[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 02:38:48
If that was the case, than we have to observe also that matter as it comes in.

How many times do I have to explain this?
You do not see it because it's dark.

I totally reject your example about the black cat over the black cellar.
The chance that all cats in our planet are black is absolutely zero.
The chance that the entire planet is covered by black cellar is also zero.
So, if there are cats at least some won't be black.
If there is a planet, at least some of it won't be covered with black cellar.
Hence, if there are cats on our planet we should see them – sooner or later
Therefore, we don't see any falling star into the SMBH as orbital star do not fall in but orbit around the SMBH.
None of them falls in.
NEVER and EVER.
Over time, all the S stars and G gas clouds around the SMBH would be ejected outwards from the Bulge into the Bar.
This is real science!

[Bored chemist]

So, when a lump of rock, (which will typically be spinning about its own axes) falls in and breaks up, some bits will be sent into orbits with eccentricities grater than one.
And those are the ones which, having just been kicked out of a shattering rock, are hot enough to glow- so we see them.

Ok
Let me focus on that Lump of Rock.
I have a perfect example for that Lump of Rock. It is called comet and it orbits around the Sun
Halley’s comet has a semimajor axis of about 18.5 AU, a period of 76 years, and an eccentricity of about 0.97.
Evey 76 years it comes very close to the sun and it also has a dust tail.
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#/media/File:Cometorbit01.svg
We clearly see that the tail is kept outwards from the orbital cycle.
This is very important issue.
It proves that nothing from this comet really falls inwards into the sun even if that Lump of Rock comet arrives very close to the Sun.
You can also claim that this comet seems as it falls into the Sun but in reality it does not fall. (even if it comes very close to the Sun). Not the comet itself and not even one tinny dust from that comet tail
The comet is not going to change its eccentricity to zero as it comes to that minimal distance in order to set a circular path over there.
Therefore, any object that orbits around the SMBH at high eccentricity would keep its eccentricity.
Our scientists even claim that in future it should be ejected from the Sun.
So, it is expected that the eccentricity would be increased in the future.
Once the eccentricity would be increased just by above 0.03 (from 0.97 to one) this comet would be ejected into the open space.
Therefore, as this comet would never ever decrease its eccentricity at the minimal radius, S2 star that orbits around the SMBH would do exactly the same.
It would come very close to the SMBH, but it won't change its eccentricity to zero at the minimal distance.
Even if it would break to Lump of rock and carry a dust tail, the matter in the tail would be kept outwards from the orbital cycle.
As the tail goes with the comet wherever it goes, then if there was a tail for S2 it would go with it and keep the eccentricity of the orbital path.
We clearly see the tail of the comet as it comes into the direction of the Sun and as it goes out.
In the same token If S2 has a tail we should observe this tail as it comes in and as it goes out.
So, please from now on
Do not claim again that the orbital star with high eccentricity (let's say higher than 0.2) around the SMBH falls in.
They do not Fall in – They orbit!!!.
They could come very close to the main object (if their eccentricity is close to one) but they do not fall in.
NEVER and EVER.

You just posted a page of nonsense because you do not realise that
The Sun shines
Black holes do not shine.


Is there any reason we should take you seriously?

[Bored chemist]

The chance that all cats in our planet are black is absolutely zero.

The cats are floating in space, only warmed by the CMBR and distant stars.
Do you really not understand that they will all be too cold to glow?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You just posted a page of nonsense because you do not realise that
The Sun shines
Black holes do not shine.

The idea that it shines or not, do not change the mechanism of any orbital cycle.
Therefore, as the comet keeps its eccentricity while it path very close to the sun, S2 behaves exactly the same.
Hence, it was a severe mistake from you to claim that S2 or any other star or gas cloud falls in.
They just orbit around the SMBH with high eccentricity.
I would like to remind you that you have stated that S2 star should be broken as it falls in the direction of the SMBH.
The following image proves that even if S2 would be broken to dump rocks and would have a tail, its tail would be kept outwards from the orbital cycle and should be observabale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#/media/File:Cometorbit01.svg

[Bored chemist]

OK, that's two attempts and a page and a half of you making it clear that you don't understand  how  the light and solar wind from the sun push the comet tail away but that there's neither light, nor a solar wind from a black hole.

Is there any reason we should take you seriously?

I would like to remind you that you have stated that S2 star should be broken as it falls in the direction of the SMBH.

Do you think that there's anything which wouldn't get broken?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

[Kryptid]

Since you can't tell me where the energy comes from, it seems you do not know.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Since you can't tell me where the energy comes from, it seems you do not know.

I have already answered your question and I'm ready to explain it again.
There is no need for any sort of energy in order to get the gravity force.

https://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
Albert Einstein explained how gravity is more than just a force: it is a curvature in the space-time continuum. That sounds like something straight out of science fiction, but simply put, the mass of an object causes the space around it to essentially bend and curve."
Hence, there is no need for any sort of energy to set that gravity force. Therefore, the gravity force is for free.

So, there is no need to invest any energy in order to get the gravity force.
Is this issue clear to you or we need to continue the discussion how the gravity force gets its power?
If that is clear to you, then do you confirm that force perform works?
Principles of energy and work
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/classes/scmh/1010/Energy%20and%20Work.php
In equation form: work (joules) = force (newtons) x distance (meters),
where a joule is the unit of work, as defined in the following paragraph.
In symbols: W = F x d
However:
"Energy is defined as the ability to do work. If a system is capable of exerting a force over a distance, then that system possesses energy. The amount of a system’s energy, which can be recorded in joules or foot-pounds (the same units used for work), is a measure of how much work the system might do."
Hence, the amount of energy that we can get from the gravity force is based on how much work we can gain from that force.
Therefore, although the gravity force is there without any investment in energy, once it is there it can set work which means - new energy.
So gravity force contribute new work and new energy to our universe.
The eccentricity of S2 is 0.88.
G2 gas cloud eccentricity is 0.94
As they come closer to the SMBH, the impact of the tidal forces (due to gravity force) is higher.
The tidal increases the heat/spin/energy in both objects.
Due to that tidal force, G2 increases its heat and spin that are vital to form new stars activity.
In the same token the SMBH also increases its internal heat and spin that are needed for its EM energy.
That EM energy would create new particle pair near its event horizon.
Therefore, any particle in the Universe is created at the SMBH' accretion disc. Its energy comes from the SMBH EM energy that is based on the tidal heat/spin of the gravity force.
Hence, the entire energy of our Universe comes from the gravity force.
Without that force, not even one particle would be created.
There is no need for a big bang in order to get the requested energy for our Universe.
The gravity force is good enough.

[Bored chemist]

OK, lets have a look at the bit of Dave's "stuff" that Kryptid is asking about.

In the same token, when an object is falling on earth it gain kinetic energy.
So, the potential gravity force is transformed into real kinetic energy.
Try to calculate the energy that a falling satellite is needed at its collision impact with the earth.
So, as gravity force is for free, the work that it generates is for free.
That work means energy. Hence, the gravity force generates energy for free.

At no point has Dave explained where the energy comes from.
But the one thing we know for sure is that it isn't "free".
That would be a breech of the laws of physics.
So Dave is wrong.

He does not seem to understand the difference between force - which is free and energy which is not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

He does not seem to understand the difference between force - which is free and energy which is not.

As we all agree that the gravity force is free, Let me ask you the following:
1. Do you confirm that force can set work?
2. Do you confirm that "Energy is defined as the ability to do work"?
3. If so do you confirm that.works means energy?
4. If gravity force can set work, then why as it is free it can't set a work for free?
5. If the work due to gravity force is for free, then why the energy that is needed for that work isn't for free?

[Bored chemist]

1. Do you confirm that force can set work?

Only if there is something for it to use.
For example, if there is a rock on top of a mountain, it can roll down and do work.

We keep asking you what put the rock at the top of the mountain.
You keep not answering, and then saying you already answered.

Why do you do that?

[Kryptid]

I have already answered your question

Quote the part of your post that states the location where gravity got the energy from.

Until you tell me the location, you haven't answered the question. Do I need to go get the dictionary definition of "location"?

Therefore, although the gravity force is there without any investment in energy, once it is there it can set work which means - new energy.

Where did that "new energy" come from, Dave? Tell me an actual location this time. No more dodging and weaving.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote the part of your post that states the location where gravity got the energy from.
Until you tell me the location, you haven't answered the question. Do I need to go get the dictionary definition of "location"?
Where did that "new energy" come from, Dave? Tell me an actual location this time. No more dodging and weaving.

Dear Kryptid
Your request for the location where gravity got the energy from is absolutely irrelevant as the gravity doesn't need any energy for its existence.
Let me offer you the following example:
Why Storks Bring Babies?
https://historydaily.org/special-delivery-why-storks-bring-babies
If I will ask you for the location where stork got the babies from, what would you answer?
Won't you tell me that there is no need for a stork to get babies?
If I will ask you: "No more dodging and weaving", won't you reply with the same answer that there is no need for a stork to get babies and therefore the location is irrelevant?
In the same token.
There is no need for any sort of energy to get the gravity force. Therefore, the location where gravity got the energy from is absolutely irrelevant.
If you can prove that stork is needed to get babies and energy is needed to get gravity force, then we can discuss about the location.

[Kryptid]

Your request for the location where gravity got the energy from is absolutely irrelevant as the gravity doesn't need any energy for its existence.

So you are saying that the new energy popped up out of nowhere, is that right? Either it came from somewhere or it didn't. If it did, then you could tell me from where. If not, then that means conservation of energy is violated because energy appeared out of nowhere.

If I will ask you for the location where stork got the babies from, what would you answer?

I'm not the one claiming that storks bring babies. You, on the other hand do claim that gravity can make energy.

If you can prove that stork is needed to get babies and energy is needed to get gravity force, then we can discuss about the location.

The problem is not that you are claiming energy is needed to make gravity, it is that you are claiming just about the opposite (that gravity makes energy). Please don't confuse these two different ideas in the future.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:38:51
1. Do you confirm that force can set work?

Only if there is something for it to use.
For example, if there is a rock on top of a mountain, it can roll down and do work.

Thanks
I fully agree with this explanation.
In this example we consider a rock that is located at the top of mountain in a planet (for example)
Therefore, the Planet' gravity force on that rock can only set work for only one time when it rolls it down from the top of a mountain down to the valley.
As the rock gets to the valley, the planet' gravity force can't set any more work on that specific rock.

We keep asking you what put the rock at the top of the mountain.
You keep not answering, and then saying you already answered.

There is no need to put it back at the top of the mountain.
Instead of looking on a specific rock in the planet, let's look at the whole crust on the planet.
Let's verify the impact of other orbital object on that crust.
We know that the gravity force of the Moon can set tidal forces on the planet crust.
Those tidal forces can lift water by several meters and rocks by several cm.
That lift is also "work" and it is a repeatable work.
Every time that the moon comes above the ocean it lifts its water.
That works means new energy that comes due to gravity force from the other orbital object.
If we can calculate the energy that is needed to lift the ocean water, we can verify the contribution of the new energy due to the tidal forces.
Therefore, Tidal forces that are based on gravity forces contribute unlimited new energy to our planet and Universe.
Hence, in order to gain unlimited new energy in an object (as a planet or a SMBH), tidal forces from a nearby orbital objects are needed to lift its crust.
Once you set the correct conditions, an unlimited new energy is delivered to that object and it is free of charge.
Our planet is protected from the solar wind by its EM energy.
That energy is based on the new energy that it gets due to tidal forces.
Without tidal forces our planet couldn't create the requested EM that is needed to protect it from the solar wind.

So you are saying that the new energy popped up out of nowhere, is that right? Either it came from somewhere or it didn't. If it did, then you could tell me from where. If not, then that means conservation of energy is violated because energy appeared out of nowhere.

The new energy popped up from Tidal force which is based on gravity force between orbital objects.

I'm not the one claiming that storks bring babies. You, on the other hand do claim that gravity can make energy.

Tidal force that is based on gravity force can make new energy.
That New energy is unlimited as the tidal force is unlimited.

The problem is not that you are claiming energy is needed to make gravity, it is that you are claiming just about the opposite (that gravity makes energy)

That is correct
Gravity is for free.
Gravity between orbital objects sets tidal forces
Hence, Tidal forces generate new energy for free!

[Kryptid]

Tidal force that is based on gravity force can make new energy.
That New energy is unlimited as the tidal force is unlimited.

So you claim that gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy. Is that right?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Tidal force that is based on gravity force can make new energy.
That New energy is unlimited as the tidal force is unlimited.

So you claim that gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy. Is that right?

As tidal energy is unlimited and as it is based on gravity force, then this energy is unlimited.

Our planet is protected from the solar wind by its EM energy.
That energy is based on the new energy that it gets due to tidal forces.
Without tidal forces our planet couldn't create the requested EM that is needed to protect it from the solar wind.

I know why Mars had lost its Atmosphere, Its water and all the life that existed over there.
It currently has two small moons.
One is spiraling inwards while the other one spiraling outwards.
Hence, if we go back on time, then at some point of time (75M years ago?) those two moons were actually one massive moon.
That moon contributes the requested tidal energy that was needed for Mars to create enough EM energy to protect itself from the solar wind.
Unfortunately for Mars, a massive object collides with that massive moon and breaks it.
At the end those two tinny objects that we call today as Mars moons could hold themselves at the orbital path around Mars. Unfortunately, due to their tinny size, they couldn't deliver Mars the requested energy that is needed for it to protect itself from the solar wind.
Therefore, over time it lost its atmosphere, its water and all the life.
There is good chance that the object that collide with our planet and killed the dinosaurs came from that collision.
If that is correct, then the same collision which killed the life at Mars was also responsible to clear the Earth for our evolvement.

[Bored chemist]

As tidal energy is unlimited

That's wrong.
Tidal energy is limited.
I already explained that.

Theoretically, we can gain energy from orbital objects free of charge.

No,
You "harvest" the kinetic energy of the object and change its orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

Why do you not learn?

[Kryptid]

As tidal energy is unlimited and as it is based on gravity force, then this energy is unlimited.

So you think gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy. If that were so, then they would also have infinite mass (as per E=mc²). That would cause it to collapse into a black hole of infinite mass as well. Since that does not happen, gravitational fields must not contain infinite energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 03/08/2021 20:29:13
Theoretically, we can gain energy from orbital objects free of charge.

No,
You "harvest" the kinetic energy of the object and change its orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
Why do you not learn?

In the article it is stated:
"Tidal acceleration is an effect of the tidal forces between an orbiting natural satellite (e.g. the Moon) and the primary planet that it orbits (e.g. Earth). The acceleration causes a gradual recession of a satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and a corresponding slowdown of the primary's rotation. The process eventually leads to tidal locking, usually of the smaller body first, and later the larger body. The Earth–Moon system is the best-studied case."
Therefore, based on our scientists the tidal energy is there due to the recession of the satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and also due to a corresponding slowdown of the primary's rotation.
However, how do we know for sure that all the 100% tidal energy is due to those activities?
We Know that the Moon is drifting/spiraling away from Earth by about 1.5 cm every year.
How do we know for sure that this drifting is a compensation for the Tidal energy?
Did we ever try to calculate the total energy that is transformed to earth by tidal in one day or in one year?
Did we try to fit it with that drifting activity?
We have already discussed about the conditions that force the orbital object to spiral inwards or outwards.
Tidal wasn't one of those conditions.
So, if there was no Tidal forces on earth, do you claim that the moon would drifts differently?
In the article they also discuss about the eccentricity:
" Another effect, which will not be dealt with here, is the changes in the eccentricity and inclination of the orbit."
Please be aware that there are many of orbital objects (stars, gas clouds BHs) around the SMBH.
Our scientists claim that just at the center of the galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs.
Most of the orbital objects around the SMBH have quite high eccentricity.
Do we really know the impact of the high eccentricity of all of those orbital objects on the tidal energy at the SMBH?
They also claim that there is also significant amount of dark matter over there.
Do we really know the impact of the dark matter on the tidal energy at the SMBH?
Even if the contribution of the eccentricity of each orbital object is relatively neglected, when we add the total impact of all the orbital objects + the total dark matter around the SMBH then the tidal energy could be quite high.
Therefore, it is our obligation to understand the impact of any matter (real or dark) there on the tidal energy and not just claim that the tidal energy is just some sort of energy transformation.
Could it be that in any orbital system the orbital objects would drifts exactly the same way with or without tidal forces?
If that is the case, then it is an indication that the tidal force can inject new energy to the orbital system.
Mars could be a perfect example.
Due to its small Moons, the energy that it gets from tidal forces with those moons are neglected.
Even so, one moon is drifting outwards and the other is drifting inwards.
Hence, there is good chance that tidal forces do not have any impact on the drifting/spiraling of the orbital object.
So, if the tidal forces do not impact the orbital path of the objects, then the energy that it generates does not taken from the orbital movement of those objects as our scientists claim.
Therefore, the tidal force represents new energy.

Even if we assume that the Heat Tidal energy in the SMBH is only a transformation of energy form the orbital objects as they drift away from the SMBH, then they still contribute new energy into the SMBH.
That new energy that is transformed by tidal force into the SMBH increases its heat and increases its EM energy which will be used for the creation of new particle pair near the event horizon.
As one particle from the pair falls in, it increases the mass of the SMBH while the other one is ejected into the accretion disc and increases the total mass around it.
Eventually, the particles in the Accretion disc would be transformed into real molecular and be used to form new stars.
Those new stars contribute new tidal energy to the SMBH as they drifts away from it.
Their tidal energy will be used to increase the SMBH EM energy in order to generate new particle pair and so on.
Therefore, there is a loop of energy transformation and new particles creation.
That loop proves that all the stars around the SMBH are drifting outwards.
As they drift outwards they contribute tidal energy to the SMBH.
That also show how Spiral galaxy really works.
All the stars in the galaxy had been formed by the matter that had been created at the SMBH' accretion disc.

The spiral shape is a direct outcome from the spiraling/drifting outwards of stars.
Not even a single star had been penetrated to the galaxy from outside.
All the 250 Billion stars of the MY have been created hear in our galaxy.
All the dwarf galaxies around us had been ejected from the galaxy.
If there is a MBH at their center, this MBH would generate new matter and new stars.
As those stars drift outwards, they transform new tidal energy to that MBH.
Over time each dwarf galaxy would be transformed into massive galaxy.
We have perfect example for that.
It is called The Triangulum Galaxy and It is the baby of Andromeda galaxy.
As it is drifting away from Andromeda, it proves that in the past it was very close to it.
However you can't just fit that relatively big spiral galaxy next to Andromeda without break it down by the mighty gravity force of Andromeda.
Therefore, it proves that this  Triangulum Galaxy had created new matter and new stars as it drifts away from Andromeda.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So you think gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy

I didn't claim for infinite amount of energy.
I claimed that as long as there are orbital objects, there are tidal forces/energies.
As the orbital objects are unlimited, then the tidal forces/energies are also unlimited.