Moderator: scott
Perhaps you could show me and the readers these contradictions, also time will till, prove me wrong!Why are you always contradicting yourself !!! Also, yelling something doesn’t make it more true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it not? How many billion year does it take before it becomes Perpetual Motion?Tidal energy! Is not free energy or perpetual motion!
Too many threads are being derailed using known Physics. If Bessler’s wheel was a Gravity wheel then Gravity would not be known as a conservative force!
And for the record, I believe very strongly you cannot create energy, only transfer it!
13 billion years of Perpetual Motion from gravity without a energy input, but gravity can not provide perpetual motion?
if there was no input energy from Gravity the winding down of Orbits to a stop would have happened long ago, in my opinion gravity does do work on the planets to “sustain� motion and Orbits and work is a energy input!
So you believe in the conservation of energy, but not that gravity is a conservative force. That gravity is not getting any energy input, but it is doing work at a rate higher than its potential energy. Wouldn’t that make you a disbeliever in the Conservation of Energy?Mass in Motion" in my opinion, planetary movements requires the perpetual input force from Gravity’s!
It is not, because the energy has a source and it is stealing energy, that being the rotational energy of the moon, which the moon will run out of because it has a limited supply. It is not making energy out of nothing or with gravity only.Quote:
Tidal energy! Is not free energy or perpetual motion!
Is it not? How many billion year does it take before it becomes Perpetual Motion?
Dictionary: perpetual motion
noun Mechanics .
The motion of a theoretical mechanism that, without any losses due to friction or other forms of dissipation of energy, would continue to operate indefinitely at the same rate without any external energy being applied to it.
I can make no sense of what you are on about, it seem you are making things up!So you believe in the conservation of energy, but not that gravity is a conservative force. That gravity is not getting any energy input, but it is doing work at a rate higher than its potential energy. Wouldn’t that make you a disbeliever in the Conservation of Energy?
It was Danial Bernoulli and Leonhard Euler that refused to agree fluid dynamics and mechanics met with Newtons laws of motion. The assumption exists to this day!As a student of Leibniz’s calculus, Johann Bernoulli sided with him in 1713 in the Newton–Leibniz debate over who deserved credit for the discovery of calculus. Johann Bernoulli defended Leibniz by showing that he had solved certain problems with his methods that Newton had failed to solve. However, due to his opposition to Newton and the study that vortex theory over Newton’s theory of gravitation which ultimately delayed acceptance of Newton’s theory in continental Europe.[3]
Not true; either the things you say are true or they are false. I could say you’re not on this thread to discuss real physics; you seem to be here to talk in circles.It is clear that you are only here for personal attack, and you are not interested in the subject!
They are your quotes, so that makes two of us confused.I can make no sense of what you are on about, it seem you are making things up!
You do realise this is the backbone of Conservation of Energy?And for the record, I believe very strongly you cannot create energy, only transfer it!
Exactly, but you believe in the Conservation of Energy, but that gravity in not conservative…. So if it is not a contradiction then, what is it? So if it is not a contradiction then; where would gravity be stealing the energy from? If gravity is stealing the energy it is not perpetual motion in a modern day outlook.this is what I said you believe ( And for the record, I believe very strongly you cannot create energy, only transfer it! ) no way have I said that I believe in Gravity is a conservative force!
What? Ralph, the tides are driven at the expense of work done by momentum, not gravity.rlortie wrote:To create tides, the moon is spending gravitational force which in turn is causing earths gravitation influance to weaken, thus allow the mass of water to raise, while also seeking its own level because of earths gravity.
Sounds like a whole new perspective! I realize and aware that it is motion between the earth and moon that changes the position or area making for a high or low tide. I thought that it was caused by the surface of the earth closest to the moon.ovyyus wrote: What? Ralph, the tides are driven at the expense of work done by momentum, not gravity.
When a magnet is moved at a constant height above a sea of iron filings, a 'tide' is created in the iron filings directly beneath the magnet. Magnetic force is not spent or weakened in this process. Magnetism does no work on the iron filings. The cost in raising this iron filing 'tide' is payed for by the additional work required to laterally move the magnet across the iron filing sea.
This is exactly the same as this:And for the record, I believe very strongly you cannot create energy, only transfer it!
The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted from one form to another (potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy) but the total energy within the domain remains fixed.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html
A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that no intended "perpetual motion machine" can perpetually deliver energy to its surroundings.[6] Any delivery of energy by such a device would result in delivery of mass also, and the machine would lose mass continually until it eventually disappeared.
