GRAVITY: Is it a source of energy?

[ion]

I open this topic for discussion on my bench initially, but it should be moved to the Gravity or theoretical discussions section if Peter would like. (I didn't see a way to post a new topic in that heading)

It seems the debate regarding Gravity as an energy source rages on in the physics forums, and some of the explanations for gravity seem counter intuitive and tautological. (at least to me).

I suggest first reading some of the physics forums to get a feel for the arguments.

for a start: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75222/where-does-gravity-get-its-energy-from

and there are others.

I hope we can get a good debate going here. Please stay on topic.

Regards

[TinMan]

The simple answer is !YES!
Gravity is stored/potential energy.

To understand this,you have to think way back in time,to when the universe was created.

How do we prove that gravity is a stored/potential energy ?,well that is easy.
First we must abide by the known laws of physics,which state-->energy can be neither created nor destroyed-but only transformed from one state to another.

For this thought experiment,we are going to use two earth sized planets that have the same mass.
Our point of reference will be one of those planets,where it remains motionless in space.
The second planet is heading toward the first planet at a rate of 100 meters a second.

The motionless planet is said to have no kinetic energy,but as the second planet is traveling toward us at 100 meters a second,it will be said to have X amount of kinetic energy.

As the second planet moves closer to the first planet,it's speed increases.
At the same time,the once motionless planet has now started to move toward the second planet,due to the gravitational attraction of masses.
So not only has the kinetic energy value of the second planet increased,the first planet also now has kinetic energy.

As the two planets get closer and closer,the kinetic energy value of the two planets increases.
When the two planets collide,they dissipate many more times the energy than the second planet had at the beginning of the gravitational pull process between the two.

So,if energy cannot be created,and the dissipated energy by the collision of the two planets was far greater than that of the second planets kinetic energy at the start of the process,this can only mean that the extra energy was stored within the two planet's,and that energy was stored as gravity it self.

It should also be noted that this is a non exhaustible/infinite energy source.
What i mean to say is-if a device was invented that produced an output energy,where using only the gravitational stored energy as it's input,and where none of the earths mass was ejected into space,the gravitational force would remain a constant--regardless of the work done by the output of the device.

Wouldn't it be great if we could switch the gravitational force on and off as we wished,or some how invert that force when we needed to do so. 


Brad

[Grumpy]

By definition, gravity is a force, not "energy" or a form of energy.

You can give a better description of gravity by adding that it is an "accelerating force".

Here is a good discussion of the units involved:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297747/units-in-gravitational-constant

The magnitude of the force depends on the distance between the objects, the mass of each object, and the gravitation constant.

So, what is this "gravitational constant"?
https://www.universetoday.com/34838/gravitational-constant/

[ion]

Hi Brad

I posed a very similar argument that went something like this:

"Consider a vast empty space and two large massive bodies separated by some great distance. With no other forces acting upon our two bodies, the only potential energy at T0 is the feeble gravitational attraction between the bodies. Now we are patient and over time the bodies are pulled to each other. They slowly begin accelerating towards each other and as they do, the gravitational pull goes up according to the square law as the bodies close the distance.We can imagine that at some point the bodies will collide with the release of a huge amount of energy. What was the cause of the huge increase in energy since we started with only a feeble potential energy at T0? We did not do any work on the bodies."

If we consider also just one massive body in an empty space, it apparently has no potential energy until a second body appears. So the gravitational potential energy seems to be created when a second body appears.

Some physics pundits says the potential energy was always there, instilled in the mass at the beginning of creation. That doesn't seem intuitively correct to me as it needs that one "free miracle", i.e. everything created in an instant out of nothing including space and time.

Just naming something e.g. Gravity is caused by Gravitons, doesn't give us anything. The invention of a label does not nourish a hungry mind.

I'm working on some other thought experiments that might be interesting.

Thanks for your reply.

G;

You said gravity is a force, not a source of energy. But it can act on a mass F=MA to produce energy that can be measured in Joules. Without the force, there would be no accumulated energy over time.

Some physics pundits explain it as "to get energy, you had to put work into the object by lifting it "up"against the force of gravity." But in space there is no "up", just a sea of objects that occasionally slam into each other because of gravitational attraction and with the release of a huge amount of energy. Are we back to the "free miracle" that exploded everything and now it is all falling back together releasing all the separation energy? But they tell us space is expanding moving bodies apart against their gravitational attraction?

Regards

[TinMan]

Hi Brad

I posed a very similar argument that went something like this:

"Consider a vast empty space and two large massive bodies separated by some great distance. With no other forces acting upon our two bodies, the only potential energy at T0 is the feeble gravitational attraction between the bodies. Now we are patient and over time the bodies are pulled to each other. They slowly begin accelerating towards each other and as they do, the gravitational pull goes up according to the square law as the bodies close the distance.We can imagine that at some point the bodies will collide with the release of a huge amount of energy. What was the cause of the huge increase in energy since we started with only a feeble potential energy at T0? We did not do any work on the bodies."

If we consider also just one massive body in an empty space, it apparently has no potential energy until a second body appears. So the gravitational potential energy seems to be created when a second body appears.

Some physics pundits says the potential energy was always there, instilled in the mass at the beginning of creation. That doesn't seem intuitively correct to me as it needs that one "free miracle", i.e. everything created in an instant out of nothing including space and time.

Just naming something e.g. Gravity is caused by Gravitons, doesn't give us anything. The invention of a label does not nourish a hungry mind.

I'm working on some other thought experiments that might be interesting.

Thanks for your reply.

Some times it is hard for some to understand that it is us humans that give names to things we dont understand,and gravity is one of those things.

It's much like those that say math is a universal language.
As far as i know,no one has asked the aliens yet if this is correct 

No one can deny that it is the gravitational force that increased the kinetic energy value of the two masses in our examples.

Dose it take energy to accelerate a mass ?
I think the answer is quite straight forward.


Brad

[Centraflow]

Ion  you said:-

If we consider also just one massive body in an empty space, it apparently has no potential energy until a second body appears. So the gravitational potential energy seems to be created when a second body appears.


I think if it is only one united body (mass) (one atom with it's revolving electrons), there is no potential energy as the atom and electrons are in peace with one another, there is no possible reaction until another body is placed in the same void. They can be identical atom and electrons making up the two masses, when only one they can't react as there is nothing to react with, place two near one another and things start to react, even if it is only to attract to one another. (near could be millions of miles apart, just takes longer).

The two masses will accelerate the closer they get to one another, and when they finally hit one another, F=MA, as you have stated.

If you increase the acceleration of plutonium (it has a very heavy mass) with an external source (very easy to do) so as it hits another lesser mass, what  F can we obtain? usually it is the smaller mass hitting the bigger mass, though it could be two hydrogen atoms, the sun is just that within it's own void, and has a huge gravity. The sun emits EMR which could fry you if it is emitted in the direction of the earth, the ionosphere is our protective cloak, but sometimes some energy gets through and down's electronic equipment, a lot of this has been happening lately.

Now to get back on track, I think gravity is a source of energy if there is a mass for it to react with and has some form of distance be it very small or very large.

This is a topic which is huge, it is not only gravity, waves as in electromagnetic I think will produce energy which is sustainable, one no but two or more!!!

Regards

Mike

[Grumpy]

G;

You said gravity is a force, not a source of energy. But it can act on a mass F=MA to produce energy that can be measured in Joules. Without the force, there would be no accumulated energy over time.

Some physics pundits explain it as "to get energy, you had to put work into the object by lifting it "up"against the force of gravity." But in space there is no "up", just a sea of objects that occasionally slam into each other because of gravitational attraction and with the release of a huge amount of energy. Are we back to the "free miracle" that exploded everything and now it is all falling back together releasing all the separation energy? But they tell us space is expanding moving bodies apart against their gravitational attraction?

Regards

Until the object moves as a results of the gravitational attraction, it only has the "potential" to become energetic (not referring to energy holding it together, just the relationship to gravity).  When it start to move, the potential energy become kinetic energy.  Without the force, there is no acceleration and no potential to become kinetic energy.

The attraction between two magnets work the same way, but is much stronger, and we know how to generate magnetic force.

In simple terms you can say that energy requires a force for it to be utilized.

Regarding the "free miracle" of creation starting the whole process, I don't believe it happened that way.  Solar systems have strikingly similar qualties to homopolar generators.

[ion]

G said:

Regarding the "free miracle" of creation starting the whole process, I don't believe it happened that way.  Solar systems have strikingly similar qualties to homopolar generators.

I don't believe in the "one free miracle" either, although at times life and the universe seem miraculous.

I was borrowing from Terrence McKenna who was jesting when he coined the phrase regarding current physics stance on the "big bang":

"Give us just one free miracle and we can roll from there"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK most physics textbooks say you can't get more out of gravity than you put into it e.g. if you lift a rock, it is like stretching a spring, you will get back exactly the energy you put into it, no more.

What about this:

We launch a body of mass M1 into space towards a massive planet e.g. Jupiter. We expend X amount of energy to get the massive body to just over the gravitational neutral zone between the earth and Jupiter. Now the massive body is attracted to Jupiter which is 317.8 times the volume of earth. Since Jupiter's gravity is larger than the earth's at the surface(2.528x), at some point in time the mass of body M1 strikes Jupiters surface and releases much more energy than it took to get the object to the neutral zone.
Where did the extra energy come from, since we did not put that much potential energy into the object when we lifted it to just slightly over neutral zone?

A good exercise would be to do  the math for a 1kG body M1 striking Jupiters surface after accelerating towards it from the neutral zone and compare that to the energy required to get it to the neutral zone from earth.

Regards

[Grumpy]

Since Jupiter is providing the force, you did not put the energy in.  You can only control the mass in this case.  You can accelerate with a propulsive force or use a heavier object.

You can use less energy by using the rotation of the earth to help launch the object as well.

What you need is a method to generate an accelerating force like gravity, or a means to alter the mass an object.

[ion]

Since Jupiter is providing the force, you did not put the energy in.  You can only control the mass in this case.  You can accelerate with a propulsive force or use a heavier object.

You can use less energy by using the rotation of the earth to help launch the object as well.

What you need is a method to generate an accelerating force like gravity, or a means to alter the mass an object.

I agree, you put in energy X and get out many times energy X, bu t not necessarily by returning to the starting point.

My point was that gravity is not like a linear spring otherwise there would be no neutral point and the earth to mass spring would be quite stretched and generating a lot of tension once our mass got to the surface of Jupiter. So the spring analogy only holds for short distances close to the surface of the  planetary body.

In the example I gave, it is more like an over center mechanism.

Certainly if you could change the mass of an object it would be game over.

Regards

[Peterae]

Each and every action has an equal but opposite reaction, Newtons Third Law

So launch enough large objects at Jupiter yes they accelerate towards it but in theory they would move Jupiter's position also, 2 large heavy balls both attract each other the same amount if they are of equal mass, does that make the gain double from both perspective or half from each balls perspective.

I don't see how you can capture this energy without turning gravity off for a re-gauge cycle.

[ion]

Each and every action has an equal but opposite reaction, Newtons Third Law

So launch enough large objects at Jupiter yes they accelerate towards it but in theory they would move Jupiter's position also, 2 large heavy balls both attract each other the same amount if they are of equal mass, does that make the gain double from both perspective or half from each balls perspective.

Hi Peter

In the thought experiment I proposed, I was talking about e.g. a single 1 kg mass, certainly not enough to modify Jupiters orbit.

I suppose mutual attraction might be similar to mutual inductance in net energy storage or release. 1H + 1H =4H, but we'd have to go over the formulae and my head is tired right now.

[evolvingape]

This is a topic that is very interesting and is going to get very complicated very quickly..

Let's start here:

Since Jupiter is providing the force, you did not put the energy in.  You can only control the mass in this case.  You can accelerate with a propulsive force or use a heavier object.

You can use less energy by using the rotation of the earth to help launch the object as well.

What you need is a method to generate an accelerating force like gravity, or a means to alter the mass an object.

Forgetting about the mass rotation aspect for a moment and concentrating on the linear relationships we ask the question:

Why does kinetic energy increase quadratically, not linearly, with speed?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed

G also hit the nail on the head when he said:

"Until the object moves as a results of the gravitational attraction, it only has the "potential" to become energetic (not referring to energy holding it together, just the relationship to gravity)."

Here we are dealing with two frames of reference, internal and external. The energy holding it together is the internal frame of reference, and this can be very great.. think of plutonium as a massive potential energy store. When compressed very quickly with a great force we have a nuclear weapon which as we all know goes into a chain reaction that liberates that internal energy and throws out a massive energy wave into the external frame of reference, the environment. In this example the Mass is simply blown apart and the energy is released to act on other matter. For me this is an excellent validation of the Big Bang model and one of the reasons I support it.. God is not invoked in this, for me. If we think about ion's earlier statement about the gravity being attractive but the majority of the mass in the universe we are told is moving apart, well this makes sense if it began from a highly compressed mass of massive density, a singularity. What we see with localised mass's coalescing is the stabilisation of two mass's relative speed so that they can move closer together due to the attractive force of the mass's overcoming momentum and inertia due to gravitational attraction. This is also the same in reverse when we launch a rocket into space and have to escape the Earth's gravitational attraction.

The DST triangle is important, speed distance and time.

Interestingly hhop gen 3 and gen 4 both have aspects that meet G's two conditions, and in the case of gen 4 it is purely down to definition of the relationships of the fundamental states of matter in the device within a gravitational field which provides the prime mover energy source. The fact that a pressure gradient is created across the input and output of the system of gen 4 means the mass can move and therefore as it is accelerating the energy liberated increases with the square of the velocity before the system returns to equilibrium. Gen 3 changes the mass but relates that change to height change within the gravitational field and therefore the potential energy of the device.

[evolvingape]

I don't see how you can capture this energy without turning gravity off for a re-gauge cycle.

You can't turn gravity off ever but you can place the states of matter within it into an imbalanced force equation and exploit their relationship to each other as they seek to return to equilibrium.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-specific-gravity-definition-formula-calculation-examples.html

"When the specific gravity is greater than one, the object will sink, and when the specific gravity is less than one, then the object will float. If the specific gravity is equal to one', this means that the object will neither sink nor float -- it will hover in the liquid."

[ion]

Here is a  thought to chew on:

Normal beam balance scales work quite well and are accurate in the close range earth gravitational field.

When we increase the size of our beam balance scale, it becomes a device with hysteresis, an over center mechanism.

It will seek one of two possible states, but be nearly impossible to balance.

What size does our beam balance scale have to be to experience the hysteresis effect?

Regards

[Reiyuki]

This has already been largely covered, but..

I see gravity, magnetism, and atomic spin are all 'free' in the sense that they provide an infinite, constant force.  The problem we humans have lies in 'gating' or switching these forces.

If I stuck a magnet on a fridge, that magnet is providing a free, constant force against the steel.  That force (lets say 1lb) will continue forever with no external input.  We just have no way of switching or taking advantage of it.  Likewise, gravity provides a similar constant free force (there's nobody sitting at the center of the earth driving a 'gravity generator').  The point being that thy are perpetual forces, regardless of our ability to gate/control them.

You can't turn gravity off ever but you can place the states of matter within it into an imbalanced force equation and exploit their relationship to each other as they seek to return to equilibrium.

Let me provide a thought-experiment example to exploit this.  Lets first assume the Einstein E=MC^2 is accurate, implying that energy and mass are equivalent.
- Take 2 epic-sized capacitors and place them on opposite ends of a balance-beam.  (for the sake of the thought-experiment, lets assume building-sized caps)
- Charge one capacitor.
- E=MC^2 dictates that since one capacitor now contains more energy than the other, it will have more mass and thus the balance beam should fall toward the charged capacitor.
- Next, move the energy to the other capacitor using superconductive cable.
- Now the other capacitor has more mass, and the balance beam should fall in the other direction.
- Rinse and repeat for a 'gravity powered generator'.  Powered by 'conventional' physics even .

IMHO this is the type of 'gating' we are looking for.  Ways to increase/decrease the effects of a free constant energy source.  Creating what Tesla described as an 'energy sink' for one of the above free forces, and attaching a waterwheel to it.

[evolvingape]

Lets first assume the Einstein E=MC^2 is accurate, implying that energy and mass are equivalent.

Interesting thought experiment.. but it won't work. Energy is equivalent to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, so it has to be moving..

In the super cap see saw example the energy in the cap is not moving relative to the second cap and so no increase in mass is possible relative to each other.

If we go back to the beginning we can say that a void full of nothing has no space dimensions and therefore no time. No frames of reference..

Now a mass appears and is alone in this void, in the mass internal frame of reference it has height, width and length.. three space dimensions, and because there is a distance between the two boundaries there is time governed by the speed of light. It has internal gravity compressing the parts that make up the mass together.

Now we add a second mass and it has internal frame of reference the same as the first mass.. but.. there is now a relationship between the two of them, that of attraction through gravity.

These two mass's now start moving towards each other and accelerate developing kinetic energy. Kinetic energy increase with the square of the velocity and so this is the mechanism through which energy can be brought into the model.

Each of the mass's has an internal frame of reference that creates 4D space/time and because the two are related in the void through the force exerted on them by their own gravitational attraction the void (space) has 4D space/time.

As everything in the universe is constantly in motion in relation to each other and moving at very high velocity there is the source of energy, deceleration is equal to a loss of energy and acceleration is equal to an increase in energy, but it's all governed by the square of the velocity law..

Where the energy goes and where it comes from I don't know but it is the movement of mass's through 4D space/time that creates the conditions for it to manifest or disappear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass

The electron rest mass (symbol: me) is the mass of a stationary electron. It is one of the fundamental constants of physics and is also very important in chemistry because of its relation to the Avogadro constant. It has a value of about 9.109×10−31 kilograms or about 5.486×10−4 atomic mass units, equivalent to an energy of about 8.187×10−14 joules or about 0.5110 megaelectronvolts.[1]

The electron rest mass (symbol: me) is the mass of a stationary electron.

Stationary relative to what ?

[Reiyuki]

Interesting thought experiment.. but it won't work. Energy is equivalent to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, so it has to be moving..

In the super cap see saw example the energy in the cap is not moving relative to the second cap and so no increase in mass is possible relative to each other.

Good answer, I like that.

Let me then amend the thought experiment and replace the caps with 2 superconducting coils, shuttling energy between each-other.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0404005&ved=2ahUKEwjCzrOF3cnbAhWT458KHWrGD9EQFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3rmkg-hwDbCiH3Cyn53JuC

[Grumpy]

Here is a  thought to chew on:

Normal beam balance scales work quite well and are accurate in the close range earth gravitational field.

When we increase the size of our beam balance scale, it becomes a device with hysteresis, an over center mechanism.

It will seek one of two possible states, but be nearly impossible to balance.

What size does our beam balance scale have to be to experience the hysteresis effect?

Regards

here is a book on balances, 5.6 talks about hysteresis
https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=procite:ef45dd58-cfba-4532-8477-34262ae8f703&dsid=DS1

most hysteresis is attributed to friction
Other source indicate magnetic, temperature, and mechanical stresses also affect balances

Where does "size" fit in?

[ion]

G asked

Where does "size" fit in?

This was in reference to this post: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3638.msg68213#msg68213

Where I said:

Here is a  thought to chew on:

Normal beam balance scales work quite well and are accurate in the close range earth gravitational field.

When we increase the size of our beam balance scale, it becomes a device with hysteresis, an over center mechanism.

It will seek one of two possible states, but be nearly impossible to balance.

What size does our beam balance scale have to be to experience the hysteresis effect?

When the beam balance scale is made large enough, e.g. the arms are large and the pivot point is high in altitude) our weights on either side (or even the empty buckets on either side) will have to experience the square law of gravitation, so as one weight descends close to the surface of the earth it becomes heavier, conversely the weight on the other end of the scale is raised up and becomes  lighter.

The beam balance scale will be forced to snap into one or the other position.

So the question was: at what size would this effect be pronounced?

I should have been clearer in my statement.

[Grumpy]

Well, somewhere around 200 miles up, weightlessness occurs.  So, I would guess that the hysteresis would become an issue at a point lower than this, but I don't know if anyone has every bothered to calculate this out. 

If you want to create a unidirectional force, just spin a magnetic top.  The precession of the rotating magnetic field will create a downward force, opposite gravity.   (This is based on Willie Johnson's Gyroscopic Force Theory.)

[Smudge]

I think you need a phase change (not electrical phase but material phase) to use gravity to drive a motor.  If you split some water at some depth into H and O these could rise due to buoyancy, then be recombined at the surface back into water.  That rise could drive a motor.  Methinks EA's hhop does something like this.  Another phase change is pair production or annihalation where zero rest mass photons change into non-zero rest mass matter particles or vice versa.

I think a more promising line of investigation is some phase change within other conservative fields such as magnetic vector potentials that have no Curl, where there is no magnetic field.  But that's another story.

Smudge

[ion]

Well, somewhere around 200 miles up, weightlessness occurs.  So, I would guess that the hysteresis would become an issue at a point lower than this, but I don't know if anyone has every bothered to calculate this out. 

If you want to create a unidirectional force, just spin a magnetic top.  The precession of the rotating magnetic field will create a downward force, opposite gravity.   (This is based on Willie Johnson's Gyroscopic Force Theory.)

It is not true that weightlessness occurs somewhere around 200 miles up. There is only around a 10% reduction in gravity at 200 miles up. The weightlessness in the ISS (250 mi altitude) as we see on TV is because the centrifugal force of flying at 17,200 mph offsets  the remaining 90% gravitational pull. The tiny leftover component of force resulting in the microgravity of the ISS.

In theory you should be able to detect the hysteresis effect I was referring to with a modest sized scale right at the surface of the earth if you used magnetic bearings on your scale (no friction, no stiction). It becomes easier to demonstrate with a scale where the pivot is much higher in altitude and the arms are much longer.

We should learn more of Willie Johnson's Gyroscopic Force Theory.  Maybe start a topic if you haven't already .

Regards

[Grumpy]

Yeah, I should have looked for a more reliable source regarding gravity and altitude.

Even if a friction-less scale won't balance, and exhibits hysteresis (noise), what does that say about the nature of gravity?

Does gravity have a frequency?

[TinMan]

For a mass to be accelerated,work must be done.
For work to be done,energy is required to perform that work.
Two masses accelerating toward each other in space,due to gravitational attraction,means work is being done,and a source of energy is provided to perform that work.


Brad