# Is this Perpetual Motion Machine generating energy from nothing ?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Singularity, May 29, 2006.

1. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Almost correct. Just missing word "your" and minor word order change. It should read:

I seriously think that nothing comes from all your energy.

3. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
Ha! Billy T funny.

5. ### c7ityi_Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,924
of course not, why would it?

just like electricity and magnetism were until maxwell showed otherwise.

7. ### przyksquishyValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,203
You can actually show that gravity and elecromagnetism are the same force? Or are you just daydreaming?

8. ### usp8riotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
381
Because it's not in space. Planets get their spin when they're first born, kind of like a galaxy spinning or a black hole. Like poles of particles are attracted to like poles as they pass by each other, kind of like a dog chasing it's tail. The linear forces on the particles and the gravitation attraction towards each other cause them to spin, which in turn, causes poles when the planet is formed. Or so as I remember.

Magnetism and gravity are like forces to me, as is all the forces in the universe. Gravity is a mass of aligned particles and so is magnetism. Only magnets aren't formed in space so they naturally don't have an attraction all around them. The spinning of a pre-formed planet causes a planet to attract all around it's body, unlike magnetism here on earth. For instance, take a magnadoodle or something. You have random magnetic particles floating around and put the magnet in the center and they all attract in a circle, same thing happens in space, except in a 3D sphere for planets.

Singularity, I don't guess anyone can explain but in theories until we know what gravityexactly is. My favorite theory, of course, is ether. Other words, the matter in space which we can't see, dark matter, whatever you want to call it. It may be minute but yet it can still carry a charge/wave. It carries light really well. Of course, it's a vacuum. And what makes a vacuum? If you ask me, when a vacuum is created in a tube, for instance, the smaller, lighter particles are left due to surrounding pressure. Apparently some physicists reason the light still can travel through it can transmit itself through the something that's called anti-particles, something like that. I think what's really happening is random interactions in the subparticles colliding to make bigger matter. Other words, two particles coming together oscillating at the same frequency, the make a bigger particle, or vice versa, as already observed in physics on a larger scale. Which explains why phsicists just think these particles appear and disappear apparently by magic, which it's not. It is due to subparticles if you ask me. Anyhow, I won't drone on, just my hypothesis.

9. ### SingularityBannedBanned

Messages:
1,287
So how does the heating related to change in orbits ?

I mean to ask whats the mechanism for the orbit decay.

10. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
This is complex... but here's a vague armwaving explanation.

Let's focus on planet A.
As the two planets pass, planet A is stretched by tidal forces. A's long axis 'wants' to point at planet B, but A would have to rotate unevenly for this to happen. This means that A's angular momentum pulls the long axis off line. This has two effects - the long axis changes to try to get back in line, churning planet A. B's gravity exerts a torque on planet A, also trying to pull the long axis back in line. The reaction of this torque is A's bulges pulling on planet B.

Exactly the same thing is happening on Planet B.

Now, if the planets were fluid and frictionless, these torques and forces would be reversed after the planets pass each other, and the process would repeat endlessly. However, because the planets are heated by friction, we know that energy is lost during the process, and the departing leg is not symmetrical with the approaching leg.

The end result is that both planets leave a little slower than they approached, and don't get quite as far away at the far end of the orbit. On each pass, the orbits become less elliptical, and more circular.

Eventually, the planets will settle into circular orbits around each other, permanently stretched, with long axes aligned. Because the orbits are circular, the angular momentum doesn't need to change to keep the long axes in line. So the planets are no longer churned, and no more heat is generated.

11. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
I can't believe I actually read you actually writing that.

Circular orbits equates to no tidal forces upon close encounters?

And it was Santa that gave me my first bicycle.

12. ### SingularityBannedBanned

Messages:
1,287
so by that standard there should be no permanent elliptical orbits in nature

13. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
I can't believe you read me writing that either. Maybe you should read it again and see if you understand it this time.

14. ### kevinalmRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
993
Exactly so, but... bear in mind that the decay time for most eliptical orbits is so large, and that the heating effect is so small, that most elliptical orbits can be considered stabil. In the solar system, only a few cases show either effect. The Earth/Moon system shows some boosting of the separation distance, and some satellites of Jupiter and maybe Saturn show some vulcanism that is suspected to be tidal. In all these cases the diameter of one of the bodies is significant compared to the separation.

15. ### SingularityBannedBanned

Messages:
1,287
so how come moons of Jupiter are still hanging on in orbits after billions of years, even thought they are boiling metals ?

16. ### baumgartenfuck the manRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,611
Their orbits will decay over billions more years.

17. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
The situation with Io is more complicated than the simple two-body system described in your initial post. Io is tidally locked to Jupiter, but it is affected by Europa and Ganymede, which perturb it enough so that the phenomal tidal forces of Jupiter can churn it up.

This is still not a permanent energy-producing combination, but billions of years isn't permanent.

18. ### BSFilterNature has no kindess/illwillRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
175
I think most of the problems that arise from trying to understand the universe are rooted in the fact that the timescales are so large. You have to be able consider that there are processes that take billions of years.
If you dont, you will never understand anything. Just because WE cant measure change in our lifespans does not mean it is not changing.

19. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
Pete is very easily amused if he believes that circular orbits mean that there is no more tidal force.

That Pete is very easily amused is not new news, although it is amusing.

It will be most enlightening (and amusing) if Pete will attempt to prove that circular orbits create no tidal forces. Circular orbits with long axes. What? A circular orbit has a long axis? Somebody please translate this jibber jabber into English. A CIRCULAR orbit with a LONG axis.

Here comes double talk and flap doodle; you're on, Pete. I'm just going to sit back and watch you pull out and display your genius on this one.

Circular orbits create no tidal forces. Wait till the professional astronomers hear this one.

Last edited: Jun 22, 2006
20. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
Hi Cangas,
I do not think that circular orbits mean that there is no tidal force. You appear to have misread one of my posts.

That CANGAS is prone to miscomprehension is not new news, although it is amusing.

No. But planets exposed to tidal forces do.

21. ### SingularityBannedBanned

Messages:
1,287
what matter is if the energy produced can be equated by the orbital decay.

Think about this, if we can realign the orbits using the energy produced and still have tremendous energy left over; then what ?

22. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
The orbital changes and other momentum and potential energy changes are exactly mathematically related to the energy produced, or, released. Realigning the orbits, as if you had shot a movie of the "decay" procedure and now watch the movie running backward, would require the same input of energy as was originally enjoyed as an output.

Why didn't you simply ask this question first? Then you would not have induced Pete to write in his horribly unclear style and caused me to be baffled by his hiroglyphics.

The laws of conservation of momentum and energy often do not need a detailed analysis of the process in order to predict if they might be violated.

You really complicated the matter by posing it as an orbital mechanics question whereas it was simply a question about conservation of energy.

23. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,337
Of course conservation of energy cannot be violated, but I find this interesting none-the-less. Newton's equation

F = Gm<sub>A</sub>m<sub>B</sub>/d<sup>2</sup>

can be interpreted to predict that orbiting masses can have increasingly large forces acting upon on them, providing a seemingly free source of acceleration.