Didymus

well... yea. So, I guess it comes down to "are there any examples of a non-star object more massive than a star being in the same system as a star." ... which one orbits the other is just a question of which is more massive because they both orbit each other... The more massive one is, the less it tends to be pulled around and the more it tends to pull around the other one....

So yea, the sun does orbit the earth. ... a little.

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.

If any constant were to change, the universe wouldn't suddenly unravel.... It would simply shift to accomidate the new rule. Gravity gets cut in half.... Things would simply have to be closer to orbit. .... I mean.... Yea, if they suddenly changed, the systems would all be instantly unbalanced and probably crash into eachother and destroy all life... But if they were changed slowly enough, I'm sure the universe could rebalance itself.

....perhaps in the expansion of the universe, our constants are already changing as a direct result of that expansion. Perhaps that's what keeps us in balance as we spread out.

I tend to rant in other sections because I've done a satisfactory amount of research in other sections.... But I want to start here by freely admitting that I know very little about astronomy. Not going to pretend at all.

But a discussion elsewhere lead me to a question I'd like to ask here:

Are you aware of examples of a single system in which a star orbits a non-star (not counting black holes)?

And, I'm looking for a clear orbit.... I know that technically while the earth orbits the sync the earth does pull the sun a bit, so technically they're orbiting about eachother.... Just in a -very- weighted fashion. But to my knowledge, stars tend to be the most massive object in a system. Stars may orbit each other, non-stars may orbit each other.... But, outside of black holes (retard stars), do we know of a system including a star with a non-star ad the most massive object?

Mod repellant: the word "retard" is intended in the context that the light from a black hole is held back.... Retarded from advancing through a black hole's gravitational field. This is in no way an accusation of black holes being mentally or emotionally dense because they aren't sentient in the first place.

That's why tidal energy is the most solid example. Moon pulls water, water pushes turbine, electricity.

As for the sun.. yes, it helps heat water.... But not as Mich as you would think. Imagine a lake at the bottom of a mountain. The sun hits both equally, yet the mountain's snow may not be close to melting even while the water in the lake at the bottom is evaporating. Same energy from the sun.... Vastly different results.

Part of this is because higher altitudes have less atmosphere insulating them. True. But also, the mountain top is farther from the warmth of the earth's core.

The combined heat turns some water into gas... But that's not where the majority of the energy comes from... If you vaporize water, then let it condense back into water... You won't gain squat.

Rivers can be tapped for energy because of gravity. Gravity pulls dense air down, which flows under the vapor, displacing it, and raising it hundreds or thousands of feet up. Also, consider that rivers aren't limited to a single dam. If you didn't care about fish, you could have generators and mills back to back, as long as it remained the path of least resistance, the same drop going down a river could power thousands of dams and water mills on a long enough river.

Yes... The sun helps a bit.... But gravity is the muscle behind hydro electricity.

.... And I believe gravity is the power behind the sun as well. There is definitely a chemical component as well... But look at all the stars out there with the same elements.... Producing different amounts of energy based on their mass. I suspect that the chemical reactions are just dominos falling... That the power behind stars are primarily their mass.

How often do you see stars orbiting non-stars?

99 out of 100 must get it right.... Which means 1 may fail.... By cheating, opening the last box, and failing, but providing the other 99 with the correct answer. Because they didn't open the box, 99 of the 100 succeed per the rules.

You see the formula for the batman logo?

... Since the M word was mentioned.... It becomes necessary to point out that this entire thread is intended to be read with your tongue in your cheek.

English is a silly language... Like math. You can tell when you really get into it when you're legitimately frustrated by it.... Not out of a lack of understanding.. but because you're mad at it personally.

Maybe you came in late in the convo....

The topic is barriers that can't be broken... First example was the conservation of energy... Energy can't be created or destroyed. This lead to the idea that gravity is a constant force that can be harnessed quite a few ways to generate energy (such as electromotive force) without reducing the force of gravity.... Thus new energy.

The dissent said that energy pulled from falling water really came from the sun's heat (even though without gravity pulling cooler gasses down, the steam would not rise so that it could fall later). Ditto for wind power.

They said that geothermal energy doesn't count as they believe the heat of earth's core has nothing to do with the pressure down there... But instead comes from radiation that will eventually run out. (Similar story for solar energy. Apparently a stars mass doesn't contribute to its heat at all)

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.

(note, typing on cell phone on a quick lunch break, so try to forgive the typos)

Sure. Assuming that to be accurate, what leads people to believe the moon's recession is caused by gravity lessening?

If the moon's effect on us were to be reducing its gravitational capacity.... Surely the earth is expending its gravity even faster as the earth is effecting the moon far more than the moon effects the earth. In addition the earth must be reseeding from its orbit due to all other massive bodies affected by earth's gravity.... Such as the sun.

Then you get into the questions about the experiment... So light took an extra... what? 4(10^-11) seconds on average? This assumes the 3.8 centimeter measurement is accurate considering the margin of error is listed at 3 centimeters... which very well could indicate a fraction of a centimeter change, which could be friggin thermal expansion. Could be unaccounted for changes in the atmosphere (light only travels at C through a vacuum). Could be tectonic movements on either the earth or moon... or perhaps an underestimated margin of error.

Even assuming all variables have been accounted for and the experiment accurate... how was tidal acceleration definitively identified as the cause?


(I'd be most interested to see if there were a red shift/blue shift at the moment of the measurement. But that's an entirely different topic)

I try not to think about the "ough" mess... My boss has told me if I go off on another tirade about that again, she's going to write me up.

I've heard the theory that the moon's receding before. Possible... but do you believe it's more likely a matter of trajectory, or do you honestly believe that the effect of the gravity between the earth and moon is actually causing both to recede from each other? (Or do you actually suggest that a loss of energy is restricted to the moon? It's gravitational effect on our planet is causing it to lose energy, while our own planet does not?)

Honest question here, because I haven't been too interested in planetary orbits... Are all moons receding from their planets? Are all planets receding from the sun? Because, although we're a bit farther away from the sun, and the earth is a bit less massive compared to the sun than the moon is compared to the earth... but, you realize all of our planets do affect the sun to an extent. So, if the suggestion that the moon's gravity producing a measurable force on the earth is causing it to recede has any merit... all objects in orbit should be receding from what they're orbiting...

Is that the case? Or, is your theory completely shot?

According to Didymus "an object in orbit will never stop falling because gravity will never run out". I don;t think he understands gravity too well because the object will stop falling once it hits the ground and the gravitational potential energy which transformed into kinetic energy will finally become heat. He forgets that work had to be done originally to raise the object to the height from which it fell. Energy IS conserved.

 

According to our best theory of gravity an orbiting object has no work done or force applied to it, it simply goes about its business in uniform motion along a 'straight' line defined by the curved space-time of the gravitator.

psst... even when an object is on the ground... gravity's still applying a constant force. It's not just an altered trajectory due to curved "spacetime."

For a pretty quick example... try being on the surface of the planet. Notice you still have a weight. Even when sitting still. Your body is being compressed. Your body has to resist this force in order not to flatten. For example, a tower of legos. If gravity's pull becomes greater than the structure's ability to resist gravity's pull... the structure falls down under it's own weight... even though it's still touching the ground.

note: There's a difference between a typo (from typing on a cell phone) and willfully spelling something in a way you know causes international unrest. If someone accidentally puts an extra letter at the end of a word (such as an "s" at the end of "math")... fine and dandy.

But an entire island just plain being mean by dragging it's verbal nails across the chalkboard of my mind is just plain.... that's just plain wrong. I could go off on language for a while... but this is a math forum... so I won't go, so thoroughly through the rough trough that ought not be mentioned. English is a sin. Worse than the black death... this language is a plague unleashed upon the world. Worse than my ancestors who you murdered and enslaved... you smothered so many languages... only assimilating their most illogical bits... then pushed this garbage upon a poor, doomed world.

... stupid England. Before I die, I'm going to fly over there and punch your little island right in the.... well... ground. Probably some sandy area... or grass or something soft. Soft and sensitive.

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.

So, the Sun's energy pulls water into the clouds? Nope. It provides the last bit of heat that leads to most water evaporating.... But gravity pulling more dense gasses down is what causes that water vapor to rise.

I was talking about tidal energy. The moon pulls the tides, moving unfathomable masses of water. Plenty of electricity to be generated from nothing but gravity. The sun has nothing to do with it.

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

 

This assumes you require energy to generate a force.

 

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.

Trig and calculous are different maths.

Each is a kind of math.

This is not French, stop adding letters where they don't belong.

I know this bad habit is common on your island... But it's wrong. Fix it and apologize.

Every time I see someone say "maths" in a silly way, I will insult the queen for having a silly people. I'll call her ugly and there's nothing you can do about it except fixing your silly concept of a language.

Are you just disagreeing because of the term used?

How would you phrase it if I had a radioactive material that continually gave off a force that could be used to generate electricity? And when this material applies force to the generator, nothing is lost from that material... I.e. it has no finite limit and could continue to generate electricity until the mechanism degraded.

Would you call this possible?

How much grant money is seriously being given to people doodling about what they think would happen if they had a fuel that didn't exist.

... Here's a hint: if all you know is that you need a material with negative mass.... You couldn't begin to logically estimate what other laws of physics this matter would ignore. The theory of moving a bubble of space is fine.... But trying to pretend that it's a breakthrough because old math said 10^63 and new math says 10^4..... I'm sorry, but you're talking about the specific efficacy of an imaginary material. Changing the numbers accomplishes exactly nothing. Stop defrauding grant writers who could be funding actual research.

Will it not take a warp drive to harvest this "exotic material?" If the object will be propelled by oscilating the material's density, how much energy will be required to fundamentally change that densité? Will thé equipment reauired to do si ne larger than thé shop being propelled?

When you find this "exotic material," you can start running tests on it. Until then, this research is an obvious scham.

Quick sociological input:

People will take you more seriously if you don't take yourself so seriously.

You have a viewpoint... Fabulous.... But, you marketed that viewpoint as if it were a new theory.... But you didn't really question or add to anything....you just stated your understanding of relativity.

It's good to think and find new things.... Just be less dramatic about it and people will give you more hugs.

Oh, and remember what Einstein was a tually good at: philosophy. Science never advanced by people accepting what was already thought of. It moves forward when people find new limitations.... Or kick old ones in the nuts. (loose paraphrase, of course).

Basically, you're only contributing if you're saying some

Can you clarify the question a bit more? Sounds like the answer is a quick, simple: Because faraday was a friggin BOSS.

But what he discovered was more about wires that contained multiple loops as part of a circuit.

Or, are you asking about a literal single loop with nothing outside that loop. If you tried to faradize a ring of wire, I'm not sure you would get a voltage because although there would be electromagnetic pressure.... It would be uniform. No pressure differential, no motion.

Stop saying "maths."

... It's "math."

I don't go to englands and discuss footballs while drinking teas. Because unnecessary pluralization is wrong.

... Only time it can be acceptable is if you're discussing different kinds of math... Entirely different systems of math.... Then it's optionally Ok. Like "peoples" ...

But stop asking "a maths question." And don't make horrible excuses about a silly way to abbreviate "mathamatics."

If I have $8000 in credit card debt and only $300 in my account, my debt is larger than my savings.

My -$8000 is larger than my +$300. Kind of like a small rock in a large hole. Just because a space is negative doesn't mean the volume isn't larger.

Even though -8000<300

It's all context.

So, rather than simply a wonkey trajectory or any number of possible variables... You actually believe that an object such as the moon can eventually run out of gravity?

Do you believe black holes can run out of gravity as well?

.... I mean.... Sure, perhaps you've stubled across what big bangers have been looking for since the theory came around: if the universe were in a state of singularity, with the combined masses of all black holes in the universe (and all other matter), infinitely dense.... How could it have exploded with no outside source of energy? Without time or space even existing outside of that singularity.... Maybe the collective universe ran out of gravity once.... Long enough for the big bang, then it got it back real quick so that galexies could start forming!

.... That would require some pretty fancy evidence, though.