[Kryptid]

Dave, all of this has already been explained to you in older threads of yours that have been locked. Talking about them here is like evading the lock. Please don't bring that up here unless you want your posting privileges revoked. If you want to talk about Yahya's device specifically, then that would be okay.

[Bored chemist]

However, if there was one more moon, then by definition the Earth spin can't be locked with two moons as they orbit at different velocities.

Yes it can, because their velocities would change and they would end up locked to each other.

[Kryptid]

Yes it can, because their velocities would change and they would end up locked to each other.

And I'm pretty sure the point is moot anyway, since two moons changing their orbital speed and radius due to tidal effects would approach the same orbit over time and collide with each other. Then you'd have one moon.

[Halc]

And I'm pretty sure the point is moot anyway, since two moons changing their orbital speed and radius due to tidal effects would approach the same orbit over time and collide with each other. Then you'd have one moon.

Actually they'd draw apart. If we're locked with a large moon, a moon orbiting further out would slowly drift further away, stealing orbital energy from the locked pair. If the 2nd moon orbited closer, its orbit would decay, yielding its energy to the locked pair, eventually colliding with the primary.

Hence, when the earth spin would decrease and be fully locked with the orbital motion of the moon, the earth tidal heat would be zero.

It would still be spinning relative to the sun, so the heat would not be zero. Solar tides are quite significant and responsible for spring tides ever 2 weeks.

Hence, one of them must contribute tidal heat to earth.

That's true. It is the energy of the spin of the locked pair that is driving that heat. The orbit of the not-locked moon also contributes energy to that heat, but only if it orbits closer than the moon with which the Earth is locked. See just above for that.

Gravity isn't energy. It has different units.

Yes, I fully agree that gravity isn't energy, it is a force

No it isn't. How much force (in Newtons) does a million kg exert? Gravity isn't measured in Newtons. It's measured either in potential or the derrivative of potential, which is acceleration. A million kg has neither of those either. That's measured in units of mass. But I can specify the gravitational potential at Earth's surface, and I can specify the gravitational acceleration there. I cannot specify the energy at Earth's surface any more than I can specify the force at Earth's surface.

However, force can do work and work means energy.

A rock puts a continuous million newtons of force on Earth. How much energy is delivered to Earth (or the rock) by this continuous force? No, force is not energy. Force times distance is energy, also commonly known as work.

You just confirmed that the radius is not effected by the tidal heat.

I don't recall saying anything like that. I can heat up a metal ball and its radius will get larger, so radius is effected by heat, be it from tides or any other source.

Hence, as the tidal heat does not change the radius or the mass why can't we claim that the tidal heat does not reduce the gravity force?

Because the force between a pair of objects has to do with the mass of those objects and their separation, neither of which is particularly altered by heating up one of the objects.

So, if we get a tidal heat without any impact on the gravity force, why can't we consider that tidal heat as a free heat due to gravity force?

Of course you're just being deliberately dumb here since this has already been explained. The energy isn't free since it comes from rotation (kinetic) energy. That KE has to run out eventually. As BC says, you can't do it twice. The system is ever in a lower total energy state than it was yesterday. The battery will eventually be exhausted, leaving one object, still spinning, but with nowhere to dissipate the energy further.

[Dave Lev]

Gravity isn't measured in Newtons. It's measured either in potential or the derrivative of potential, which is acceleration. A million kg has neither of those either. That's measured in units of mass. But I can specify the gravitational potential at Earth's surface, and I can specify the gravitational acceleration there. I cannot specify the energy at Earth's surface any more than I can specify the force at Earth's surface.

Let's assume that we could shut down the gravity force that works on between the Earth/solar system to the moon.
Do you agree that without gravity force, The moon would keep its current momentum and move in its current velocity in a direct line?
Let's also assume that we could place on the moon a mighty rocket system that could bend the direction of the moon.
Can you advice what is the energy in Newtons that is needed for this rocket system to bend the moon movement direction in just one degree?
Try to calculate the Energy for the rocket system that is needed to accomplish one full orbital cycle.
So as the gravity can bend the motion of the moon without any rocket, why can't we agree that the gravity contributes same energy in Newtons that would be needed for this rocket system to do the same work?

[Dave Lev]

If you want to talk about Yahya's device specifically, then that would be okay.

I have an excellent advice to Yahya.

If you tie a rope to a rock, then push the rock off a cliff then you can use the rope to turn the shaft of a generator and get electricity.
But you can only do it once.
After that  you have to  lift the rock back up and that takes exactly the same energy as you could get from it falling.
There's nothing  magical .

Let's assume that this rock is orbiting around the Earth and use electrical cable instead of the rope.
This electrical cable would cross the magnet that Yahya had offered..
Let's also ignore all the frictions due to the air.
So don't you agree that we could get almost unlimited electrical energy for free?

[Kryptid]

Dave, all of this has already been explained to you in older threads of yours that have been locked. Talking about them here is like evading the lock. Please don't bring that up here unless you want your posting privileges revoked.

So don't you agree that we could get almost unlimited electrical energy for free?

All that would do is drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy for whatever application you end up using the energy for, causing the rock's orbit to decay. It isn't creating energy out of nothing.

[pzkpfw]

...
Try to calculate the Energy for the rocket system that is needed to accomplish one full orbital cycle.
So as the gravity can bend the motion of the moon without any rocket, why can't we agree that the gravity contributes same energy in Newtons that would be needed for this rocket system to do the same work?

Imagine an astronaut alone in their spacesuit orbiting Earth (normal Earth, with mass curving spacetime).

They will feel weightless.

Now put them out in interstellar space away from any noticeable gravity, and have them take the exact same path as that orbit - with your rocket idea.

They will feel the acceleration from the rocket.

Take a look at what "freefall" means. Your equivalence (gravity vs rocket) is false.

[Dave Lev]

...
Try to calculate the Energy for the rocket system that is needed to accomplish one full orbital cycle.
So as the gravity can bend the motion of the moon without any rocket, why can't we agree that the gravity contributes same energy in Newtons that would be needed for this rocket system to do the same work?

Imagine an astronaut alone in their spacesuit orbiting Earth (normal Earth, with mass curving spacetime).

They will feel weightless.

Now put them out in interstellar space away from any noticeable gravity, and have them take the exact same path as that orbit - with your rocket idea.

They will feel the acceleration from the rocket.

Yes, all the above is correct

Take a look at what "free fall" means. Your equivalence (gravity vs rocket) is false.

the Astronaut "Feel" doesn't mean that there is no acceleration.
Our body had been developed to feel external forces.
Therefore, our astronaut can feel the acceleration due to the rocket energy.
However, gravity works equally on every cell in the astronaut' body.
Therefore, he can't feel the acceleration due to the gravity energy as he falls in.
Actually, even if he was under the gravity impact of a S....SMBH he won't feel any acceleration as long as each cell in his body would be exactly under the same gravity force.
Theoretically, if we could split the rocket energy to work equally on each cell of that astronaut body, he also won't feel the acceleration impact of the rocket.
Therefore, under this limitation, if this astronaut accelerates its velocity due to gravity energy or rocket energy, he won't feel any acceleration - as long as he closes his eyes and does not collide with anything.
Did you have the chance to read the Newton's second law of motion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
Newton's second law of motion states that the rate of change of a body's momentum is equal to the net force acting on it. Momentum depends on the frame of reference, but in any inertial frame it is a conserved quantity, meaning that if a closed system is not affected by external forces, its total linear momentum does not change.
Therefore, "in any inertial frame it is a conserved quantity, meaning that if a closed system is not affected by external forces, its total linear momentum does not change".
Therefore, if the Astronaut was not effected by any external forces/energy it is expected that "its total linear momentum does not change"
However, the gravity bends its linear momentum.
Therefore, based on Newton's second law of motion, that astronaut must get external force/energy - even if it is called gravity, and he does't feel it.
Hence, do you finally agree that in order to change the linear momentum of any object/astronaut - by gravity or by rocket - that force must come with real energy.

So don't you agree that we could get almost unlimited electrical energy for free?

All that would do is drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy for whatever application you end up using the energy for, causing the rock's orbit to decay. It isn't creating energy out of nothing.

What do you mean by "rock's orbit to decay"
If you mean that the orbital radius would be shorter, than by definition in order to keep the orbital motion its orbital velocity should be increased.
Increasing the orbital velocity means increasing in the orbital kinetic energy and the orbital momentum.
Do you agree that there is a contrediction between "rock's orbit to decay" to "drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy"
Now, let's assume that we would connect the electrical wire to the moon instead of that rock.
Do you claim that the moon's orbit would also be decay and the moon would be drifted inwards, although we know that the moon constantly drifts outwards and decreasing its orbital momentum?

[talanum1]

I dont see any picture in the .jpg, so i cant understand anything you are talking about.
I am surprised that some other are doing some comment, so they probably see something... or perhaps are used about saying nothing about nothing.
Of that post, this bit
Quote from: Deecart on 03/10/2022 19:55:49
I dont see any picture in the .jpg
was informative.

Your logic seems to be physical only. How do you cope?

[KiltedWeirdo]

2^n is a powerfully dangerous equation here.
when 2^n where n=diameter of a circle, more dangerous.
using magnets within a sphere similar, is the most dangerous.
you simply have to find the right exchange sizing's by magnet size and power.
think about a sphere and a+b=c+b=phi where b=1.
1 is our gap if a and c are opposite facing magnets. close the gap to create vibrations.
vibration is will to move. the rest is in the binary coding (north and south) of how you face the magnets.
we have two mass systems, allowing 2 energy systems, and a total energy.
meaning we can use two off zero interaction points to never touch zero, but still create free energy.

I think the old alchemists used lodestone (magnetic properties)
I would walk with caution on this subject, as matter to antimatter near total mutual destruction could be an outcome on a grand scale.
People act as if we have science ironed out. We don't. There may be more exceptions than anticipated.

[Bored chemist]

Your logic seems to be physical only. How do you cope?

Easy; It only "seems" that way to you.

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that there is a contrediction between "rock's orbit to decay" to "drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy"

No. Although the orbital velocity increases, the total energy decreases. The sum "kinetic energy + potential energy" goes down. I'm pretty sure I've already told you about this.

Now, let's assume that we would connect the electrical wire to the moon instead of that rock.
Do you claim that the moon's orbit would also be decay and the moon would be drifted inwards, although we know that the moon constantly drifts outwards and decreasing its orbital momentum?

The energy drained by a single wire probably wouldn't be as great as the energy gain through tidal interactions with the Earth. Most likely, the wire would just cause the Earth's rotational energy to be drained a bit faster than usual. There is no net creation of energy. But this has been explained to you ad nauseum...

[KiltedWeirdo]

It seems he's trying to rationalize atoms using vibrations as sound energy released (2014 showed artificial atoms having a sound interaction) and the unknown elements of cosmological expansions in magnetic form.

There's only two forms that can possibly come close. 2^n with spheres (dangerous at n=d=9)
and a line interpretation.

[Kryptid]

It seems he's trying to rationalize atoms using vibrations as sound energy released (2014 showed artificial atoms having a sound interaction) and the unknown elements of cosmological expansions in magnetic form.

There's only two forms that can possibly come close. 2^n with spheres (dangerous at n=d=9)
and a line interpretation.

I don't see the relevance. Yahya is talking about magnetism.

[KiltedWeirdo]

he's talking about free energy.
two possible free energy systems might get close.
both use a magnet's pole alignment as a force mechanism.
turning it into energy.
one is spherical. one is based on a circle as a infinite ray route. we can retravel a circle. its a sign of perpetuality. if we don't assume perpetuality cannot exist. remember, a scientist would rather ask what if, then make decided statements.
I'm not great with my words. but it seems like 2^n and n=diameter would be a near perfect example of something that would seek comfort.
n^3 where n=diameter provided. that's with circles though.
diameter=1 uses 2 in 2d, 3 in 3d
diameter=2 uses 4 in 2d, 6 in 3d
diameter=3 uses 8 in 2d, 12 in 3d
diameter=4 uses 16 in 2d, 24 in 3d
diameter=5 uses 32 in 2d, 48 in 3d
diameter=6 uses 64 in 2d, 96 in 3d
diameter=7 uses 128 in 2d, 192 in 3d
diameter=8 uses 256 in 2d, 384 in 3d
diameter=9  uses 512 in 2d, 768 in 3d

[Kryptid]

It looks like this is getting dragged off topic by Dave and KiltedWeirdo.

Can we please restrict discussion to Yayha's device specifically? If you wish to discuss something else, please start your own threads.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

This is the first obvious  error.

In 2 I use very small force to move the piece of iron Horizontally. There is not a resistance force,

This it is true. It is possible to rotate a toy motor with little force. It consists of iron and a permanent magnet, the circuit is open and the magnets are separated.

[Bored chemist]

Magnetism, like gravity is a conservative field.
You only get back what you  put in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_vector_field
It's true that moving a piece of iron away from a magnet sideways may take less force but, you need to move it further so the work done (the product of the force and the distance) is the same.

It's also very hard to estimate forces when you pull and push things by hand.
You need some sort of measuring equipment.
It doesn't need to be complicated.
This sort of thing will do the job.
https://www.glsed.co.uk/product/science/physics/newton-meters---5kg-50n-yellow