf).
That falling in kinetic energy can't increase or decrease the orbital kinetic energy (which is based on Vk).
Therefore, I have just proved that there is no transformation between the potential energy to the orbital kinetic energy.
As you claim that energy can't be created, than how the extra orbital kinetic energy which is needed to increase the Vk (orbital velocity vector) is created?

[Kryptid]

So, do you mean that the extra kinetic energy is getting from decreasing the potential energy?

Yes, that's how falling works.

Let's converts the energies into velocities
The potential energy represents a falling in velocity vector.

That's nonsense. Potential energy is neither a vector nor a velocity.

If we will shut down the potential energy - the object will keep its Vk momentum and will be ejected from the main host.

No it won't. That would violate conservation of energy.

So, Vk is fully orthogonal to Vf, therefore, each one of them is working on a totally different dimension.

Potential energy doesn't have a direction or a speed. It changes with a change of distance from the source of gravity, but that's it.

They can't have any effect on each other (as they are working on a different dimension).

They can and do. If the orbiting object is traveling at a given speed at a given orbital radius, then it is traveling sufficiently quickly to complete a circle (or, more likely, an ellipse) of a given size. If something occurs that slows the object down slightly, then that means that it will fall towards the object it is orbiting more than it normally would on its orbit because the distance it covers in an given time is smaller now. It must complete its orbit in a shorter time span. This is equivalent to a smaller overall orbit radius. This extra falling is exactly what converts gravitational potential energy into orbital kinetic energy, causing the object to speed up once more.

Therefore, I have just proved that there is no transformation between the potential energy to the orbital kinetic energy.

All you have proven is that you don't understand how orbits work.

As you claim that energy can't be created

I don't merely "claim" it. It's objectively true. See conservation of energy.

than how the extra orbital kinetic energy which is needed to increase the Vk (orbital velocity vector) is created?

It comes from gravitational potential energy, regardless of your complaints. The mechanism is well-understood.

You do understand that "energy cannot be created" means that the total energy now must be the same as the total energy later, don't you?

[puppypower]

I wonder why any new particle/Atom/Molecular is drifting outwards from the excretion disc of the milky way.
Let's look at the following formula for gravity force:
F = G * M * m / R^2
M = The mass of the SMBH
m = The mass of the particle/Atom/Molecular.

There are two additional variables. The mass of the galaxy is decreasing with time, due to the mass burn that occurs within nuclear fusion; E=MC2.  Secondly, although this mass burn energy and other energy is conserved, the second law says that the entropy of the universe increase with time.

Since entropy needs energy to increase, the second law implies that the useable energy of the universe is decreasing with time, because it gets tied up as entropy that is always increasing. Entropy is consistent with energy conservation, but the energy within entropy, is no longer useable in any net way. The net result is the net mass and net unstable energy is decreasing.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:59:51
Let's converts the energies into velocities
The potential energy represents a falling in velocity vector.

That's nonsense. Potential energy is neither a vector nor a velocity.

It seems that you have missed the key idea
Please look at the following diagram
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Mercury-fall-to-the-Sun
The Sun is in yellow and Mercury is in green
The blue line represents the gravitational force on Mercury.
However, that line also represents the falling in velocity due to the potential energy.
As it is stated: "Mercury is in a constant state of falling into the Sun"
"The force of gravity from the Sun acts to pull Mercury towards it. If Mercury were stationary, it would fall straight towards the sun (just like what happens when you drop an apple on Earth). "
So, this blue line represents the falling in velocity due to gravity - or due to potential energy.
Therefore we clearly see that the potential energy sets a falling in velocity vector.
Hence, your following statement is technically incorrect:
 

Potential energy doesn't have a direction or a speed. It changes with a change of distance from the source of gravity, but that's it.

Sorry, Potential energy due to gravity sets a clear falling in velocity vector.
Therefore, potential energy (or gravity) can ONLY control on that blue line (falling in vector), as it was stated: "Mercury is in a constant state of falling into the Sun"
The red vector represents the orbital kinetic velocity vector.
We clearly see that the red vector is orthogonal to the blue vector.
Therefore, if we will decrease or increase the blue vector (falling in velocity due to gravity or potential energy) we can't set any change of effect on the Blue vector (orbital kinetic velocity vector).
Therefore

If the orbiting object is traveling at a given speed at a given orbital radius, then it is traveling sufficiently quickly to complete a circle (or, more likely, an ellipse) of a given size

That is fully correct.

If something occurs that slows the object down slightly, then that means that it will fall towards the object it is orbiting more than it normally would on its orbit because the distance it covers in an given time is smaller now. It must complete its orbit in a shorter time span. This is equivalent to a smaller overall orbit radius. This extra falling is exactly what converts gravitational potential energy into orbital kinetic energy, causing the object to speed up once more.

I'm not sure that I understand this explanation:
1. "If something occurs that slows the object down slightly" - do you mean that the orbital velocity is decreasing (the red vector)?
2."then that means that it will fall towards the object it is orbiting more than it normally would on its orbit because the distance it covers in an given time is smaller now".
Yes, I also agree with that.
3. "This is equivalent to a smaller overall orbit radius."
I disagree with that. As you decrease the orbital velocity (red), without changing the falling in velocity vector (blue), than you actually break the "requested magic velocity" - (Please try to remember that idea from Newton cannon ball).
Therefore, you break the following key point in orbital system as stated in the article:
"The key point here is Mercury has some velocity. So, although the Sun pulls Mercury straight towards it, Mercury’s velocity keeps it moving, resulting in a circular path."
So, if you only decrease the orbital velocity of Mercury (without changing the gravity force or the falling in velocity), then it must getting closer to the Sun.
4." This extra falling is exactly what converts gravitational potential energy into orbital kinetic energy, causing the object to speed up once more"
Sorry - this is totally incorrect!!!
The falling in vector (blue) is orthogonal to the orbital velocity vector (red) there is no way for transformation of energy (or velocity) between the potential energy (or gravity -blue) to the orbital kinetic energy (red).
5. "So, the objects has to keep its orbital velocity while it get closer and closer to the Sun"
Incorrect.
As the orbital velocity is fixed, then as it get closer to the Sun, that orbital velocity is too low to keep it in a stable orbital cycle.
Therefore, it will move in a spiral way till final collision after few cycles.

So, the potential energy sets the falling in velocity vector.
This vector (in blue) is orthogonal to the orbital kinetic velocity (red)
Therefore - there is no way to transfer velocity from one to other!!!

[Kryptid]

I will wait until you have addressed this:

You do understand that "energy cannot be created" means that the total energy now must be the same as the total energy later, don't you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I will wait until you have addressed this:

Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 15:14:51
You do understand that "energy cannot be created" means that the total energy now must be the same as the total energy later, don't you?

Sorry.
Now it is your mission.
I have clearly proved that potential energy can't be transformed into orbital kinetic energy.
It can only be transformed into falling in kinetic energy.
Therefore, potential energy can't have any impact on the orbital kinetic energy.
Please let me know if you still don't understand why the potential energy can't contribute any orbital kinetic energy.
Hence, the total orbital kinetic energy is actually only the current kinetic orbital energy.
Do you have any idea how to "create new orbital kinetic energy" as the orbital object gets closer to the main mass?
Therefore, do you understand that "energy cannot be created" means that the total orbital Kinetic energy now can't be less than the total Orbital kinetic energy later?

[Kryptid]

Sorry.
Now it is your mission.

I asked that question in reply #945, which is before reply #947 (which was your last reply). Since my post came first, it is only proper that my question be answered first. Once that is done, I will address your other arguments.

[evan_au]

If something occurs that slows the object down slightly ....This is equivalent to a smaller overall orbit radius."

I disagree with that.

It doesn't happen as much today, but something that could slow down the speed of an orbiting body like Mercury would be a head-on collision with another smaller astronomical body.

This would reduce it's tangential velocity, and change the orbit from circular to elliptical, dropping it closer to the Sun at its point of closest approach to the Sun (perihelion).
- But this would not affect the distance when farthest from the Sun (aphelion), which would remain at the original radius of the circular orbit
- The effective radius of elliptical orbits is called the "semi-major axis", which is the average of aphelion and perihelion distances (for circular orbits, aphelion distance=perihelion distance=semi-major axis).
- Such a collision would reduce the semi-major axis, and would result in a shorter orbital period than the original circular orbit.

Less dramatic, but more common in our Solar System today: the orbits of planets are continually affected by tiny periodic tugs from Jupiter and nearby planets, causing the orbits to slowly change over time from circular to more elliptical and back again; this is measured by the "eccentricity" of the orbit.
- Effectively this trades angular momentum between the different planets; it mostly it balances out over time, but in extreme cases it could result in planets getting ejected from the Solar System, or dropped into the Sun.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If something occurs that slows the object down slightly ....This is equivalent to a smaller overall orbit radius."

I disagree with that.

It doesn't happen as much today, but something that could slow down the speed of an orbiting body like Mercury would be a head-on collision with another smaller astronomical body.

This would reduce it's tangential velocity, and change the orbit from circular to elliptical, dropping it closer to the Sun at its point of closest approach to the Sun (perihelion).
- But this would not affect the distance when farthest from the Sun (aphelion), which would remain at the original radius of the circular orbit
- The effective radius of elliptical orbits is called the "semi-major axis", which is the average of aphelion and perihelion distances (for circular orbits, aphelion distance=perihelion distance=semi-major axis).
- Such a collision would reduce the semi-major axis, and would result in a shorter orbital period than the original circular orbit.

Less dramatic, but more common in our Solar System today: the orbits of planets are continually affected by tiny periodic tugs from Jupiter and nearby planets, causing the orbits to slowly change over time from circular to more elliptical and back again; this is measured by the "eccentricity" of the orbit.
- Effectively this trades angular momentum between the different planets; it mostly it balances out over time, but in extreme cases it could result in planets getting ejected from the Solar System, or dropped into the Sun.

Thanks
You discuss on the "eccentricity" of the orbit.
This is an important issue by itself. However, this is not the main issue in the current discussion.
We currently discuss on the real meaning of Total orbital kinetic energy.
Our scientists claim that:
Total orbital kinetic energy = current orbital kinetic energy + potential energy.
However, I have proved that the potential energy can only be transformed to in falling kinetic energy. Therefore, it can't be transformed into Orbital kinetic energy.
Hence
Potential energy = Only Falling in kinetic energy
Total  kinetic energy = Current kinetic energy + potential energy (or falling in kinetic energy)
However
Total orbital kinetic energy = Only the current orbital kinetic energy.

My simple question is: Do we all agree with that?

[Kryptid]

My simple question is: Do we all agree with that?

I'll answer that question once you've answered mine.

[Halc]

This would reduce it's tangential velocity, and change the orbit from circular to elliptical

Not disagreeing with your points, but Mercury's orbit is already quite elliptical and in fact the current tidal locking harmonic of Mercury (exactly 3 rotations every 2 orbits) depends on that eccentricity. Hence unlike other planets, the day on Mercury is essentially fixed, not slowing over time. The quora page Dave linked assumed a massively simplified circular orbit in order to illustrate the most basic concepts.
Typical of quora, the diagram is inconsistent with itself.  If mass is not taken into consideration, the red and blue vectors should be labeled velocity and acceleration respectively.  Any object in that orbit will have the same measurements.  If mass is taken into consideration, then the two arrows should be labeled momentum and force respectively. Acceleration causes a change in velocity. Force causes a change in momentum. I find it to be poorly expressed that they're taking one term from each way of looking at it.

My simple question is: Do we all agree with that?

We agree on almost nothing you post.  Let's keep score.

We currently discuss on the real meaning of Total orbital kinetic energy.
Our scientists claim that:
Total orbital kinetic energy = current orbital kinetic energy + potential energy.

1) They do not claim this.  That seems to be a description of total orbital energy.  2) The total orbital kinetic energy cannot be kinetic energy plus something not kinetic.  So the total orbital kinetic energy of a system of n bodies is the sum of the kinetic energy of each of the n bodies, each of which is computed as mv²/2, plus the rotational energy of each of the bodies: Iω²/2.

However, I have proved that the potential energy can only be transformed to in falling kinetic energy.

Don't agree with that. 3) There are obvious counterexamples like potential energy being transformed into electricity at hydroelectric facilities.  4) The fact that you think all such nonsense assertions constitutes a 'proof' is evidence that you're deliberately trolling us.

Therefore, it can't be transformed into Orbital kinetic energy.

5) Wrong again.  Mercury (since this seems to be our example of the moment) regularly transforms potential energy into orbital kinetic energy.  Quite a bit of it as a matter of fact.

Potential energy = Only Falling in kinetic energy

Nonsense term made up.  All bodies in an orbiting system are always in free fall by definition, so calling them 'falling' is redundant.  6) Potential energy is not a form of kinetic energy, so your statement is wrong.

Total  kinetic energy = Current kinetic energy + potential energy (or falling in kinetic energy)

7

However Total orbital kinetic energy = Only the current orbital kinetic energy.

This contradicts your (wrong) statement above.  I will refrain from counting this last statement as incorrect.

My simple question is: Do we all agree with that?

7 wrong things, and only one correct one (seemingly by accident).  And you didn't even assert creation of new energy in this post.

Your more regular mistakes are equivocating force, energy, and acceleration.  A gravitational field is an acceleration field.  A body by itself (a black hole say) has a massive gravitational field, but is by itself a source of neither force nor energy. Most of your attempts to posit energy from nowhere seem to revolve around some sort of assertion that this field is energy, mostly by introducing nonsense terms like gravitational energy, or tidal energy.  Gravity isn't energy, and neither is force.  A large rock in my front yard exerts considerable force continuously on my property, and yet I cannot harness that force as an energy source.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:27:20
Sorry.
Now it is your mission.

I asked that question in reply #945, which is before reply #947 (which was your last reply). Since my post came first, it is only proper that my question be answered first. Once that is done, I will address your other arguments.

Dear Kryptid

I'm not sure that I fully understand what are you looking for
If you focus on energy creation, than Potential energy is a key element in this discussion.
In reply #945 you claim the following:

That's nonsense. Potential energy is neither a vector nor a velocity.

Potential energy doesn't have a direction or a speed. It changes with a change of distance from the source of gravity, but that's it.

This extra falling is exactly what converts gravitational potential energy into orbital kinetic energy, causing the object to speed up once more.

Quote
than how the extra orbital kinetic energy which is needed to increase the Vk (orbital velocity vector) is created?

It comes from gravitational potential energy, regardless of your complaints. The mechanism is well-understood.

So, how can we discuss on energy creation or any sort of energy if we don't really understand the real meaning of potential energy.
Please, Potential energy is a key element in the energy.
Why are you so afraid to deal with that potential energy?
Would you kindly give your confirmation for the clear understanding that Potential energy can ONLY be transformed to falling in kinetic energy and let me know what is your question.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
Therefore, it can't be transformed into Orbital kinetic energy.

5) Wrong again.  Mercury (since this seems to be our example of the moment) regularly transforms potential energy into orbital kinetic energy.  Quite a bit of it as a matter of fact.

If you estimate that potential energy can be transformed into orbital kinetic energy, than please use the following diagram and show how it works.
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Mercury-fall-to-the-Sun
Do you agree that the Blue line represents the falling in velocity due to gravity force /potential energy?
If yes, do you agree that it is orthogonal to the orbital velocity (red)
So, how could it be that the blue vector (falling in velocity due to gravity, or potential energy) has any impact on the red one (orbital kinetic energy) if they are orthogonal to each other?
If no, how the potential energy is converted to orbital kinetic energy?

[Kryptid]

So, how can we discuss on energy creation or any sort of energy if we don't really understand the real meaning of potential energy.

Physicists already know what potential energy is: https://www.livescience.com/65548-potential-energy.html

But the fact of the matter is that potential energy is a kind of energy and therefore must be subject to conservation of energy.

Why are you so afraid to deal with that potential energy?

I'll deal with it, but only once you've answered my question.

Would you kindly give your confirmation for the clear understanding that Potential energy can ONLY be transformed to falling in kinetic energy

I'll tell you what I think once you've answered my question.

and let me know what is your question.

I've already told you my question:

You do understand that "energy cannot be created" means that the total energy now must be the same as the total energy later, don't you?

Or, if you want me to rephrase it: do you agree that the energy in a system must remain constant if energy cannot be created or destroyed?