Impossible Barriers and such?

[Didymus]

Depends on the extremity of "without the sun".... There are plenty of clouds on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, etc. Thus plenty of evaporation. At that distance I doubt more heat comes from the sun than the planet itself.

Wind circulation on Neptune seems to be dampened by getting less heat from the sun.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Didymus

[swansont]

There's no indication that gravity is lessening.

[doG]

The current conversation regards tidal energy. Not too widely utilized, but no way to get around the work the moon does pulling the oceans around. I don't give a hoot about the moon's rotational speed, so long as it's gravitational field effects us to pull water around for us to use. They respond that this process is the cause of the moon losing energy and thus receding. I buy that there is torque on the moon that could put its rotation in synch with us.... Maybe even reverse it, perhaps. I even buy that it could be receding... But to use this to insinuate that gravity holds to the concept that energy can't be created and that all of the work the moon's gravity has done since the moon has been around.... Is somehow a finite amount that will eventually run out.... That's just silly.

It is a finite amount that will eventually run out when full tidal locking occurs and utilizing energy from the process in the meantime will only speed up that process.

[zapatos]

Depends on the extremity of "without the sun".... There are plenty of clouds on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, etc. Thus plenty of evaporation. At that distance I doubt more heat comes from the sun than the planet itself.

 

Wind circulation on Neptune seems to be dampened by getting less heat from the sun.

Sorry but I am not clear on your position regarding the following questions:

 

Are you saying that tidal locking between the earth and moon will not occur?

Are you suggesting that in the absence of the sun it will keep raining on earth and rivers will keep flowing?

Are you suggesting that stars will 'burn' indefinitely?

 

And a new question:

Are you suggesting that the earth will never cool due to its own gravity?

[Didymus]

It is a finite amount that will eventually run out when full tidal locking occurs and utilizing energy from the process in the meantime will only speed up that process.

 

Well, one of us is definitely misunderstanding something. From my understanding, tidal locking seems to effect the satellite's rotation... not it's orbit. I.e. the moon would still be there, it would just always be showing us the same side. The moon's... kinda already in a state of tidal locking as it's synched up with the sun. That's why the same side of the moon is always dark.

 

Were the moon's roatation to be synched with us so it's no longer in tidal locking with the sun, but instead in tidal locking with us.... the gravity of the moon wouldn't change in the slightest. The tide's would still function exactly as they do today... it's just that "the dark side of the moon" would eventually face the sun every now and then and we'd see that side.

 

.... more to the point... Gravity is exerting that energy regardless of whether we use it or not. If we were to build a million tidal generators and generate tons o' electricity from the tides... that would not change the moon's orbit one li'l bit. ... any more than adding more rocks for the water to flow around.

[zapatos]

The moon is tidally locked to the earth, not the sun. We always see the same side of the moon. The moon does not have a side that is in permanent darkness. It rotates once for each revolution around the earth. Eventually the earth will be tidally locked to the moon, always showing the moon the same face, and at that time there will no longer be tides.

[Didymus]

Sorry but I am not clear on your position regarding the following questions:

 

Are you saying that tidal locking between the earth and moon will not occur?

Are you suggesting that in the absence of the sun it will keep raining on earth and rivers will keep flowing?

Are you suggesting that stars will 'burn' indefinitely?

 

And a new question:

Are you suggesting that the earth will never cool due to its own gravity?

In response to the legendary pokemon:

 

1- I believe that the work the moon is doing on the tides may cause tidal locking... I don't believe us utilizing the tides more will have any effect on that. And I don't believe that tidal locking of the moon will have any effect on the moon's ability to pull the tide's. That's rotation, not orbit. A rock facing one direction has the same gravity as the same rock facing the other direction. Now, swan suggested that tidal locking is also the cause for the moon's orbit receding. Thus the work of gravity has an antigravitational effect. I believe the moon may be receding... but I don't believe the moon pulling the tides causes the moon to be pushed away from those tides.

2- With our planet's chemical composition? It would certainly be much colder... all water on the surface would freeze... but gasses would still circulate over our frozen shell... and fluids would still circulate under it. It would certainly kill all humans. But, if you look at the planets we have (ignoring pluto, because it's stupid).... planets closer to the sun have a smaller atmosphere... no clouds, thus no rain. Farther away you get... the more active the atmosphere... even with less heat coming from the sun. I don't think neptune's winds can be primarily attributed from the sun's heat.

3- About stars burning forever? Well, they seem to blow up. I'm only suggesting that you don't often see a celestial body capable of fusion orbiting a celestial body not capable of fusion. I.e. a star orbiting a non-star. I think the star's ability to have all those warm, shiney reactions comes from it's amazing mass and the epic pressure from it's own gravity. I believe the chemical reactions are the catalyst for energy transfer.... but the energy that sustains these reaction is the sun's own gravity, which doesn't deplete. That doesn't mean it'll never go out of balance and explode. The environment of a star is certainly hostile, and there's bound to be degradation.

 

4- I'd need you to define "never cool." To what extent? Certainly the atmosphere will go through cycles of cooling to different degrees. I assume you're asking if I believe that the earth's core will ever stop having liquid-hot-magma? If so, affirmative. While there is radioactive components down there... it seems more rational to me that those elements are a product of heat and pressure rather than the cause for the heat and pressure. A study would be interesting to tap to the earth's core, monitor it for a few centuries and see if the over-all levels of radiation are reducing, staying the same... or possibly increasing. Unfortunately, we don't even have the technology to reach the bottom of our oceans.... I don't think we can rightly claim to have the earth's core 100% figured out.

 

... at this point, I think it's important to specify that all these arguments are -not- any sort of claim of being superior to all of the people who've studied all of these things longer than me. I do not argue to be "right" or prove other's "wrong." I believe that science is about the question... not the answer. Many people have more accurate answers than me.... but too many are too complacent in their answers, and accept the answer for face value. But, when we stop asking questions, we become stagnant. I don't claim to have accurate answers.... but I'm pretty good at pointing out questions others may have missed. I'll be arrogant enough to claim that science cares a lot more about the question than the answer. Answers are dead once we have them. We can only continue to learn if we continue to question and challenge everything. Especially what we consider to be "well established and unquestionable."

 

... it's the "unquestionable" stuff that should be questioned the most aggressively.

The moon is tidally locked to the earth, not the sun. We always see the same side of the moon. The moon does not have a side that is in permanent darkness. It rotates once for each revolution around the earth. Eventually the earth will be tidally locked to the moon, always showing the moon the same face, and at that time there will no longer be tides.

 

Yep, you're right. I had a brain fart on that one.

 

If we're not discussing the moon's rotation, I might need this more clearly defined. Are you suggesting that eventually the earth's rotation will match the moon's orbit, therefore the moon will always seem to be in the same position in the sky? One side of the planet will see the moon constantly and the other side will never see it again? Because that would definitely stop the tides going in and out as the oceans would simply stay bulged on one side of the planet. The moon would still be producing the same amount of force from gravity, it just wouldn't be moving items back and forth, thus making it more difficult to harness for electricity.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Didymus

[zapatos]

In response to the legendary pokemon:

What does that mean?

 

If we're not discussing the moon's rotation, I might need this more clearly defined. Are you suggesting that eventually the earth's rotation will match the moon's orbit, therefore the moon will always seem to be in the same position in the sky? One side of the planet will see the moon constantly and the other side will never see it again? Because that would definitely stop the tides going in and out as the oceans would simply stay bulged on one side of the planet. The moon would still be producing the same amount of force from gravity, it just wouldn't be moving items back and forth, thus making it more difficult to harness for electricity.

Here is a pretty good explanation:

http://www.digipro.com/Trials/moon.html

 

The moon would still be producing the same amount of force from gravity, it just wouldn't be moving items back and forth, thus making it more difficult to harness for electricity.

Making it impossible to harness for electricity. And that gets to my original point. Energy has to come from somewhere if you want to harvest it. Energy is not coming from gravity itself. Gravity is allowing you to harvest rotational energy in the case of tides, and gravity is allowing you to harvest solar energy in the case of electrical dams. But once those energy sources run out (the sun going cold or the rotation of the earth ceasing), gravity has nothing left to harvest. Edited August 20, 2013 by zapatos

[Didymus]

Zapdos. Pokemon #145. Legendary flying/electric type. You.

Legendary pokemon should know how silly the word "impossible" is.

Even assuming both the moon and earth lock together, worst case scenario, the moon will also be pulling on our atmosphere, which isn't quite as limited as our oceans. Atmospheres are also pretty hard to pull uniformly. Doing so would kick up pretty massive winds... once again providing harvestable energy even if the earth and moon experience tidal lock billions of years from now.

Even if the moon's gravity become impossible to harvest, the earth's gravity provides plenty within our own system.

[doG]

In response to the legendary pokemon:

 

1- I believe that the work the moon is doing on the tides may cause tidal locking... I don't believe us utilizing the tides more will have any effect on that. And I don't believe that tidal locking of the moon will have any effect on the moon's ability to pull the tide's. That's rotation, not orbit. A rock facing one direction has the same gravity as the same rock facing the other direction. Now, swan suggested that tidal locking is also the cause for the moon's orbit receding. Thus the work of gravity has an antigravitational effect. I believe the moon may be receding... but I don't believe the moon pulling the tides causes the moon to be pushed away from those tides.

 

Thank you for stating clearly that you don't understand orbital mechanics and that you think you understand them better than the people that have studied orbital mechanics.Do us a favor and pick up a book.

 

The Earth's tides are caused by the moon's gravity but the energy that drives them comes from the Earth's kinetic rotational energy. As the Earth spins under the moons gravity it cause the tides to go up and down dissipating that energy and slowing down the Earth's rotation. Tapping that energy will accelerate that process. It's like an electrical generator with no load connected. Give it a spin and it coasts for a while but connect a load and it will come to a halt quickly if you don't put in the energy you're taking out.

Edited August 21, 2013 by doG

[Didymus]

And the suns energy helps along the water cycle. When we use hydroelectricity, are we depeting the sun faster than if we hadn't generated that electricity?

 

The work of moving the water is done whether we utilize it or not.

[doG]

And the suns energy helps along the water cycle. When we use hydroelectricity, are we depeting the sun faster than if we hadn't generated that electricity?

 

The work of moving the water is done whether we utilize it or not.

No, using radiated energy from the sun does not accelerate the sun's processes. Do you really want the rest of us to think you believe such a thing?

[Didymus]

Of course not. Point is, that force is being put out there. What happens to the force after it's generated doesn't change what generated that force.

The tides are being pulled over a turbine used to charge a battery, which causes a bit of drag in the water. How does that water lose more energy if the circuit is complete and the battery is charging as opposed to if the circuit to the battery is broken... the turbine causes identical drag... but the energy isn't being utilized to store electricity?

 

The force is being applied, whether it's utilized or not. Whether water is tumbling over a rock and applying a certain amount of drag... or tumbling over a turbine and having that same amount of drag generate electricity... the water has no way to detect that effect... it just experiences some drag.

That's why this statement is illogical:

 

utilizing energy from the process in the meantime will only speed up that process.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Didymus - your continued arguments from personal incredulity are beginning to look a bit like trolling. In this and other places you are arguing with those who have taken the time to learn the subject - please make the effort to understand the basics before dismissing reasoned responses because the answer does not correspond with what you reckon must be true.

 

[doG]

Of course not. Point is, that force is being put out there. What happens to the force after it's generated doesn't change what generated that force.

 

The tides are being pulled over a turbine used to charge a battery, which causes a bit of drag in the water. How does that water lose more energy if the circuit is complete and the battery is charging as opposed to if the circuit to the battery is broken... the turbine causes identical drag... but the energy isn't being utilized to store electricity?

 

The force is being applied, whether it's utilized or not. Whether water is tumbling over a rock and applying a certain amount of drag... or tumbling over a turbine and having that same amount of drag generate electricity... the water has no way to detect that effect... it just experiences some drag.

 

That's why this statement is illogical:

No, your response further demonstrates your lack of understanding.

 

The Earth has a certain amount of kinetic energy stored in it's mass long ago that causes it to rotate just like a spinning top. It will continue spinning for the longest time as long as you don't introduce any additional friction, just like the top. If you do introduce additional friction of any kind you will reduce the total amount of time the it would spin naturally. Adding drag to the water currents caused by the tides is adding friction to the process and will result in slowing down the Earth's rotation in the long term. It may not be on a scale that you would notice in a lifetime but it will effect the long term environment of humanity as it increases the length of a day and night.

 

FWIW, I'm not going to spend any more time trying to explain this to some arrogant know-it-all that wants to declare their knowledge as superior to the physicists writing books on orbital mechanics.

[Didymus]

Direct name calling (arrogant know-it-all) is acceptable, but pointing out possible variables in a theory .... In a thread specifically opened to question barriers thought to be "impossible".... Is somehow against forum policy?

 

If on-topic dissent is frowned upon.... What's the point of this forum?

 

When people make logical points (such as tidal locking), I acknowledge it's validity. When people extend this to illogical conclusions (like the idea that hydro plants will burn out the sun faster or that making use of tidal energy will deplete the earth's spin faster than an equal amount of resistance without storing energy... I'd have to see evidence to support that claim beyond the unsubstantiated opinion of some dude who wants me to trust him. That's not how science works. I especially don't trust those who believe that's how science works.

 

 

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

Edited August 27, 2013 by Didymus

[Moontanman]

But, if you look at the planets we have (ignoring pluto, because it's stupid).... planets closer to the sun have a smaller atmosphere... no clouds, thus no rain.

 

 

Didymus, this is demonstrably not true, Venus has 100 times the atmosphere of the earth and Mars has 1/100 Earths atmosphere. (more or less for both)

In fact titan has a denser atmosphere than the earth while jupiters moons have none... you are not making sense...

[Didymus]

True, distance from the sun is not the only factor.... But it certainly doesn't seem to hurt. Look at a larger scale. Compare the atmospheric extremity of the four planets close to the sun against the four planets farther from the sun. Venus doesn't even begin to compare to any of the outer 4. Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune's distence from the sun seems not to have hurt their capacity for atmospheric motion (harvestable wind energy) and clouds (thus evaporation based upon the planet's internal heat rather than the sun's radiation).

 

What source of energy builds this heat? I'd wager it's the pressure of gravity in the planet's core+friction+massive insulation due to a larger atmosphere.

[doG]

...When people extend this to illogical conclusions (like the idea that hydro plants will burn out the sun faster or that making use of tidal energy will deplete the earth's spin faster than an equal amount of resistance without storing energy... I'd have to see evidence to support that claim beyond the unsubstantiated opinion of some dude who wants me to trust him. That's not how science works. I especially don't trust those who believe that's how science works.

Wow.......just wow. You've been provided with links to learn and understand the physics behind this and you've still got a misunderstanding that has everything all mixed up.

 

Where has anyone made any claims that hydro plants will burn up the sun? Please quote the post so the rest of us can see where you got that from. I'll bet you can't find it yet somehow you've got it in your head that someone said that. Go ahead, reread the thread and see if you can find it. You want people to believe you're right and everyone else is wrong even though you post examples like this of your incomprehension of the physics involved.

 

Back to tidal energy. Imagine the situation as this. You have a large spinning ball that has an initial amount of kinetic energy that drives the its rotation. Will it spin longer if you leave it alone OR if you extract some of that energy for other uses?

[Didymus]

Sorry, links I saw required an account before I could open the pdfs.... I'd gladly read sources, but I'm not going to jump through hoops to do so.

 

As for your question about solar power generation effecting the Sun... The point is that, while energy is constantly transferred from one state to another.... It is also constantly being wasted and constantly being generated. A simpler illustration is dams on a stream. Yes, there is energy input to cause the water to evaporate... But there is no way that input will be affected if the rain falls directly back into the ocean vs. If that rain falls into a river with back to back turbines for 100 miles.

 

The point is to illustrate that if you put a turbine in the water that generates a certain amount of resistance.... That resistance will have the same effect on the ocean whether the energy is being stored by charging up that battery.... Or whether energy is being wasted, if the battery is at full capacity and no energy is being stored. Resistance is resistance, whether it's a rock or a turbine.

 

Thus, the idea that generating electricity through oceanic motion will slow the earth faster is exactly as illogical as stating that hydroelectricity sill exhaust the Sun faster because energy is being generated, and according to the impossible barrier, that has to come out of somewhere.

 

I suggest that it does come out of somewhere.... The limitless energy constantly being generated by all massive bodies: gravity.

[ADreamIveDreamt]

Nothing is impossible.

 

Gravity and Magnets are fun to play with...

[doG]

Sorry, links I saw required an account before I could open the pdfs.... I'd gladly read sources, but I'm not going to jump through hoops to do so.

 

The links I provided were at wikipedia...

 

As for your question about solar power generation effecting the Sun... The point is that, while energy is constantly transferred from one state to another.... It is also constantly being wasted and constantly being generated. A simpler illustration is dams on a stream. Yes, there is energy input to cause the water to evaporate... But there is no way that input will be affected if the rain falls directly back into the ocean vs. If that rain falls into a river with back to back turbines for 100 miles.

 

You specifically said someone here made the claim that hydro plants would deplete the sun. Please point out that claim or withdraw your lie.

 

The point is to illustrate that if you put a turbine in the water that generates a certain amount of resistance.... That resistance will have the same effect on the ocean whether the energy is being stored by charging up that battery.... Or whether energy is being wasted, if the battery is at full capacity and no energy is being stored. Resistance is resistance, whether it's a rock or a turbine.

 

Wrong analogy. A more correct analogy would be that the ocean is already a battery charger depleting the Earth's rotational kinetic energy through tidal acceleration. Now you want to connect an additional load to that battery and hasten the consumption of that kinetic energy.

 

The limitless energy constantly being generated by all massive bodies: gravity.

 

Gravity is a force, not energy. Please go back and start over at physics 101...

[Endy0816]

Seems like Gravity is frequently misunderstood.

 

 

Two masses generate some force as they come together.

 

Once they are together you can only generate more force by separating them again.

 

Separating them takes more energy than you initially received.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Endy0816

[Moontanman]

Sorry, links I saw required an account before I could open the pdfs.... I'd gladly read sources, but I'm not going to jump through hoops to do so.

 

As for your question about solar power generation effecting the Sun... The point is that, while energy is constantly transferred from one state to another.... It is also constantly being wasted and constantly being generated. A simpler illustration is dams on a stream. Yes, there is energy input to cause the water to evaporate... But there is no way that input will be affected if the rain falls directly back into the ocean vs. If that rain falls into a river with back to back turbines for 100 miles.

 

The point is to illustrate that if you put a turbine in the water that generates a certain amount of resistance.... That resistance will have the same effect on the ocean whether the energy is being stored by charging up that battery.... Or whether energy is being wasted, if the battery is at full capacity and no energy is being stored. Resistance is resistance, whether it's a rock or a turbine.

 

Thus, the idea that generating electricity through oceanic motion will slow the earth faster is exactly as illogical as stating that hydroelectricity sill exhaust the Sun faster because energy is being generated, and according to the impossible barrier, that has to come out of somewhere.

 

I suggest that it does come out of somewhere.... The limitless energy constantly being generated by all massive bodies: gravity.

 

 

I suggest you are incorrect, in fact fusion is the source of the suns energy, such energy is not limitless, in fact the sun will eventually die when it begins to run out of hydrogen.