Gravity Has Energy Debate

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, under any circumstances.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Thermodynamics/The_Four_Laws_of_Thermodynamics

James_ wrote:
And as I've mentioned, with the Moon's orbit influencing high tides on the opposite side of the Earth, that's not line of sight. That's the Earth's gravitational field being distorted by the drag the Moon is creating.
This allows for the Earth's gravitational field to have an average effect. This means that if scientists wanted to look for gravity waves, are there ripples within the high and low tide? A change in the Earth's gravity should be observable when
outside factors are removed from the equation.
It might be like the Foucault pendulum but at the atomic level. With the Foucault pendulum, how the Earth's spin on its axis determines its swing.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
And as I've mentioned, with the Moon's orbit influencing high tides on the opposite side of the Earth, that's not line of sight. That's the Earth's gravitational field being distorted by the drag the Moon is creating.
This allows for the Earth's gravitational field to have an average effect. This means that if scientists wanted to look for gravity waves, are there ripples within the high and low tide? A change in the Earth's gravity should be observable when
outside factors are removed from the equation.
It might be like the Foucault pendulum but at the atomic level. With the Foucault pendulum, how the Earth's spin on its axis determines its swing.

Gravity is not magnetism. Tides are not due to magnetism nor a distortion of any gravity field.
A spin is not a swing or an oscillation.

Tides occur because the Earth and the Moon orbit each other around a point called the barycenter. The barycenter is the center of gravity for the Earth-Moon system, NOT the center of the Earth. Newton's Theory of Gravitation explains the rest.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Do we have the means to create artificial gravity? How about canceling gravity? We have no control over gravity. We can use gravity to perform work for us. We can mitigate the gravitational effects. But we don't manipulate gravity. Which is why gravity-wheels fail. Gravity remains constant. The gravity affects all parts of the wheel, all the time.

HarveyH55 wrote: We can use gravity to perform work for us.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
And as I've mentioned, with the Moon's orbit influencing high tides on the opposite side of the Earth, that's not line of sight. That's the Earth's gravitational field being distorted by the drag the Moon is creating.
This allows for the Earth's gravitational field to have an average effect. This means that if scientists wanted to look for gravity waves, are there ripples within the high and low tide? A change in the Earth's gravity should be observable when
outside factors are removed from the equation.
It might be like the Foucault pendulum but at the atomic level. With the Foucault pendulum, how the Earth's spin on its axis determines its swing.

Gravity is not magnetism. Tides are not due to magnetism nor a distortion of any gravity field.
A spin is not a swing or an oscillation.

Tides occur because the Earth and the Moon orbit each other around a point called the barycenter. The barycenter is the center of gravity for the Earth-Moon system, NOT the center of the Earth. Newton's Theory of Gravitation explains the rest.

What allows for the barycenter? It cannot exist unless there is something that is acting on both the Moon and the Earth at the gravitational level.

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Do we have the means to create artificial gravity? How about canceling gravity? We have no control over gravity. We can use gravity to perform work for us. We can mitigate the gravitational effects. But we don't manipulate gravity. Which is why gravity-wheels fail. Gravity remains constant. The gravity affects all parts of the wheel, all the time.

A perpetual motion machine does not need gravity.

James_ wrote:
Scientists say that gravity does not have energy. If you consider the Earth has kinetic energy KE = 1/2mv^2 then its KE = joules is 2.6481293e+27
The Moon's KE is 3.8372635e+22. e+xx means 10^xx.
The Earth's KE would be greater if the Moon didn't orbit the Earth. Instead the
Moon's velocity and KE is dependent on what the Earth has lost. At the same time the amount of energy in the Earth/Moon binary system remains unchanged.
When the Moon "fell" into the Earth's orbit then how the distribution of mass changed the distribution of energy in that system. I have to learn to talk smart in
case I am ever asked about this. I'm not sure why conservation of momentum
mo = mv and energy KE = 1/2mv^2 can't have something in common.

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Do we have the means to create artificial gravity? How about canceling gravity? We have no control over gravity. We can use gravity to perform work for us. We can mitigate the gravitational effects. But we don't manipulate gravity. Which is why gravity-wheels fail. Gravity remains constant. The gravity affects all parts of the wheel, all the time.

A perpetual motion machine does not need gravity.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Do we have the means to create artificial gravity? How about canceling gravity? We have no control over gravity. We can use gravity to perform work for us. We can mitigate the gravitational effects. But we don't manipulate gravity. Which is why gravity-wheels fail. Gravity remains constant. The gravity affects all parts of the wheel, all the time.

A perpetual motion machine does not need gravity.

But gravity still a key force that causes them to fail. They all need to produce more energy, than was put in, just to stay in motion perpetually. A lot more, if you want the machine to perform work, and not just be a novelty. I do believe those who build perpetual motion machines contribute, and not a waste. Most machinery are inefficient. It's more about the work they can perform, and not the amount of energy used.

James_ wrote:
Harveey, With the 1, if it is 1 ft, 1 meter or 1 inch, the weight on the right
might be 5. With what I am building, if a weight is lifted 5 inches then for the overbalanced weight to generate torque, where the center of gravity (CoG)
was needs to drop 1 inch. This allows for torque to be considered.
Lifting a weight 5 inches is considered to requite the torque of the same weight
swinging down a 2 1/2 inch radius so it drops 5 inches. Incorrect assumptions
were made.
What's not an overbalanced weight is considered to be in a position of balanced.
This allows for only work and net force to be considered, it really does simplify things. And it's the straight drop of the weight that generates torque as well as its distance to the right.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Harveey, With the 1, if it is 1 ft, 1 meter or 1 inch, the weight on the right
might be 5. With what I am building, if a weight is lifted 5 inches then for the overbalanced weight to generate torque, where the center of gravity (CoG)
was needs to drop 1 inch. This allows for torque to be considered.
Lifting a weight 5 inches is considered to requite the torque of the same weight
swinging down a 2 1/2 inch radius so it drops 5 inches. Incorrect assumptions
were made.
What's not an overbalanced weight is considered to be in a position of balanced.
This allows for only work and net force to be considered, it really does simplify things. And it's the straight drop of the weight that generates torque as well as its distance to the right.

...and like all other Bessler wheels that have been built before, it is not an engine nor a perpetual motion machine. It will fail the same way all of them has failed before.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Harveey, With the 1, if it is 1 ft, 1 meter or 1 inch, the weight on the right
might be 5. With what I am building, if a weight is lifted 5 inches then for the overbalanced weight to generate torque, where the center of gravity (CoG)
was needs to drop 1 inch. This allows for torque to be considered.
Lifting a weight 5 inches is considered to requite the torque of the same weight
swinging down a 2 1/2 inch radius so it drops 5 inches. Incorrect assumptions
were made.
What's not an overbalanced weight is considered to be in a position of balanced.
This allows for only work and net force to be considered, it really does simplify things. And it's the straight drop of the weight that generates torque as well as its distance to the right.

...and like all other Bessler wheels that have been built before, it is not an engine nor a perpetual motion machine. It will fail the same way all of them has failed before.

Yep, if it works I'll have failed. I wanted to prove "WHY" perpetual motion was impossible. Then I realized that angular momentum is not linear momentum. That means the law conservation of momentum allows for momentum to be conserved by transferring momentum to another weight/body that has mass.
If my build works then that will prove that no one bothered to diagram the problem. Then it can be seen where work (w = md) is relative to torque.

Into the Night wrote:

There is really nothing special about your build. It is no different than any other Bessler wheel.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is really nothing special about your build. It is no different than any other Bessler wheel.

And it works and I'll be famous. I'll be saying that gravity has energy. The current belief in science is that gravity is a force that has no energy. Then if my math is accepted I think the Smithsonian Institution will be calling. What I plan on doing is donating everything to Zittau, Saxony, Germany, Bessler's hometown.
And with gravity having energy then I could mention my theory about why the tropopause is a physical barrier like the glass in a greenhouse while it is a gas.
It's possible that both the mesopause and the tropopause are both the result of the attraction between the Earth (ground) and the Van Allen radiation belts (anode). And this would get into why gravity has energy. Dark matter might simply be the inverse function of light. In science they say;

"with every action there's an equal opposite reaction. With every problem, there's a solution: just a matter of taking action."
― Albert Einstein

So dark matter would be an equal opposite reaction to light.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is really nothing special about your build. It is no different than any other Bessler wheel.

And it works and I'll be famous. I'll be saying that gravity has energy. The current belief in science is that gravity is a force that has no energy. Then if my math is accepted I think the Smithsonian Institution will be calling. What I plan on doing is donating everything to Zittau, Saxony, Germany, Bessler's hometown.
And with gravity having energy then I could mention my theory about why the tropopause is a physical barrier like the glass in a greenhouse while it is a gas.
It's possible that both the mesopause and the tropopause are both the result of the attraction between the Earth (ground) and the Van Allen radiation belts (anode). And this would get into why gravity has energy. Dark matter might simply be the inverse function of light. In science they say;

"with every action there's an equal opposite reaction. With every problem, there's a solution: just a matter of taking action."
― Albert Einstein

So dark matter would be an equal opposite reaction to light.

I won't work. It is not possible to build a perpetual motion machine.
Glass is not a gas.
The tropopause does not trap heat or light. It is not possible to trap heat or light.
The Van Allen belts are not in the atmosphere. They are also not an anode.
Gravity is not energy.
Light has no 'inverse'. It is not an equation.
Random quotes don't help you.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is really nothing special about your build. It is no different than any other Bessler wheel.

It seems that there are those who like the way I think.

James_ wrote:
A successful demonstration will be another step towards proving that gravity has energy.

James_ wrote:
People ignore
f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE. Just nothing complicated about it.

James_ wrote:
With the tropopause, it doesn't have to be a crystalline structure to create a transparent/clear barrier.

James_ wrote:
That is prevents clouds from rising into the stratosphere

James_ wrote:
while it is colder than both the stratosphere and the troposphere.

James_ wrote:
What happened to thermodynamics and hot flows to cold?

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is really nothing special about your build. It is no different than any other Bessler wheel.

It seems that there are those who like the way I think.

So? They ignore the same physics you do.

James_ wrote:
A successful demonstration will be another step towards proving that gravity has energy.

Gravity is not energy.

James_ wrote:
People ignore
f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE. Just nothing complicated about it.

Math errors: Unit error
Logic errors: False equivalence fallacy.

James_ wrote:
With the tropopause, it doesn't have to be a crystalline structure to create a transparent/clear barrier.

It is not a barrier of any kind.

James_ wrote:
That is prevents clouds from rising into the stratosphere

It doesn't. Clouds commonly rise into and even form in the stratosphere.

James_ wrote:
while it is colder than both the stratosphere and the troposphere.

Due to the formation of ozone.

James_ wrote:
What happened to thermodynamics and hot flows to cold?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics describes ENERGY, not temperature.
While temperature does indeed rise with altitude in the stratosphere (due to the destruction of ozone), total thermal energy continues to decline. Less mass, you see. You are ignoring the 0th law of thermodynamics again.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is really nothing special about your build. It is no different than any other Bessler wheel.

It seems that there are those who like the way I think.

So? They ignore the same physics you do.

James_ wrote:
A successful demonstration will be another step towards proving that gravity has energy.

Gravity is not energy.

James_ wrote:
People ignore
f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE. Just nothing complicated about it.

Math errors: Unit error
Logic errors: False equivalence fallacy.

James_ wrote:
With the tropopause, it doesn't have to be a crystalline structure to create a transparent/clear barrier.

It is not a barrier of any kind.

James_ wrote:
That is prevents clouds from rising into the stratosphere

It doesn't. Clouds commonly rise into and even form in the stratosphere.

James_ wrote:
while it is colder than both the stratosphere and the troposphere.

Due to the formation of ozone.

James_ wrote:
What happened to thermodynamics and hot flows to cold?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics describes ENERGY, not temperature.
While temperature does indeed rise with altitude in the stratosphere (due to the destruction of ozone), total thermal energy continues to decline. Less mass, you see. You are ignoring the 0th law of thermodynamics again.

I've actually started a spreadsheet so I can create a basis for both regional climate variance and ice ages.

James_ wrote:
All I need to do for now is to show that a warming
period like this would be called a minor climate ripple.

James_ wrote:
And this gets into "gravity has energy".

James_ wrote:
Because gravity has energy,

James_ wrote:
it's moment of inertia will influence how much the Sun's orbital velocity accelerates the Earth.

James_ wrote:
Basically the faster the Earth spins the slower it will orbit the Sun.

James_ wrote:
Why an ice age ends,

James_ wrote:
a slower linear velocity means a less elliptical orbit.

James_ wrote:
And this allows for regional climate variance.

James_ wrote:
And as I did when finding that the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars are all relative to their orbits around the Sun,

James_ wrote:
I think I'll find a pattern.

James_ wrote:
And when I find that then both the north pacific current and the Gulf Stream could be considered as to having a warming and cooling affect on the atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
Do you guys realize how wild this is?

James_ wrote:
Saying that glaciers in the northern hemisphere helps the Earth to spin faster on its axis.

James_ wrote:
And with the Sun's orbital velocity in the Earth's orbit being
v = √Gm/r. The closer the Earth is to the Sun the faster it should orbit the Sun.

James_ wrote:
And if the Earth's spin matters,

James_ wrote:
then how does that agree with warm and cool periods?

James_ wrote:
At present I think the Earth's moment of inertia doesn't matter because gravity does not have energy.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
And with the Sun's orbital velocity in the Earth's orbit being
v = √Gm/r. The closer the Earth is to the Sun the faster it should orbit the Sun.

So?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
And with the Sun's orbital velocity in the Earth's orbit being
v = √Gm/r. The closer the Earth is to the Sun the faster it should orbit the Sun.

So?

When the Earth has a more elliptical orbit is when an ice age happens.

James_ wrote:
And at the same time the Earth will be moving faster.

James_ wrote:
Why I find this interesting is the difference in the length of a complete night/day cycle and how close it is to 24 hours.

James_ wrote:
The Earth's linear and angular velocity seems to adapt to the distance the Earth is from the Sun.

James_ wrote:
Linear velocity is how fast the Earth moves around the Sun. Angular velocity is how fast the Earth spins on its axis (day/night cycle).

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Linear velocity is how fast the Earth moves around the Sun. Angular velocity is how fast the Earth spins on its axis (day/night cycle).

Nope. Both are angular velocity.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
When the Earth has a more elliptical orbit is when an ice age happens.

What ice age?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Linear velocity is how fast the Earth moves around the Sun. Angular velocity is how fast the Earth spins on its axis (day/night cycle).

Nope. Both are angular velocity.

When an object/mass/weight is moving, it is linear velocity. When it is spinning then that is angular momentum. A bowling ball has both linear and angular momentum. It's rolling is angular momentum while its movement down the lane is linear momentum. When a bowling ball is rolling, it is spinning/rotating about its center.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
When the Earth has a more elliptical orbit is when an ice age happens.

What ice age?

This is sad. I happen to think the fjords in Norway (I lived there and went boating, fishing and swimming in a fjord

) were formed by tectonic plate depression and rebound. And where you see red dots west/north west of the name NORWAY is Aalesund.

If you notice the paths the different fjords follow from around Bergen up past Ålesund. They all have the same flow. And I believe that this is a feature that multiple ice ages would create in the topography of a mountainous country like Norway. And if it turns out that I'm right about that, they'll be able to say that someone who had an American mother and laert a snakk Norsk i Norge discovered how the fjords in Norway and Scandinavia were formed. That'd be pretty cool.
Then after this climate ripples could be discussed and how industrialization influences those ripples. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/

p.s., I think it's pretty cool that I lived in Aalesund and learned Norwegian. At
least now I can consider that there have been multiple ice ages in the past. And I can consider how the rising seafloor (tectonic plate rebound) is decreasing the volume of water that can flow further north. And for me, this is what makes sense.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Linear velocity is how fast the Earth moves around the Sun. Angular velocity is how fast the Earth spins on its axis (day/night cycle).

Nope. Both are angular velocity.

When an object/mass/weight is moving, it is linear velocity. When it is spinning then that is angular momentum. A bowling ball has both linear and angular momentum. It's rolling is angular momentum while its movement down the lane is linear momentum. When a bowling ball is rolling, it is spinning/rotating about its center.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
When the Earth has a more elliptical orbit is when an ice age happens.

What ice age?

This is sad. I happen to think the fjords in Norway (I lived there and went boating, fishing and swimming in a fjord

) were formed by tectonic plate depression and rebound. And where you see red dots west/north west of the name NORWAY is Aalesund.

If you notice the paths the different fjords follow from around Bergen up past Ålesund. They all have the same flow. And I believe that this is a feature that multiple ice ages would create in the topography of a mountainous country like Norway. And if it turns out that I'm right about that, they'll be able to say that someone who had an American mother and laert a snakk Norsk i Norge discovered how the fjords in Norway and Scandinavia were formed. That'd be pretty cool.
Then after this climate ripples could be discussed and how industrialization influences those ripples. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/

p.s., I think it's pretty cool that I lived in Aalesund and learned Norwegian. At
least now I can consider that there have been multiple ice ages in the past. And I can consider how the rising seafloor (tectonic plate rebound) is decreasing the volume of water that can flow further north. And for me, this is what makes sense.

You never lived in Norway, dude.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Linear velocity is how fast the Earth moves around the Sun. Angular velocity is how fast the Earth spins on its axis (day/night cycle).

Nope. Both are angular velocity.

When an object/mass/weight is moving, it is linear velocity. When it is spinning then that is angular momentum. A bowling ball has both linear and angular momentum. It's rolling is angular momentum while its movement down the lane is linear momentum. When a bowling ball is rolling, it is spinning/rotating about its center.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
When the Earth has a more elliptical orbit is when an ice age happens.

What ice age?

This is sad. I happen to think the fjords in Norway (I lived there and went boating, fishing and swimming in a fjord

) were formed by tectonic plate depression and rebound. And where you see red dots west/north west of the name NORWAY is Aalesund.

If you notice the paths the different fjords follow from around Bergen up past Ålesund. They all have the same flow. And I believe that this is a feature that multiple ice ages would create in the topography of a mountainous country like Norway. And if it turns out that I'm right about that, they'll be able to say that someone who had an American mother and laert a snakk Norsk i Norge discovered how the fjords in Norway and Scandinavia were formed. That'd be pretty cool.
Then after this climate ripples could be discussed and how industrialization influences those ripples. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/

p.s., I think it's pretty cool that I lived in Aalesund and learned Norwegian. At
least now I can consider that there have been multiple ice ages in the past. And I can consider how the rising seafloor (tectonic plate rebound) is decreasing the volume of water that can flow further north. And for me, this is what makes sense.

You never lived in Norway, dude.

And maybe I liked living in Seattle (Ballard actually) because it reminded me of Aalesund?

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:


And maybe I liked living in Seattle (Ballard actually) because it reminded me of Aalesund?

You never lived in Norway.

James_ wrote:
Harveey, With the 1, if it is 1 ft, 1 meter or 1 inch, the weight on the right
might be 5. With what I am building, if a weight is lifted 5 inches then for the overbalanced weight to generate torque, where the center of gravity (CoG)
was needs to drop 1 inch. This allows for torque to be considered.
Lifting a weight 5 inches is considered to requite the torque of the same weight
swinging down a 2 1/2 inch radius so it drops 5 inches. Incorrect assumptions
were made.
What's not an overbalanced weight is considered to be in a position of balanced.
This allows for only work and net force to be considered, it really does simplify things. And it's the straight drop of the weight that generates torque as well as its distance to the right.