Is this Perpetual Motion Machine generating energy from nothing ?

If, If, If,.....

If Grandma had those little oval things, then she could be Grandpa.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can go ahead and work out as many examples as you wish, but KE will always be conserved as will momentum. The system you describe will act as a perfectly elastic collision.

-Dale

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Players in games like this one need to sort out which assumptions you accept and which you don't.

Newton's instantaneous action at a distance or Einstein's gravity going at c.

Physical reality of infinity or physical impossibility of real infinity.

Newtonian lack of energy radiating as gravitational waves or Einstein gravitational energy leaving the local system at EVERY moment that ANY mass is accelerated.

Possibility of a new successful theory which may trash both classical and relativistic theory and which could change present concepts of energy conservation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe that you are correct CANGAS. I don't know enough GR to verify it myself, but my understanding is that energy is difficult to even define in GR and it is tricky if not impossible to use conservation techniques for gravity in GR.

I was indeed talking about classical gravity since that is the only gravity I really understand enough to be confident.

-Dale

 

My own study of GR including comments from many of the most experienced relativity physicists shows that conservation of energy is definitely not a slam dunk within the theory.

My post was intended in a general way and not as a barb aimed at anyone else's post.

 

I didnt ask this because the moon is going out

so where is the moon getting energy to leave earth while it causes tremendous energy generation in form of tides.

The orbit of moon instead of decaying, its gaining.

 

It gets it from the rotational energy of the Earth. As the Moon moves outward, the Earth slows down. The Earth transfers some of its rotational energy to the Moon. Once the Earth rotates with the same period as the moon's orbit, the Moon will stop moving outward.

The Moon itself does not generate any energy in the form of tides, any energy involved comes from conversion of the kinetic energy of the Earth's rotation.

 

The problem with these explanations is that they don't define the origin of the energy giving gravity the ability to raise the water to cause the tides that extract the rotational energy in the long term.

 

MacM is making an excellent point. We can argue energy conservation either by Newton physics in which it is perfect, or by Relativities in which it is iffy, or by perhaps a new successful theory which could give a lot of surprises.

Since I don't yet have a new theory worked out yet, I have answered pretty much in terms of Newton physics. But I like pleasant surprises.

 

I would surmise that the heat comes from the motion of the two planets, plus the heat generated from the gravitational effects each planet has on ots own planetary mass when readjusting to a state of equilibrium.
Some might say that you really haven't got a perpetual motion machine here. I disagree aomewhat. A well constructed dam designed to last 1000 years is a perpetual motion machine for all intents band purposes for many generations of people. AS long as the river remains, the dam will generate electricity from water falling onto electric generators. Perpetual is just a word designed to keep people from investigating and improvising unique energy sources. The gasses discovered on other planets (methan?) are an infinite source of energy for the planet earth. We need but a focus of direction to go get it. Instead we have NASA and its stupid "search for life" and "when it all began" (both religious topics and prohibited from the use of public money, remember:" Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion:...") programs and exploring the geophysics of Mars and the Moon etc, all useless and esoteric nothingnesses.

But then NASA was formed as a military institution,not civilian. Apparentkly, NASA et al, have made some discoveries that are kept from the rest of us that aclerarly infer the existence of other than terrestrial life. These beings may be connected historcially to us mortals and even biologically, but their [advanced] existence is not in doubt.
Geistkiesel​

 

Very funny,

so u mean earth cannot get energy from moon, but the moon can ?

 

The moon is already tidally locked to the Earth.

 

Not with the present arrangement. The Earth presently is slowing down in its rotation, thus losing energy. The Moon is climbing in its orbit, thus gaining energy. Gravity acts as the mechanism for the transfer of energy from the Earth to Moon, but does not add any energy to the system.

If you want the tranfers to go the other way, you would have to move the Moon into a postion such that it orbits the Earth faster than the Earth rotates. Then the Earth would speed up as the Moon drifted lower in its orbit, Then the Moon would be giving up its energy to the Earth.

This transfer of energy isn't very efficient however. If you compare the rate at which the Earth slows and the rate at which the Moon climbs, you will find that the Moon only gains a few percent of the energy the Earth loses. The excess is lost as heat.

 

All the energy in the solar system comes from the initial dust and cloud nebula that the SS formed from. All motion of the planets started there. No new energy was added. Gravity does not supply energy, it merely guides the motions of the objects that already have kinetic energy.

 

So will u be kind to explain exactly how the moon gains this energy without earths contact.

To do that there has to be a perpendicular G force from earth that is capable of pushing the moon horizontally.

 

It's simple. You're making the incorrect assumption that the Earth's tidal bulge is on the line connecting the center of the Earth and the center of the Moon. It isn't. Various effects, notably the Earth's internal friction, assure that it isn't. It leads the Moon which give the needed perpendicular component.

 

Exactly. The Earth's internal friction causes it to drag the tidal bulge along as the Earth rotates. The Moon, on the other hand, tries to keep the bulge lined up with itself. This "tug of war" results in a balance where the bulge leads the moon by a few degrees. This also results in a "horizontal" component to the gravitational interaction between Earth and Moon that, on one hand, acts to slow the Earth's rotation, and on the other, pulls forward on the Moon in its orbit.

 

Wow so u mean that AntiGravity exists ?

Obviously something of G has to go out from earth to affect the moon being pushed away.


BTW why are others silent on this one,

i see, they are scared.

 

The tidal bulge is mutually attracting the orbiting body. This slows the rotation of the tidal bulge. And this accelerates the orbital velocity of the orbiting body. Increased orbital velocity dictates rise to a higher orbit, continually fighting gravity. Fighting gravity causes orbital velocity to decrease until a higher and slower stable orbit results. Meanwhile the tidal bulge and its planet's rotation has been slowed.

Recognition of antigravity depends on your definition of it. While I believe that a future improved understanding of the nature of gravity may give us, or may not, something everyone could plainly accept as antigravity, I don't believe the gravitational based transfer of kinetic energy between bodies which mutually accelerate toward each other can accept the title.

 

Oh ya sure, why not i mean this has been proved with manmade Satelites, isnt it ?

BTW the bulge has will pull the moon more and not push it away so your agrument is baseless that the moon is speed up by the bulge, Amazing that the moon is not slowed down by it.

What some people ...