Where does energy for gravity come from?

[studiot]

 

...could say the same for geothermal energy... Purely gravity driven.

 

 

 

Do you have any idea why it is called geothermal energy, not geogravitational energy?

 

I will answer your question about the tides and also the change from liquid phase to vapour phase if you show you can discuss sensibly.

Edited August 17, 2013 by studiot

[Ophiolite]

...could say the same for geothermal energy... Purely gravity driven.

 

It is true a portion of the Earth's internal heat is a consequence of the kinetic energy of the accretion process for the planet and thus determined by the gravitational attraction of the particles that accrete. However, a substantial part of the internal heat arises because of radioactive decay - that's not gravity.

[swansont]

Energy may not be consumed to produce the force, but what of when that force is directly harnessed to produce energy?

 

Gravity is commonly moves stuff around, and that kinetic energy is frequently made into electricity.... From gravity.

 

And energy is still conserved.

 

You have to do work to raise something against the force of gravity.

[between3and26characterslon]

Where does the energy for gravity come from? I know there is gravitational potential energy, but where is it from?

A simple answer might be:

 

If you were to raise a bucket of water by a few meters you have put work into the system. If you allow that water to return to its' original position you get that work back.

 

Now if you were to take a load of matter, I mean like a lot, and blew it up in a collosal bang say, or a huge/massive bang or maybe a "big" "bang" then, in the same way as the water, you have already put energy in and are now getting it back.

[Didymus]

How do gravitons fit into this?

 

"gravitons" as a mechanism for gravity makes about as much sense as a magnetic field being made of "magnetons." ... Gravity is a flowing field. That's why it can affect light without a particle having to move faster than light. Light is traveling through a moving gravitational field, not curved space.

 

 

 

Do you have any idea why it is called geothermal energy, not geogravitational energy?

 

The pressure provided by gravity... makes things hot. Thus geothermal.... from gravity. Yes, there are radioactive components down there... Do you think those elements have always been decaying? Or, do you think energy from all of the pressure down there was used to fuse other elements together to make radioactive components?

Because if you think more energy is coming out of the radioactive elements than what was used to fuse them together... you should tell us how that cold fusion stuff works. That'd be super useful. I can't figure that bit out.

 

[Delta1212]

 

"gravitons" as a mechanism for gravity makes about as much sense as a magnetic field being made of "magnetons." ... Gravity is a flowing field. That's why it can affect light without a particle having to move faster than light. Light is traveling through a moving gravitational field, not curved space.

 

 

 

The pressure provided by gravity... makes things hot. Thus geothermal.... from gravity. Yes, there are radioactive components down there... Do you think those elements have always been decaying? Or, do you think energy from all of the pressure down there was used to fuse other elements together to make radioactive components?

Because if you think more energy is coming out of the radioactive elements than what was used to fuse them together... you should tell us how that cold fusion stuff works. That'd be super useful. I can't figure that bit out.

 

There is nowhere near enough pressure within the Earth for fusion to take place there.

[swansont]

 

"gravitons" as a mechanism for gravity makes about as much sense as a magnetic field being made of "magnetons."

 

 

EM interactions are mediated by photons.

 

Yes, there are radioactive components down there... Do you think those elements have always been decaying?

 

 

Yes, as long as the have been in the earth. There are elements with ~billion-year half-lives, like U-235/238, Rb-87 and K-40.

[Endercreeper01]

"gravitons" as a mechanism for gravity makes about as much sense as a magnetic field being made of "magnetons." ... Gravity is a flowing field. That's why it can affect light without a particle having to move faster than light. Light is traveling through a moving gravitational field, not curved space.

Electromagnetism is mediated by photons, and in general relativity, gravity moves through curved space

[Didymus]

 

Yes, as long as the have been in the earth. There are elements with ~billion-year half-lives, like U-235/238, Rb-87 and K-40.

Sure. So, what percentage of the core do you believe is radioactive?

 

And material with a half life slow enough to have been around since the formation of the earth will generate enough heat to liquify that much of the rest of our core?

 

... And this makes more sense than pressure and friction?

[swansont]

Sure. So, what percentage of the core do you believe is radioactive?

 

And material with a half life slow enough to have been around since the formation of the earth will generate enough heat to liquify that much of the rest of our core?

 

... And this makes more sense than pressure and friction?

 

Yes, it does. People have run the numbers to estimate the age of the earth. You get a wrong answer, by at least an order of magnitude, if you ignore radioactive decay.

[Delta1212]

Pressure would be enough to liquefy the interior, but with the amount of heat generated, the interior of the Earth would have cooled a very, very long time ago if there wasn't a second heat source. That second heat source is the radioactive material within the Earth.

[Didymus]

... Circles....

 

"when estimating the age of the earth, we get the wrong answer if you don't account for radioactive decay." Or.... We get the correct answer, but we can get an answer we like better by adjusting our measurements by a variable until we get a result matching our hypothesis, and conclude that the degree this variable must be applied to reach our predicted answer must be proof that this is the proper variable that represents reality.

 

... Just like H&K.

 

Delta.... Thank you for your honesty... But how do you know the pressure would be enough to liquify the core, but not enough to sustain such a heat? What leads you to believe that it would have solidified "long ago?" What if the earth's molten core were evidence diverging from popular estimations of the earth's age?

 

Also, no, I'm no Yec... The earth may very well be billions of years old. I've just always been skeptical of radioactive dating. Seen too many known samples with wildly inaccurate errors.... And unknown samples assumed to be spot on.

[studiot]

 

Also, no, I'm no Yec... The earth may very well be billions of years old. I've just always been skeptical of radioactive dating. Seen too many known samples with wildly inaccurate errors.... And unknown samples assumed to be spot on.

 

 

The conclusion that the earth is much older than simple cooling theory would predict originally came from observing the geological record ie the thickness of various strata using knowledge of accretion and sedimentation rates.

 

Radioactivity was not known at that time.

 

Thus it was known at that time (mid to late 19th century) that there was a contradiction between cooling physics and geology.

 

When radioactivity was discovered it was also observed that the process of radioactivity generated a great deal of heat.

 

It was realised, over the subsequent half century that this heat could account for the discrepency.

 

Radioactive dating as such was not actually used.

 

However it was observed that the chemical make up of radioactive rocks conformed to what would have happened over the longer timescale, ie the ratio of uranium to radium, to lead and other decay elements. This only happened after the half lives were measured accurately and added confirmation to the heat theory.

[Didymus]

I don't think anyone disputes that radiation is also hot down there. That tangent got started because I claimed that gravity provides plenty of usable energy in the water system and air flow. First people said that water only evaporates due to the sun... Yet there are plenty of clouds in the outer 4 planeta with much more Active atmospheres in Spore of much leas heat from fue Sun. Thus, heat from the planet itself plays a significant role. I suggest a large source of this energy is heat provided by pressure and friction a product of gravity. Others attempted to maintain conservation of energy by suggesting that radiation was the source of heat at the earth's core instead of pressure and friction from gravity.

 

Yes, there is quite a bit of "unstable" material releasing energy.... No, there is no logical reason to believe that the absence of that amount of energy would freeze the planet. Otherwise the planet should be steadily cooling as radioactive material is constantly being depleted. Is there evidence of this?