0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
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?
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_heatingEtidal = -Im(k2)(21/2)((R5n5e2)/G), where"Etidal" 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 constantIf I calculate this heating rate for something like Io:Etidal = -Im(k2)(21/2)((R5n5e2)/G)Etidal = -(0.005)(10.5)(((1,822,000)5)((4.1 x 10-5)5)((0.0041)2))/(6.674 x 10-11)Etidal = (-10.5)((2 x 1031)(1.159 x 10-22)(1.681 x 10-5))/6.674 x 10-11)Etidal = -6.13 x 1015 wattsBut what happens if we modify the scenario where the tidal forces are constant? That is, what if we take away the orbital eccentricity?Etidal = -Im([k2)(21/2)((R5n5e2)/G)Etidal = -(0.005)(10.5)(((1,822,000)5)((4.1 x 10-5)5)((0.0)2))/(6.674 x 10-11)Etidal = (-10.5)((2 x 1031)(1.159 x 10-22)(0))/6.674 x 10-11)Etidal = 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?
(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.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 07:53:45Our 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 07:53:45Our scientists think that the Tidal energy dissipation reduces the rotational orbit of the object.I have already proved that this idea is totally incorrect.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2019 16:11:42Let'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!.
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.
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.
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.
Agree - as long as we agree for - "at any given time"
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I did.
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.
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.
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.
So, if 99% of all orbital Moons are drifting outwards, only 1% are drifting inwards.
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!
I still need to verify the source for this issue (Mars atmosphere Friction- as they are too close?).
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:37:02Hence, if the orbital velocity is too low (from the requested magic velocity) - it must getting closer.That’s exactly what happens.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:37:02Hence, if the orbital velocity is too low (from the requested magic velocity) - it must getting closer.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 21/11/2019 07:53:45If 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 21/11/2019 07:53:45If that is correct- than by definition every orbital object is receding from its main central host object over time.
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.
So, do you mean that the extra kinetic energy is getting from decreasing the potential energy?
Let's converts the energies into velocitiesThe potential energy represents a falling in velocity vector.
If we will shut down the potential energy - the object will keep its Vk momentum and will be ejected from 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).
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?
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^2M = The mass of the SMBHm = The mass of the particle/Atom/Molecular.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:59:51Let's converts the energies into velocitiesThe potential energy represents a falling in velocity vector.That's nonsense. Potential energy is neither a vector nor a velocity.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:59:51Let's converts the energies into velocitiesThe potential energy represents a falling in velocity vector.
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.
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.
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?
I will wait until you have addressed this:Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 15:14:51You 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.
If something occurs that slows the object down slightly ....This is equivalent to a smaller overall orbit radius."
I disagree with that.
Quote from: KryptidIf something occurs that slows the object down slightly ....This is equivalent to a smaller overall orbit radius."Quote from: Dave LevI 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.
My simple question is: Do we all agree with that?
This would reduce it's tangential velocity, and change the orbit from circular to elliptical
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.
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.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:27:20Sorry.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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:27:20Sorry.Now it is your mission.
That's nonsense. Potential energy is neither a vector nor a velocity.
This extra falling is exactly what converts gravitational potential energy into orbital kinetic energy, causing the object to speed up once more.
QuoteQuotethan 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.
Quotethan how the extra orbital kinetic energy which is needed to increase the Vk (orbital velocity vector) is created?
QuoteQuoteTherefore, 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.
QuoteTherefore, it can't be transformed into Orbital kinetic energy.
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.
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.