[Bored chemist]

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.

Pick which one you want.
You can not have both.

Earther there is a limit- in which case you are wrong, or you say there is no limit, in which case you are wrong,

[Bored chemist]

In the article it is stated:

Why waste time telling me what it says?
I cited it because I know what it says.

[Kryptid]

I didn't claim for infinite amount of energy.

"Infinite" and "unlimited" are synonyms.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

OK
Let me explain it clearly.
Gravity force is a force.
Force by itself isn't energy.
However if that force sets work then this work represents energy.
In our case, the gravity force is transformed into real energy by tidal force/heat.
That new Tidal heat is transformed by the SMBH to EM Energy.
The EM energy is transformed to real particle pair.
Therefore, the Gravity force has no Infinite energy.
Even the Tidal heat isn't infinite.
At any given moment, that tidal heat/energy is quite limited and very finite.
However, as long as the orbital system exists, then the tidal heat also exists.
We can claim that as the tidal heat is there in any orbital system in the Universe then we can consider it as unlimited.
However, any specific orbital system is limited by time and therefore any specific tidal heat is also limited.
As an example - we know that all the planets and moons in the solar system are spiraling/drifting outwards (except of Phobos which should collide with Mars in about 40 MY from now).
So, when all those orbital objects would be ejected outwards from each other and from the sun into space, the gravity force between the objects would get to zero and the tidal energy in that system would get to zero.

"Infinite" and "unlimited" are synonyms.

When it comes to the SMBH there is a twist in the story.
The SMBH generates finite quantity of new particles at any given moment (by its finite EM energy due to the finite tidal Heat/energy)
Those new particles would be transformed to finite new stars at a finite G gas clouds.
Each star would contribute some finite Tidal heat to the SMBH as it drifts outwards at relatively high eccentricity.
After finite/limited time frame any new star would be ejected from the SMBH.
So, we can claim that although the SMBH could gain a finite tidal energy from any new star that had been formed over there, but as new particles/stars would always be created (infinite), then technically, the SMBH would get a limited/finite tidal energy for unlimited/infinite time.
Conclusion:
Gravity force generates finite Tidal heat/energy for infinity.
Therefore, although there is a finite matter in a finite size of space, our Universe is infinite in its space and it its total matter.
All of that wonderful infinite universe is due to gravitational force.
There is no need for special energy delivery by any imaginary Big Bang or Big Boss.
Gravity force can do the Job.

[Bored chemist]

However, as long as the orbital system exists, then the tidal heat also exists.

Yes.
And if you extract all the energy from it, the orbital system ceases to exist.

Either the moon hits the planet or the moon is flung out so far that the tide it creates is negligible.

So the energy is not "free" it either costs the planet, or it costs the moon.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, as long as the orbital system exists, then the tidal heat also exists.

Yes.
And if you extract all the energy from it, the orbital system ceases to exist.
Either the moon hits the planet or the moon is flung out so far that the tide it creates is negligible.
So the energy is not "free" it either costs the planet, or it costs the moon.

So far our scientists couldn't prove by real math and real observation that all the 100% of the tidal energy comes out from the orbital energy and not from the gravity force.
Our Moon is drifting outwards from earth by 1.5 cm per year.
Can you please prove that with or without the transformation of tidal energy, it wouldn't drift outwards exactly at the same rate?

However, even if all the tidal energy comes from the orbital movement of objects around it (as you hope), please be aware that the SMBH generates constantly new particles and new stars. As those stars drift away they contribute new tidal energy to that SMBH to continue the creation particles/stars forever and ever.

[Bored chemist]

So far our scientists couldn't prove by real math and real observation that all the 100% of the tidal energy comes out from the orbital energy and not from the gravity force.

Yes they can.
Very easily.
Force is not energy.
Energy is energy.

So the energy for one thing can come from the energy of another thing, but it can not come from a force.

Can you please prove that with or without the transformation of tidal energy, it wouldn't drift outwards exactly at the same rate?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum

When you posted those questions, did you think it would be hard for science to answer them?

Why not learn the science and then you won't need to ask silly questions as if they are hard.

[Bored chemist]

please be aware that the SMBH generates constantly new particles and new stars. As those stars drift away they contribute new tidal energy to that SMBH to continue the creation particles/stars forever and ever.

If you were right (and you aren't) then you would have a problem here.
Creating stars or whatever takes energy.
That energy can only come from the BH.
But energy has mass so, if the BH is giving out energy it is losing mass.
And if it keeps doing that, it will disappear.

So, all the SMBH can not be responsible for a steady state universe as you like to pretend.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If you were right (and you aren't)

I'm 100% correct.

then you would have a problem here.

No, there is no problem

Creating stars or whatever takes energy.

Correct

That energy can only come from the BH.

Also Correct (from the SMBH).

And if it keeps doing that, it will disappear.

Incorrect.
It seems that your mind is full with Hawking Radiation.
You think Hawking radiation.
You dream Hawking radiation
You breathe Hawking Radiation.
I have already told you - Hawking radiation is fiction. There is no Negative mass and no Negative energy.
Why is it so difficult for you to set Hawking imagination in the garbage?

So, all the SMBH cannot be responsible for a steady state universe as you like to pretend.

Yes it is
Gravity force contribute Tidal Heat/energy to the SMBH
Tidal energy is converted to EM energy
The EM energy generates particle pair.
For each particle from the pair that is ejected to the accretion disc, the SMBH gets the other one.
More mass in the SMBH and more mass outside, means more tidal energy.
More tidal energy means more mass.

[Bored chemist]

It seems that your mind is full with Hawking Radiation.

No.
Just the conservation of mass.
If the BH gives off mass, what is left must have less mass.

More mass in the SMBH and more mass outside,

is impossible because of the conservation of mass.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

[Kryptid]

In our case, the gravity force is transformed into real energy

Force can't be changed into energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:37:20
More mass in the SMBH and more mass outside,
is impossible because of the conservation of mass.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

We already have long discussion about that conservation of mass/energy.
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
"For systems where large gravitational fields are involved, general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity."
What does it mean: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity."?
Sorry - Gravity can transformed into tidal energy.
You know that, and all the other 100,000 scientists know that.
You Know that if the conservation of mass/energy prevents from the gravity force to contribute knew energy, then the Universe can't exist.
Therefore, our scientists came with the imagination of the Big Bang just to deliver new energy to our Universe.
However, you know that based on this law then even the Big bang can't do so.
Therefore, you claim that before the bang there was no time.
So, now when the time does not exist then you as the master of knowledge can claim whatever you wish and even bypass the law that no one else is allowed to bypass.
You do not bather to explain how all the energy that you deliver to your unrealistic Universe had created before the time had been created.
You just say that it is not your business as there was no time.
You also don't care how energy had been transformed from a universe without time to a universe with time.
You know that in reality you don't have a basic clue how energy had been created before the time. How it had been transformed to our universe.
The space is much more dificulte question.
How could it be that there was no space before the bang?
If there was no space, what was there?
What kind of energy can create space?
Why don't you have a law for conservation of space?.
The modern science behaves as the mother and the father of dictators.
They set the law that prevents from any new energy to be created in the entire Universe.
However, they are above the law that they have invented.
It is like to claim that it is forbidden to kill other people unless you are the king.
Our science community is the real king of knowledge and wisdom.
As a real king the science community had invented a magic key to bypass his laws.
Only the king can use that magic key.
Anyone else that would dare to find the magic key would be sent to the desert that is called: " It can't be true"
You know by now that our Universe is much bigger than any size that you can imagine.
So, our science community do not dare to claim what is the size of our Universe.
They just ignore that issue.
You know that our real universe is bigger than any size that you say.
You also know that the BBT can't be used even for the minimal universe size.
So you totally ignore the size and say that it isn't your problem and invent a new idea of Multiverse.
However, multiverse means that at the first moment that the first universe had been created then no other universe can be created as the time is already there.
But who cares?
You are the King.

Force can't be changed into energy.

Yes it is
Do you agree that Force can do work?
Yes or no?
Do you agree that works means energy?
Yes or no?
So do you agree that force can be transformed to energy?
Yes or no?

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - Gravity can transformed into tidal energy.

No.

You Know that if the conservation of mass/energy prevents from the gravity force to contribute knew energy, then the Universe can't exist.

Nonsense.

So do you agree that force can be transformed to energy?
Yes or no?

No
Because they are different types of thing

[Kryptid]

Yes it is

Show me even a single example of force being turned into energy.

Do you agree that Force can do work?

Force doing work is not turning force into energy. It's only transforming one form of energy into another (either potential into kinetic or the reverse).

Do you agree that works means energy?

Yes, but that work did not once used to be force. If force was literally turned into energy, then a gravitational field would get weaker whenever it did work.

So do you agree that force can be transformed to energy?

Absolutely not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Show me even a single example of force being turned into energy.

With Pleasure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
"An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. Most electric motors operate through the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force in the form of torque applied on the motor's shaft."
It is stated:
"the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force"
Hence, this motor first generates force.
Then it is stated:
That this force is "in the form of torque applied on the motor's shaft".
So, the force of the electric motor forces the motor shaft to spin
Hence, in the electric motor we starts with electric energy that is transformed into force. Just after having that force it can make works..
In the gravity force we start directly with the force.
There is no need to invest energy to get it.
That gravity force actually forces the orbital objects to orbit around each other.
It's also responsible for the potential energy and Tidal force/heat/energy. All of that without any need to invest any energy.

Force doing work is not turning force into energy. It's only transforming one form of energy into another (either potential into kinetic or the reverse).

Take out the gravity force and you have no potential energy, no Kinetic energy no tidal force and no tidal energy.
So, the gravity force is not just a transformation of energy, it can set real work and gain real energy.
In the electric motor, if we take out the electricity then there is no force.
Without that force the motor's shaft wouldn't spin.
In our case, there is no need to invest any form of energy to get the gravity force.
It is there just because there is mass in the objects.
So, as there is no need to invest any energy to get the gravity force, it is considered as a free force.
However, once we have that force, it can set works.
It sets the potential energy. It forces the orbital system to orbit around each other. It sets the tidal force and the tidal energy.
Therefore, the impact of gravity force is identical to an electric motor with electricity current.
Both use their force to do works.
However, in electric motor there is no force without electricity (or investing energy) while in gravity force there is no need to invest energy as it is for free.

If force was literally turned into energy, then a gravitational field would get weaker whenever it did work.

This is incorrect.
Gravity force is based on mass and not on work.
Just to remind you:
F = G m1 m2 / r^2
So, the gravity force is based on mass and distance.
You can't reduce that force by using its force to make works.
As I have already explained, we can generate electricity from orbital system free of charge.
All we need is to connect a wire to the moon and use its rotation to generate electricity free of charge.
Hence, gravity force is a real force that can generate energy and it is free of charge.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 22:13:28
Show me even a single example of force being turned into energy.
With Pleasure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
"An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.

OK, so that's energy being converted to energy.
What is your example of a force being converted to energy?

It's as if you completely ignored this bit of what Kryptid said.

Force doing work is not turning force into energy. It's only transforming one form of energy into another (either potential into kinetic or the reverse).

In particular, you can turn the potential energy of a magnetic field into kinetic energy.

Take out the gravity force and you have no potential energy,

Yes you do.
A compressed gas, a stretched rubber band or an electric field all have potential energy.

It really would be easier for you if you learned some science.

This is incorrect.
Gravity force is based on mass and not on work.

You have described the second sentence correctly.

[Kryptid]

An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.

And thus you prove my point. It's one form of energy being turned into another, not force being turned into energy.

Take out the gravity force and you have no potential energy

Of course, but that doesn't make gravitational force equal to gravitational potential energy. Joules and newtons are measuring different things.

Both use their force to do works.

Using force to do work is not force being transformed into energy. If you disagree, then tell me how many newtons are equal to one joule of energy (while citing an authoritative source in the process).

Gravity force is based on mass and not on work.

Which is what I've been trying to tell you. Yet you insist that gravity is somehow turned into work when it isn't.

Hence, gravity force is a real force that can generate energy and it is free of charge.

If that's the case, then why haven't we produced perpetual motion machines using the unlimited energy provided by the Earth's gravity yet?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:16:20
An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.

And thus you prove my point. It's one form of energy being turned into another, not force being turned into energy.

I fully agree that "It's one form of energy being turned into another".
However, it's not transformed directly energy to energy.
In the article it is stated that "the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force"
I have already explained it:

"the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force"
Hence, this motor first generates force.

Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.
At the second phase that force is used to perform the mechanical movement which means mechanical energy.
Do you confirm that a force which had been created by electric energy can be used to perform mechanical energy?
If so, why is it important for you what is the source for that force?
What is the difference between a force that is there due to electrical energy, man power or gravity.
Don't you agree that force is force?

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.

No
If I go from my house to the pub along the road I use the road to get from one to another, but I do not get transformed into a road.

A road is not the same sort of thing as a person. You can not convert one into the other
Energy is not the same sort of thing as force. You can not convert one into the other

[Bored chemist]

Don't you agree that force is force?

Yes, which is why it is not energy.