First of all, I don't have to provide any proof for my claims. You as the champion of this "theory" need to provide proof of it's validity or it is just so much hocum like anything else.
Verified hypothesis:
OK, please explain to me exactly how this was verified. The fossil record provides no such definitive proof, so what else have you got?
Proven model:
Again, exactly how has this been proven? What new species have we created or observed lately?
Proven predictive power:
Hmm, OK. So what exactly is man going to evolve into? What new species will be derived from us? What new species will be derived from anything larger than a single celled organism or bacteria?
Has been tested over and over again:
To what are you referring here? Have we been developing new species without me hearing about it?
Actually, for that matter, exactly how are you defining species so that we can make a meaningful determination of when a "new" one has been developed?
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I am just calling you to task to examine how intellectually honest you are really being.
I admit that I did not pursue you previous link. I don't care what the religious folks are using as arguments, I will try to construct my own. As such I want to view the information that you consider evidence for your side not refutations of arguments others have made aginst it. I may from time to time "borrow" some of their arguments, however, but only the ones that have some merit ... at least IMHO.
I will try to pursue this link later today, but just for starters I notice that it is labeled "Evidence for" Evolution, not "Proof and Verification of" Evolution. :-)
So, while we pursue this topic. I suppose we should agree to the definitions of the words "proof" and "verify", in addition to "species". I typically rely on Meriam-Webster On-line for these things but I reserve the right to quibble a bit given the scientific nature of this thread which demands some special consideration at times.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
so I'll admit here that when science - not just evolution - uses the word "proof", it's never intellectually honest according to that standard. In fact, the word "proof" is never accurate, under any circumstance, if you want to go that far. We have only evidence that is more or less difficult to refute.
What we do have is damned-near-impossible evidence to refute on the level of basic biological evolution. That's not doubted even by the creationists, for the simple reason that we can do it with lesser organisms. Plants, fruit flies, rats, etc. A little manipulation of context, and voilà, you can affect future generations of that organism. That's what evolution is.
But, I'll stop throwing around the word 'proof' haphazardly, if you admit that no science can claim that, either. (which is why the stickers signaling out evolution are so dishonest).
__________________________
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
so I'll admit here that when science - not just evolution - uses the word "proof", it's never intellectually honest according to that standard. In fact, the word "proof" is never accurate, under any circumstance, if you want to go that far. We have only evidence that is more or less difficult to refute.
OK, this is good. I appreciate that you recognize where I was going to head with this and acknowledge the limitations of our ability to "prove" and "verify" certain conjectures.
I also appreciate that you recognized that to be able to meet the burden imposed by words like "prove" and "verify" that we need a very specific definition of the word "species" as well which is objectively testable or observable in some way. As your response below illustrates I don't believe that such a clear cut and universally accepted definition exists.
So now you understand why I balked at your description of the status of Evolution as being a "proven and verified" theory.
Now, since you gave an inch I'll give you one in return.
I agree that no science can ever meet the notion of absolutely proven and absolutely verified. As you say, things are simply more or less able to be refuted. We typically have evidence for and evidence against any particular theory. While a theory can't ever be proven absolutely correct, it can be proven absolutely incorrect and it takes only one (sufficiently significant) counter example to do so.
For example, take the case of the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, which of course is the theory that life could spontaneously arise out of dead matter. This theory was in wide spread belief for quite some time despite a variety of experiments both for and against. This brief account of the history provides a telling example of just how careful we need to be before calling something "proven".
If Louis Pasteur had not come along I might well still be here debating you about whether all of those fossils and new species we are talking about were proof of spontaneous generation as opposed to evolution, correct?
Now, I will give you even more. Do I honestly believe that the Theory of Evolution is totally bogus like I do the Theory of Spontaneous Generation? No, but neither do I think it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Of all the possible contenders for describing the plethora of species on our planet, I will even admit that Evolution is the one with the greatest amount of evidence on its side (currently). Although to be fair there is no other contender on the plate that I am even aware of that the "scientific establishment" will even entertain. Is there another that I am missing?
Even though you don't like the fact that Intelligent Design appeals to the notion of a supreme being as the source of some aspects of nature, that doesn't mean that from a purely scientific perspective that everything that the ID proponents have to say is bogus. The very concept of Irreducible Complexity poses a serious threat to Evolution even if you don't buy into all of the rest of Intelligent Design. Irreducible Complexity is not an inherently religious concept, is it?
At any rate, I would like to continue this discussion a bit further if you are willing. You have made reference to two things that I would like to pursue:
1) You say that there is almost irrefutable evidence available in support of Evolution. Can you point me to something that discusses the top 1 or 2 pieces of evidence that you feel are so compelling?
2) You also say that we have demonstrated that evolution exists using lower animals. Can you point me to the top 1 or 2 examples of this that you likewise feel are compelling?
Thanks.
<Long Winded Aside>
Now, let me also say a few things about mathematics, science and proofs. First, mathematics as a discipline is precise enough to allow for absolute proof. 1+1=2 absolutely and without question in the base 10 (and others) number system. Mathematics is not a branch of science, at least not in the sense that we are discussing here.
I have a mathematics, physics, and chemistry educational background with some required biological sciences thrown in for good measure. I don't claim to be an expert in any of these fields, but I do claim to have a master of the fundamentals in all of them. I admit that my personal knowledge may now be dated due to the passage of time since I have taken these formal classes, but nothing that I say on these blogs goes beyond these fundamentals and I am fairly confident of knowing my own limitations here.
Based on this background I tend to break the various science into what I will call (and I do not mean this in a pejorative way) the hard sciences and the soft sciences. For me the hard sciences tend to have mathematical underpinnings whereas the soft sciences do not.
So, for example, for me Classical Physics (not Quantum Mechanics) would an example of what I call a "hard science", whereas Biology would be an example of what I would call a "soft science". The distinction being the degree to which mathematical models form the basis of the underlying theories within each discipline. (Note I am not claiming the the Biological sciences don't have or use mathematics, but that the current state of the fundamental theories therein are not mathematically based. Evolution would be one such example.)
Why is this distinction significant? I would argue that while it is true that by the very nature of the universe reality will always vary from the theory by some amount. I would also argue, however, that those sciences which have a mathematical underpinning lend themselves to a level of precision that allows a somewhat stricter interpretation of a word like "proof" than the soft sciences can attain, at least for theories such as Evolution.
Again, this is not meant as a criticism of disciplines such as Biology but rather as an acknowledgement of the difficulty with reaching uniform acceptance on the "proof" of this or that because of the very nature of the problem under study.
</Long Winded Aside>
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
since there's a lot in here, I'll begin with an overview of why I think Evolution and Intelligent Design are categorically different.
What's key to any scientific Theory (I'll start capitalizing it when I mean Theory in the scientific sense) is testability and repeatability. Do Evolution and Intelligent Design both meet those criteria?
Evolution - and I'll use it in the sense that you do, meaning macroevolution (development of distinct species) - proposes that organisms develop into separate species from common ancestry. It's not about the mechanism yet - we'll get to that later - but the larger vision of shared ancestry among ultimately all life forms.
- Is it testable? Yes, but not conventionally. The test of macroevolution relies on the discovery of new evidence to fit the established paradigms. If a fossil fits in the previously extrapolated tree of organisms, then we'd consider that a postive test result. If not, then the tree has to be rethought. So far, since the development of the tree, some discoveries have forced small reorganizations of the branches, but no discoveries have radically changed its shape.
- Is it repeatable? Yes, in the same way. One fossil can lead to a hypothesis about the development of a further branch, but evolutionary biologists are unlikely to extrapolate from a single fossil because of the extent to which individual mutation may not be representative of family genetics. The current shape of the species tree is the result not of one, or even of a dozen, but of thousands of fossils. One of the arguments IDers typically accuse Evolutions of lacking is in the "interspecies" area: transitional fossils showing that, while one branch did indeed split, the future two branches shared some common biological structures. Thing is, evolutions do have those fossils , and lots of them. (by the way - within any particular subsection of Evolution, what you'll read can range anywhere from Theory to Hypothesis, since not every detail has been worked out. Same holds for much more benign scientific phenomena, like gravity.)
On to Intelligent Design. The keystone of ID theory (small T) is indeed Irreducible Complexity - a biological structure whose parts allegedly cannot have evolved over time, because they involve multiple complex structures, none of whom have an independent function.
- Is it testable? Not really: the fundamental tenet of IC is that X cannot happen, and that's not really a testable proposition.
- Is it repeatable? Since there's nothing testable, there's not really anything to repeat.
Furthermore, the accumulation of evidence shows why the differences between Evolution and ID are absolutely incompatible in terms of what we teach: when a fossil is found that contradicts the Evolutionary tree, scientists are forced to rethink its shape. When evidence is found to debunk the notion of IC (such as bacterial flagella , which was the key argument of Darwin's Black Box, if I'm not mistaken), ID does not change or rethink its shape - it merely moves onto another structure it considers IC (see 200-300 ).
So Evolution is a Theory that grew out of observable, testable, repeatable phenomena; ID is an ideology that developed first, then sought phenomena to support it.
This is why it's repulsive to me to put the two into the same category, or to suggest that the first be treated as a "just another theory" in order to appease proponents of the second. Science is not infallible, but that's one of the first things students learn about it! One of my scientist colleagues used to say, "The worst thing about being a successful scientist is that you're just biding your time until someone debunks you." But that's how the Theories refine, and Evolution is as solid a Theory as anything else we teach. It's crime is that it runs counter to the ideology of some folk, and for that reason they'll go through great lengths to invent pseudosciences to debunk it.
If a contender to Evolution develops from the evidence, then I'd be all for discussing it in a science class. But ID fundamentally isn't science, even if it tries to use scientific terms.
Should we question the very nature of science, then? Sure, we already do: they're called philosophy and epistemology, and we teach both at the college level because they may be a little beyond the brains of kindergardners. But in a schoolroom, the key is teaching children a particular methodology of thought: start with a guess, test it, and as long as your tests continue working, your theory holds up; if your test fails, you have to rethink your theory. That's what we're teaching when we teach Evolution.
__________________________
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
with a more thorough response, but a few quick observations:
- evolution is as close to a proven theory as science has gotten. You're shifting a bit to discuss two other topics: evolutionary origins and macroevolution. That's fine, we can discuss both of those, as well - but there's absolutely no doubt that evolution itself takes place in species. A Catholic monk figured out how to manipulate it nearly 200 years ago.
- a few of your questions make me wonder if you've checked out that link I've sent you! You're right about your last question, though: what do we consider a "species". Fact is, there is nothing we can label a stable "species" - it's a process of cross-sectioning a place in species development, then separating different phenomena that we consider distant enough to qualify as different species. There's also a sexual definition , though it has a whole series of caveates attached:
Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring.
If you browse around a bit in the different family groupings (like this one , you'll see why even this is a problem. But the problem is twofold: one, we're not always certain what the shared ancestors are between two species, and two (this is the important one), the process of categorization is unnatural and misleading, by nature.
__________________________
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The other thread was getting a bit long so I want to continue here for a bit. Here's your chance to really put me in my place as far as my understanding of physics goes (yea, yea, I know you think you've been doing that all along).
I want to circle back to the gravity as a source of energy meme. Now after reading your recent posts it seems that you have something that you think you understand that I don't. This is fine. Teach me, smart boy.
Apparantly simply stating my position outright using standard physics terminology is insufficient to convey my point to you, so I'm going to try a different tack here.
Lets first see if we can at least agree on a couple of basics, OK?
I assert that the concept of a Force (measured in Newtons or kg*m*s^-2) is NOT the same thing as the concept of Energy (measured in Joules or kg*m^2*s^-2).
Do you agree or disagree?
Now obviously there is a relationship between the two, and that is as you have described elsewhere and which is evident in the units by which they are measured.
In every day terms, Energy is the same the amount of work which is really a Force applied to an object over a distance. For example, Joules = Force (Newtons) * Distance (Meters) = (kg*m*s^-2) * (m) = kg*m^2*s^-2.
Does this represent a flawed concept of the relationship between Force and Energy?
Now, when you make a statement like "Gravity is a source of Energy", semantically that is saying the "a Force is a source of Energy" but this is non-sense so I protest when I hear it.
Now, there is the concept of a constant force defining a gradient, and also the concept of stored potential energy relative to that gradient, correct. The relative change in position of two objects along that gradient represents a change in the potential energy of those objects with respect to one another, correct?
So, for example, if the force in question happens to be Gravity we then have the concept of a gradient between the to objects based on their Gravitational attraction, correct?
Now, in order to change the amount of potential energy represented by the distance between those objects along the Gravity gradient, on must either perform and utilize work in some way and the resulting change in the distance is determined by the amount of work, correct?
So, when I lift a 1 kg weight 1 meter off the floor I will have done approximately 9.8 (m*s^-2)*1(kg)*1(m), or 9.8 Joules of work. And in so doing I will have increased the potential energy of the weight by the same amount. Do you agree?
Now I think of this as being Potential Energy because that is what it has classically been called. Since the Force in question happens to be Gravity, I can see how people might think of this as being "Gravitationally Stored Potential Energy", but in either case Gravity is still Gravity and its role in all of this is to be the Force defining the gradient, correct?
I have found a reference to the concept of Gravitational Potential Energy . Is this the concept you meant when you used the (made up) word "Gravitic"?
So when I say that Gravity is not the source of the energy I mean that Gravity is not the place where the Energy originates from. In the example above, the energy in question came from me when I performed work against the Force of Gravity to lift the weight 1 meter. That work is conserved, of course, and is "stored" in the weight by virtue of its change in position relative to the Gravity gradient. Does that help to clarify my point? Is anything here demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant concepts as you understand them?
Now, if I later tie a string to that weight and use that to do something interesting like moving another weight across a table by allowing the first weight to drop back to the floor it will, of course, be the Force of Gravity that is doing the pulling but the Energy is coming from the change in position of the first weight as it drops. In that sense the weight is the "source" of the energy, not Gravity, strictly speaking. Do you at least see my point here?
Now, lets talk a bit more about the Tidal Energy and where it comes from. Again, you seem to want to view Gravity as the source of the energy that is being "provided". I would argue, similar to above, that the "source" of the energy is stored potential energy and it must be coming from some place other than the water.
Now here's your $64M question. If we set up an apparatus to exploit the tides as a source of energy, and we use that to do X millions or billions of Joules of work, then according to the conservation of energy the energy to perform that work has to have come from somewhere, correct?
I mean, that energy had to have been stored somewhere and when we syphoned some of it off for our purposes then something, somewhere has to have lost an equivalent amount of energy, correct?
Elsewhere you taunted me with the claim that the action of the Moon causing the water to bow out on opposite sides of the planet was based on Gravity (which is true) and that was the source of the Energy that we captured. I would like to understand how you think this system is operating a little better.
I make the following observations:
1) The level of the ocean's surface rises and falls according to the relative position of the moon. Do you agree or disagree?
2) As the water rises and then falls the mean value for "sea level" remains constant. In other words, when the water falls back down after the moon passes it falls back to the exact same level as it was before it rose. Do you agree or disagree.
3) If the mean water level remains unchanged then its Gravitational Potential Energy likewise remains unchanged. Do you agree or disagree?
4) Numbers 2 and 3 will not be affected by anything we do in terms of using the tides to generate power. Do you agree or disagree?
So my question really comes down to, if I am correct in items 2, 3, and 4, then where is the storehouse of energy which has been tapped?
I have argued that it must be located in the Angular Momentum of the Planet or the Moon (I think I called it Rotational Inertia for the Earth and Kinetic Energy for the moon previously).
Where would you argue it comes from, and what are the potential long term affects of using it up?
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I assert that the concept of a Force (measured in Newtons or kg*m*s^-2) is NOT the same thing as the concept of Energy (measured in Joules or kg*m^2*s^-2).
Do you agree or disagree?
Correct. As I put in the last thread the change in energy is the line integral of the force along a path.
In every day terms, Energy is the same the amount of work which is really a Force applied to an object over a distance. For example, Joules = Force (Newtons) * Distance (Meters) = (kg*m*s^-2) * (m) = kg*m^2*s^-2.
Does this represent a flawed concept of the relationship between Force and Energy?
Close enough for government work. To make it better we'd have to say that the "change in" energy is the work...
Now, when you make a statement like "Gravity is a source of Energy", semantically that is saying the "a Force is a source of Energy" but this is non-sense so I protest when I hear it.
Well if we just established that a change in energy is directly related to the action of a force, and logically a "source" of energy has to be a change in energy then I don't really see what the problem is. Wouldn't it be far more irrational to discuss an energy "source" where there is no force?
Partially I think it comes down to what we mean by source. Of course energy isn;t created or destroyed it merely changes form, and in that sense you can regard a source as merely being the former type of energy that you are converting to the new type. At the same time you can ask yourself which force it is that is giving the "oomph." That force then can also be regarded as a "source." Both of these statements then are correct:
1) Solar power uses the electromagnetic force to generate energy.
2) Solar power get's its energy from nuclear reactions, i.e. the conversion of mass into other forms of energy.
1) The level of the ocean's surface rises and falls according to the relative position of the moon. Do you agree or disagree?
2) As the water rises and then falls the mean value for "sea level" remains constant. In other words, when the water falls back down after the moon passes it falls back to the exact same level as it was before it rose. Do you agree or disagree.
3) If the mean water level remains unchanged then its Gravitational Potential Energy likewise remains unchanged. Do you agree or disagree?
4) Numbers 2 and 3 will not be affected by anything we do in terms of using the tides to generate power. Do you agree or disagree?
So my question really comes down to, if I am correct in items 2, 3, and 4, then where is the storehouse of energy which has been tapped?
1 is fine, 2 is fine, it's 3 where the problem comes in. You are ignoring that the tide is not merely a potential energy level it is a state of moving back and forth between potential and kinetic. The tide (talking here about deep water tides, not the shore lateral motion) is essentially a very long very flat sine wave on the surface of the water. Each little area bobs up and down. Notice the word "bobs." It is moving, and hence there is kinetic energy there. The motion is similar to any simple harmonic motion (like the swing of a pendulum). When we try to draw on tidal energy what we are doing is affecting the amplitude of those peaks and lows. The mean height remains the same but the energy carried in the wave is reduced. Again this is talking about deep sea tidal. The motion of waves at the shore is more complicated but again there is a kinetic-potential play back and forth back which we tap into, changing the amplitude of the oscillation.
I have argued that it must be located in the Angular Momentum of the Planet or the Moon (I think I called it Rotational Inertia for the Earth and Kinetic Energy for the moon previously).
Why is it you so object to calling a force the "source" of an energy when you are fine with saying the same thing of a momentum? Just curious.
Yes, I know that you have not been around for a few days...
Partially I think it comes down to what we mean by source. Of course energy isn;t created or destroyed it merely changes form, and in that sense you can regard a source as merely being the former type of energy that you are converting to the new type. At the same time you can ask yourself which force it is that is giving the "oomph." That force then can also be regarded as a "source."
I agree with this observation. I basically came to the same conclusion after thinking about your posts some more. I obviously consider the underlined perspective to be the correct perspective, and the latter to be semantically incorrect ... although I understand why one might take the second perspective. I just feel, IMHO, that it is technically inaccurate.
Why is it you so object to calling a force the "source" of an energy when you are fine with saying the same thing of a momentum? Just curious.
I guess my objection comes down to the notion embodied by the law of the conservation of energy. As you say above, it is neither created nor destroyed. It can, however, be stored for later use or it can be moved to alternate forms of storage.
On the earth (and other very large masses as well), one way to store it is to change the potential energy "stored in a mass" by performing work against the force of gravity. In other words, by moving a mass further away from the center of gravity of the planet (using whatever means you wish to accomplish this task).
Now, if I allow the weight to drop in such a way that it imparts all of it's potential energy onto a frictionless flywheel (yes I know there is no such real world thing as a frictionless flywheel), then the delta in energy stored in the angular momentum on the flywheel should be exactly equal in magnitude to the delta in the potential energy of the weight, correct?
So while gravity was the force (i.e. the oomph) required to move the weight, the stored potential energy of the weight was converted to stored potential energy in the flywheel. From this perspective the source of the energy (i.e. the place it came from) to increase the potential energy in the flywheel was, in fact, the stored potential energy which was originally stored in the weight by virtue of its mass and its original position.
Since energy is conserved in this example, in a strict sense the force of gravity doesn't "create" any energy (as you are obviously aware). It has merely acted as a sort of catalyst to facilitate the conversion of the potential energy stored in the weight to the potential energy stored in the angular momentum of the flywheel.
This example illustrates why I just don't feel that it is technically accurate to call the force of gravity the "source" of the energy which has been imparted onto the flywheel.
Now, let's review this:
3) If the mean water level remains unchanged then its Gravitational Potential Energy likewise remains unchanged. Do you agree or disagree?
I maintain that this statement is accurate and correct. I want to discuss the "source" in the sense that I mean it above of the energy that we are utilizing when we make use of the tidal effect to generate electricity.
I want to take this discussion one small step at a time so that we don't end up talking past each other based on mismatched assumptions, such as the meaning of the word "source".
So, if we make use of tidal action to generate electricity and thereby do some amount of work, then the equivalent amount of energy which was previously stored somewhere else has to be reduced, correct? This is required by the conservation of energy.
So, as a thought exercise, let us consider the action of the moon on the oceans as the "source" of the tidal effect.
If it were possible to factor out all other potential factors which contribute to the surface level of the ocean (and any waves which are superimposed on it), then what we would expect to find is a completely smooth ocean surface. Without the action of the moon the water would essentially "flatten out" such that the actual surface at all points would be equidistant from the center of gravity of the earth itself.
Let us call this the resting state of the ocean's surface.
Now, if we add the moon back in (and my memory serves me correctly) what we would find is that the ocean's surface would bow out on the sides of the planet both closest and furthest from the moon owing to the gravitational attraction of the moon on the water.
I can't say definitively, but I believe that it is the surface tension of the water that would cause the sides to bow in, but in any event, the amount of water that bows out (due to the moon) will be exactly counter balanced by the amount of water that bows in (due to surface tension) such that the net change in potential energy of the sum total of the water in question remains zero. Do you agree? I see no reason that simply placing the moon in the sky would change the potential energy of the water with respect to the earth.
If the earth were NOT rotating and the moon were NOT revolving around it, then this situation would settle down into a static state with a completely smooth surface and the ocean statically stuck in this bowed state. Do you agree?
Now, if we allow the earth to rotate and the moon to revolve at their normal speeds relative to one another, what we would find is that the bowed part of the ocean would slowly cycle around the planet constantly keeping itself aligned with the position of the moon. And if we observe the water level at a specific point, say the coast of any continent, what we should observe is that the water level rises and falls accordingly. So when that coastline is at 0 and 180 degrees relative to the position of the moon the water levels will be at "high tide", and then the coastline is at 90 and 270 degrees relative to the moon that the water levels will be at "low tide". Do you agree so far?
Now, if we introduce something to take advantage of these changes in water levels, say a large basin where we trap water at high tide, and then use that water to generate electricity as it flows out of that basin back to the sea that energy has to have come from someplace where it was previously stored as potential energy, is that correct?
Now, remove the moon from our little scenario again and allow all of the water to drain out of the basin (and use the electricity being generated to do some work). After things go back to a steady state, I contend that since we have neither created nor destroyed any water that the resting level of the water will be exactly where it was in the beginning. As such, the potential energy of the water itself will remain unchanged, correct? Since it remains unchanged, the potential energy of the water itself CANNOT be the source of the energy (in the sense that I mean it above) which we have tapped into to perform work for us in the form of electricity.
So, again, my question to you is where was the energy that we captured originally stored?
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
This example illustrates why I just don't feel that it is technically accurate to call the force of gravity the "source" of the energy which has been imparted onto the flywheel.
But that doesn't answer why you feel that saying angular momentum is the source of energy (in the case of tidal) is any more technically accurate. It's the same thing. Talking about a related (mathematically) quantity as a "source" because it has some role in the transfer of energy.
I can't say definitively, but I believe that it is the surface tension of the water that would cause the sides to bow in, but in any event, the amount of water that bows out (due to the moon) will be exactly counter balanced by the amount of water that bows in (due to surface tension) such that the net change in potential energy of the sum total of the water in question remains zero. Do you agree? I see no reason that simply placing the moon in the sky would change the potential energy of the water with respect to the earth.
I suspect you are mistaken here. Let us imagine that we have a single planet in space. A small planetoid flies by near enough and at the right speed so that it becomes trapped in orbit. Doing so liberates energy (logically we know this because the mirror system- forcing a stable orbiting moon to leave orbit- requires energy and because this is not terribly different than electron capture in an atom). That energy is going to be absorbed by the planet that caught the new moon. The planet may change orbit or revolutionary period. Similarly I suspect some of the energy would end up stored in any fluid bodies of the planet (atmosphere and hydrosphere).
If the earth were NOT rotating and the moon were NOT revolving around it, then this situation would settle down into a static state with a completely smooth surface and the ocean statically stuck in this bowed state. Do you agree?
Sounds right.
Now, if we allow the earth to rotate and the moon to revolve at their normal speeds relative to one another, what we would find is that the bowed part of the ocean would slowly cycle around the planet constantly keeping itself aligned with the position of the moon. And if we observe the water level at a specific point, say the coast of any continent, what we should observe is that the water level rises and falls accordingly. So when that coastline is at 0 and 180 degrees relative to the position of the moon the water levels will be at "high tide", and then the coastline is at 90 and 270 degrees relative to the moon that the water levels will be at "low tide". Do you agree so far?
It isn't that simple though. There is going to be a superimposition of a number of different waves on top of each other. The smallest frequency/longest wavelength wave will look like what you are describing but there will be tons of smaller frequency waves.
Think about it like this- if you dip you hand in a pool and quickly draw it down the length of the pool do you get just one ripple? No, it starts as one ripple but breaks down into multiples of that frequency based on the irregularities of the pool edges. These reflected waves then bounce back and forth creating new waves with differing frequencies yet as they collide with other pool edges and get reflected. This is essentially what the moon does. Granted it pulls up rather than pushes down on the water surface but same difference.
Now, remove the moon from our little scenario again and allow all of the water to drain out of the basin (and use the electricity being generated to do some work). After things go back to a steady state, I contend that since we have neither created nor destroyed any water that the resting level of the water will be exactly where it was in the beginning. As such, the potential energy of the water itself will remain unchanged, correct? Since it remains unchanged, the potential energy of the water itself CANNOT be the source of the energy (in the sense that I mean it above) which we have tapped into to perform work for us in the form of electricity.
I answered this last time. You are looking merely at the mean potential energy rather than the real situation which is a fluctuation in potential and kinetic energy. The ocean as a whole has a total energy equal to the sum of these two. When you stick in a tidal power generator you divert some of the kinetic energy to electricity generation. As a result the tidal waves are smaller in amplitude. For simple harmonic motion the magnitude of the kinetic energy is proportional to the amplitude of the swing. I can find the exact equations if you like.
To put it another way there is a very big difference between a body of water that has a mean potential energy point of x and is perfectly flat and one that has the same mean potential energy but is also wobbling up and down. The latter has more energy in it than the former.
But that doesn't answer why you feel that saying angular momentum is the source of energy (in the case of tidal) is any more technically accurate. It's the same thing. Talking about a related (mathematically) quantity as a "source" because it has some role in the transfer of energy.
It's not the same thing at all. The fact that they have some mathematically defined relationship isn't really the point here.
I honestly don't mean this to be snippy, but are you being intentionally obtuse or do you honestly not understand my point here?
We are talking about different mechanisms for storing energy. The energy in question (at least for the cases we are considering here) is always associated with a mass in some way, but the mechanism or characteristic associated with the stored energy can be different.
So, in the case of gravitaional potential energy when you add energy to a mass it goes up, and if you bleed energy off from the mass it goes down.
In the case of angular momentum, when you add energy to a mass it's rate of rotation increases. If you bleed the energy back off it's rate of rotation decreases.
We can use the mass's "regular" momentum to store the energy as well. Add energy to the mass and it's velocity increases. Bleed the energy back off and the velocity decreases.
Obviously I am ignoring relativistic effects here.
In all of these cases the deltas in the relevant dimensions are proportional to the amount of energy (work) put into/taken out of the system (mass). I realize that I may be simplifying things here but I don't believe that I have some drastic misunderstanding of things here.
If you disgree, please enlighten me.
I suspect you are mistaken here. Let us imagine that we have a single planet in space. A small planetoid flies by near enough and at the right speed so that it becomes trapped in orbit. Doing so liberates energy (logically we know this because the mirror system- forcing a stable orbiting moon to leave orbit- requires energy and because this is not terribly different than electron capture in an atom). That energy is going to be absorbed by the planet that caught the new moon. The planet may change orbit or revolutionary period. Similarly I suspect some of the energy would end up stored in any fluid bodies of the planet (atmosphere and hydrosphere).
Let us be more explicit here. For the scenario you describe the assumption is either that these are the only two objects that exist or that they are sufficiently distant from any other objects that the effects of those other objects are negligible for our purposes.
Since angular momentum is a conserved quantity, the angular momentum of the two bodies taken together either remains constant during the capture or any change in that angular momentum will be transformed into some other form of energy. This might be a change in momentum for the two bodies taken together or it could be transfered to kinetic energy of the fluids on either of the bodies as you suggest.
In this latter case, if we assume friction is present that kinetic energy would ultimately be transformed into heat and possibly radiated out of the system.
If we assume things are frictionless, however, any angular momentum which had been transformed into kinetic energy within the fluids on the masses would continue to move around indefinitely and, under this scenario, I see no way for the combination to give off energy, do you?
In any event, this is all a bit moot because in my little though experiment I just plopped the moon into place without any particular kinetic energy or angular momentum involved just to keep things simple.
It isn't that simple though. There is going to be a superimposition of a number of different waves on top of each other. The smallest frequency/longest wavelength wave will look like what you are describing but there will be tons of smaller frequency waves.
Think about it like this- if you dip you hand in a pool and quickly draw it down the length of the pool do you get just one ripple? No, it starts as one ripple but breaks down into multiples of that frequency based on the irregularities of the pool edges. These reflected waves then bounce back and forth creating new waves with differing frequencies yet as they collide with other pool edges and get reflected. This is essentially what the moon does. Granted it pulls up rather than pushes down on the water surface but same difference.
Well, actually, in our little thought experiment it is this simple. The primary effect here is the bowing of the water due to the gravitational attraction of the moon. Strictly speaking this effect does not operate like a normal "wave" in that the speed of the propogation of the "buldge" is tied to the position of the moon as opposed to the speed that waves propogate through water.
As the buldge runs into land masses, however, as you point out the impact is likely to cause waves to be reflected, along with their associated harmonics. All of these waves will ultimately be superimposed on top of the otherwise "bowed" surface of the water.
It should be noted, however, that any energy which exists in those superimposed harmonics ultimately came for the impact the the "buldge" with the landmasses and this "impact" will have transferred some amount of the angular momentum of the planet into the kinetic energy of the waves which arise through this process, correct?
I answered this last time. You are looking merely at the mean potential energy rather than the real situation which is a fluctuation in potential and kinetic energy. The ocean as a whole has a total energy equal to the sum of these two. When you stick in a tidal power generator you divert some of the kinetic energy to electricity generation. As a result the tidal waves are smaller in amplitude. For simple harmonic motion the magnitude of the kinetic energy is proportional to the amplitude of the swing. I can find the exact equations if you like.
To put it another way there is a very big difference between a body of water that has a mean potential energy point of x and is perfectly flat and one that has the same mean potential energy but is also wobbling up and down. The latter has more energy in it than the former.
No need to find the equations, I understand the concept perfectly well.
Now, I guess that we need to clarify a few things here. As this article calls out , what you are describing is wave energy, strictly speaking, as opposed to tidal energy.
For this discussion we can ignore the ocean's thermal energy except to point out that this is likely to be primarily from solar absorption and geothermal transfer, but as the discussion above highlights, the impact of the tidal buldge with the land masses may also produce an (admittedly negligible) amount of thermal energy which represents a conversion of angular momentum into heat.
The wikipedia has a good write-up on tidal power . Note that the mechanisms that they describe for capturing tidal energy are based primarily on the tidal swell rather than the energy present in the tidal waves.
You might also find this pertinent:
Tidal power is classified as a renewable energy source, because tides are caused by the orbital mechanics of the solar system and are considered inexhaustible within a human timeframe. The root source of the energy comes from the slow deceleration of the Earth's rotation. The Moon gains energy from this interaction and is slowly receding from the Earth. Tidal power has great potential for future power and electricity generation because of the total amount of energy contained in this rotation.
You still haven't weighed in on where you feel the energy reserve that is being depleted by our use of tidal power comes from. If not the angular momentum of the earth and the moon, then where?
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So, in the case of gravitaional potential energy when you add energy to a mass it goes up, and if you bleed energy off from the mass it goes down.
In the case of angular momentum, when you add energy to a mass it's rate of rotation increases. If you bleed the energy back off it's rate of rotation decreases.
You still aren't addressing my question.
You objected strenuously to using the term "source of energy" when talking about a force. Then you turn around and use angular momentum as a "source of energy." And you are admitting now that you understand that the two are analagous in terms of their relationship to energy, so why the hell have you been so huffy about my calling gravity a source when you're perfectly fine with doing something exactly analagous?
I honestly don't mean this to be snippy, but are you being intentionally obtuse or do you honestly not understand my point here?
I honestly don't understand why I have had to ask this question three times and explain it twice and still received no meaningful answer to it.
In any event, this is all a bit moot because in my little though experiment I just plopped the moon into place without any particular kinetic energy or angular momentum involved just to keep things simple.
But you have to realize that "plopping" a moon into place is doing something distinctly unphysical unless you also plop with it a net change in energy and momentum sufficient to conserve the system.
You might also find this pertinent:
Tidal power is classified as a renewable energy source, because tides are caused by the orbital mechanics of the solar system and are considered inexhaustible within a human timeframe. The root source of the energy comes from the slow deceleration of the Earth's rotation. The Moon gains energy from this interaction and is slowly receding from the Earth. Tidal power has great potential for future power and electricity generation because of the total amount of energy contained in this rotation.
They are using "source" here in much the same manner you have used it, which is fine. But again the force here is still gravity. It isn't EM, and it certainly isn't strong or weak nuclear. That kind of narrows the list to one candidate. However you want to break it down gravity is a prime component of tidal generation which to my way of thinking makes it a gravity based energy source.
Even the shoreline tidal power described in that source works because water flows downhill. Why does water flow downhill? Why, gravity.
I really don't get why this is such a difficult issue. No gravity = no tidal power generation. The equation doesn't get much simpler than that.
So, in the case of gravitational potential energy when you add energy to a mass it goes up, and if you bleed energy off from the mass it goes down.
In the case of angular momentum, when you add energy to a mass it's rate of rotation increases. If you bleed the energy back off it's rate of rotation decreases.
You still aren't addressing my question.
You objected strenuously to using the term "source of energy" when talking about a force. Then you turn around and use angular momentum as a "source of energy." And you are admitting now that you understand that the two are analogous in terms of their relationship to energy, so why the hell have you been so huffy about my calling gravity a source when you're perfectly fine with doing something exactly analogous?
I honestly don't mean this to be snippy, but are you being intentionally obtuse or do you honestly not understand my point here?
I honestly don't understand why I have had to ask this question three times and explain it twice and still received no meaningful answer to it.
I also believe that the reason you must ask a question three times and explain it twice, is because you make up words like "Gravitic" and misuse terms like "Angular Momentum". Words have meanings, and when you use them improperly it causes confusion amongst your readers. Confusion that typically results in requests for clarification so that a meaningful exchange of information and ideas can occur.
Here is a small excerpt from the wikipedia entry on Torque:
In physics, torque (or often called a moment) can informally be thought of as "rotational force" or "angular force" which causes a change in rotational motion. This force is defined by linear force multiplied by a radius.
I'm not sure where you got your physics degree, but they certainly must not have stressed any sort of need for the proper use of terms and scientific rigor.
You were boasting a while back about how I don't understand these things, and that I obviously over estimated my understanding of physics. Then it turns out you don't even understand a simple concept like Torque? Or at least you don't understand the proper term to use for it? Perhaps I am not the one over estimating their abilities in this case?
Here are the analogous relationships, just to be clear:
1) Applying a force to a mass alters its momentum.
2) Applying a torque to a mass alters its angular momentum.
See how that works? This really is high school stuff.
Note that the work being done by the force (or the torque) is equal to the change in the stored potential energy within the momentum (or the angular momentum) associated with the mass. Since that is where the energy is stored that is why I refer to them as the source for the energy, and why I object to the use of the terms Force, or Torque, as being the source.
Why is that hard to understand? Do you finally see my point here?
But you have to realize that "plopping" a moon into place is doing something distinctly unphysical unless you also plop with it a net change in energy and momentum sufficient to conserve the system.
I only resorted to this as a means of illustrating the effect the moon would have on the ocean's surface relative to if it were not present. If this offends you, then start and end my little thought experiment at the point where the moon is present but otherwise stationary. Same difference.
They are using "source" here in much the same manner you have used it, which is fine.
Gee, what an odd coincidence. Two independent sources came up with the same concept for where the energy is stored. I guess that means that they must BOTH be fooling themselves by your way of thinking.
Admit it, you are just being contrary because you don't want to admit that I was right.
But again the force here is still gravity. It isn't EM, and it certainly isn't strong or weak nuclear. That kind of narrows the list to one candidate. However you want to break it down gravity is a prime component of tidal generation which to my way of thinking makes it a gravity based energy source.
Clearly you simply don't understand the discussion that has been taking place here at all. Either that or you are just being obstinate.
Where is the ultimate source of the energy that we are utilizing via tidal power coming from?
(Read that again just to make sure you understand what I am asking.)
Even the shoreline tidal power described in that source works because water flows downhill. Why does water flow downhill? Why, gravity.
And just for the record, I never side that the FORCE of gravity was not involved, I only said that it was NOT THE SOURCE of the energy.
So, in the case of tidal power and only tidal power, in order to move the water up the hill so that we can then use it to generate electricity, SOMETHING has to expend or loose energy in order to provide the energy to move the water up the hill in the first place, correct?
The law of the conservation of energy is going to demand this, correct?
So my question is, where is THAT energy ultimately coming from? Clearly gravity isn't moving the water UP the hill as well, is it? You have yet to provide any sort of response here, BTW.
I really don't get why this is such a difficult issue. No gravity = no tidal power generation. The equation doesn't get much simpler than that.
No one said it was difficult, it is just the misuse of technical terms and the mangling of scientific concepts that I object to, especially from someone that claims they should know better.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I believe that you are confusing Angular Momentum with Torque, which BTW, is the analogous counterpart to a Force.
*slaps forehead*
Okay we're on the third explanation now.
No, I'm not confusing angular momentum and torque. You just seem to be incapable of listening to what i am saying.
You objected, very strongly, to the idea of calling a force the "source of energy" because as you were looking at it it only another form of energy could be the source of energy. And then you call angular momentum a "source of energy."
Angular Momentum is not a form of energy.
So when I talked about the analagous situations here I was not saying angular momentum and a force are the same but that they are the same with respect to whether either is a form of energy: they aren't.
So we get back to my question for the (one..two... three...) fourth time now.
Why is it you:
A) object to calling a force a source of energy on the grounds that it is not a form of energy, AND
B) proceed to call angular momentum a source of energy when it is ALSO not a form of energy.
I'm sorry but if you still are incapable of answering this question I'm going to drop the whole argument because it is a waste of time to have to rehash over and over a simple point that should have been painfully obvious before I had to mention it the first time much less after four repetitions.
Note that the work being done by the force (or the torque) is equal to the change in the stored potential energy within the momentum (or the angular momentum) associated with the mass. Since that is where the energy is stored that is why I refer to them as the source for the energy, and why I object to the use of the terms Force, or Torque, as being the source.
saying the energy is stored in the angular momentum is no more real than saying the energy is stored in the gravitational potential. They are analagous statements in the sense that in each case we are taking a separate mathematical identity that is related to energy and describing the enrgy source because it relies on that identity.
A hydroelectric dam relies on gravity to work. It also relies on angular momentum. Neither is more fundamental to the storage of energy. Describing it in terms of the force used is rather useful in some ways because it allows you to track back where the energy came from in a way that simply describing it as having to do with angular momentum does not.
Gee, what an odd coincidence. Two independent sources came up with the same concept for where the energy is stored. I guess that means that they must BOTH be fooling themselves by your way of thinking.
I've never said your way of looking at it was wrong, YOU claimed my way of looking at is wrong and you were, and continue to be, mistaken. In fact I explicitly said that it is fine (if less useful) to regard the matter the way you did. You still can't seem to grasp the reverse though.
Where is the ultimate source of the energy that we are utilizing via tidal power coming from?
The ultimate source of all energy in the universe is the big bang, so I don't really see what that has to do with anything. the more immediate source is the potential energy that exists due to the mass of water's location in the gravity field and it's kinetic motion which is caused by the competing gravity fields of the earth and moon.
And just for the record, I never side that the FORCE of gravity was not involved, I only said that it was NOT THE SOURCE of the energy.
indeed as above you objected strongly to that idea and then proceeded to offer the analagous idea that angular momentum (also not a form of energy) was the source without realizing how you contradicted yourself.
So my question is, where is THAT energy ultimately coming from? Clearly gravity isn't moving the water UP the hill as well, is it? You have yet to provide any sort of response here, BTW.
Okay I want you to really listen to me here. Really really listen cause this is the last time I am going to help you figure this out.
You are claiming that gravity isn't lifting the water up, right?
Okay go find a pendulum. Notice it swinging? Notice how the weight at the end goes from a low point up to a high point? Now what force is acting on the pendulum? Gravity. Now do you really want to argue that gravity can't cause the water to lift up when you can watch it do the exact same thing with a pendulum?
Think really hard.
Yes the gravity always pulls down, but that can be transformed into harmonic motion that goes- wait for it- down and *up.*
You know that there is an up and down motion in the ocean. You've admitted it, and you seem to have a rudimentary understanding that it is caused by the moon's gravitational pull. Now I want you to think about what that would look like where the water comes up on a slanted shore. As you get a high point of the wave the water will "come in" because it will rise higher up the beach. The reason for this is that the beach is slanted so as the water rises it perforce also moves laterally "up" the shore. Similarly as it falls it moves "down" the shore.
There is no good reason for me to have to come back to this over and over again, and I'm not going to, if you still can't get it, well I'll leave you to it.
No one said it was difficult, it is just the misuse of technical terms and the mangling of scientific concepts that I object to, especially from someone that claims they should know better.
Forgive me if I find someone who argues using their imperfect understanding of high school physics as having no standing to critique my understanding of physics. Especially when that person has proven them incapable of understanding the matter at hand and has furthermore shown themselves to belong to the global warming deniers who decry science they personally don't like anyway.
Your credibility to make such judgments is thin, goright. Maybe you should learn to trust that some of us are substantially better educated on these matters and accept that we are trying to help you correct your misunderstandings, rather than assuming you know more despite and inferior education in the matter.
Well, there's you're problem right there! Stop doing that! :-)
(Come on, admit it, THAT was funny.)
I'll stop taunting you on this topic if you simply admit two things:
1) A force neither creates nor stores energy.
2) The true source of the tidal energy is coming from a net reduction in the Angular Momentum of the planet.
In return, and up front I'll acknowledge you seem to have a reasonable grasp of theoretical physics at least (and most likely stuff beyond me), and that I actually DID know what you meant by "Gravitic". But come on, you had to be horrified when that google search turned up a bunch of science fiction links. :-)
I too grow tired of this thread. I'll probably let you off the hook even if you don't admit the above. In that case we just agree to disagree.
I am curious, though, after all this do you honestly think I don't know my a** from a hole in the ground here, or was that just posturing? Be honest, I can take it, I'm a Republican.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I grew up in Oregon after being born in California. Got my BS Physics at the University of Oregon and felt like I was done with school. Now I'm thinking about going back and getting a computer software degree of some type (programming).
Did you ever move beyond that advanced BS in Physics (gee, that's sort of ironic phraseology actually)?
Based on our discussions here I wouldn't actually recommend Computer Science as a discipline for you. Computers tend to be picky and programming demands a level of logic and rigor that you seem to be lacking.
Just a little friendly advice on your future career choices. Always looking to help you out and all. It's a public career counseling service I provide. :-)
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I really am beginning to think that you really ARE a moron.
So we get back to my question for the (one..two... three...) fourth time now.
Why is it you:
A) object to calling a force a source of energy on the grounds that it is not a form of energy, AND
B) proceed to call angular momentum a source of energy when it is ALSO not a form of energy.
I'm sorry if I am having a hard time explaining this, you see I haven't had to do it before (give this explanation). Everyone else I've met just seems to just understand this stuff already.
Now, strictly speaking, I am not claiming Angular Momentum is energy (and to be fair you didn't make that claim about force) merely that this is the fundamental quantity that represents the applicable change in state of the mass ... in the sense that when we change the amount of energy in the system this is the quantity that is significant.
I can't just use the rate of rotation (which obviously has a mathematical relationship to the change in energy as well) because the effect also depends on the amount of mass. I can't just use the mass because that doesn't even change. I can't use the torque because unless we are in the process of changing the amount of stored energy there isn't even a torque to consider. It is the combination of the two (mass and speed of rotation), according to the proper equation, that clearly quantifies the net change in the system as a result of storing the energy there.
Similarly for linear momentum and force, or an object's height and mass for gravitationally stored energy. I guess in a sense I am focused on the observable effects of changing the energy levels of a system.
Force and torque provide the mechanisms for transforming one form of stored energy into another, but since they either do not change or do not even exist after the energy transfer has occurred, I find it difficult to view them as a repository for the stored energy in any meaningful sense. Why do you?
If I store energy in an object "gravitationally", what is the observable effect? It goes up. Does the force of gravity change in any fundamental way? No. Does the gravitational constant change? No. Did something happen to the mass? Yes. Can we measure that? Yes.
If I store energy in an object using linear motion, what is the observable effect? It's momentum increases. Does the force I was using to impart that energy change in any fundamental way during this process? No. Did something happen to the mass? Yes. Can we measure that? Yes.
If I store energy in a object using rotary motion, what is the observable effect? It's angular momentum increases. Does the Torque that I used to impart that energy change in any fundamental way during this process? No. Did something happen to the mass? Yes. Can we measure that? Yes.
If you can't comprehend the significance of these points I don't know how else to explain them to you. I guess my alt-speak science lexicon must be lacking. :-)
So let us consider the definition of the word "source" :
Main Entry: 1source
Pronunciation: 'sors
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sours, from Anglo-French surse spring, source, from past participle of surdre to rise, spring forth, from Latin surgere -- more at SURGE
1 a : a generative force : CAUSE b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : BEGINNING (2) : one that initiates : AUTHOR; also : PROTOTYPE, MODEL (3) : one that supplies information
2 a : the point of origin of a stream of water : FOUNTAINHEAD b archaic : SPRING, FOUNT
3 : a firsthand document or primary reference work
4 : an electrode in a field-effect transistor that supplies the charge carriers for current flow -- compare DRAIN, GATE
I am clearly using the underlined portion when I claim that the Angular Momentum is a "source of energy", especially given the discussion above. Can you please explain which definition you are using when you refer to a Force (not a gravitational potential) as a "source of energy" and how that definition remains consistent with the law of the conservation of energy?
Oh, and one last point here, is it your contention that my use and understanding of the terms and concepts at play here is somehow inconsistent with the use and understanding expressed by the vast majority of the scientific establishment? I mean, given your position on the whole global warming debate, I recognize your reverence to having a consensus of opinion on scientific topics such as these. Where would you say that I actually stand on these points relative to others in the field, and if I differ significantly can you please provide some pointers to references for those who would also disagree?
I'm sorry but if you still are incapable of answering this question I'm going to drop the whole argument because it is a waste of time to have to rehash over and over a simple point that should have been painfully obvious before I had to mention it the first time much less after four repetitions.
I have answered your question each time, and have tried yet a fourth round of explanation in the hopes that you will ultimately be able to grasp the point.
This is starting to sound like backtracking to me, actually, if your position is so painfully obvious then please describe for me in any meaningful sense how you consider the FORCE of gravity to be a SOURCE OF ENERGY? What definition of the word SOURCE are you relying on and please include some description of why it is that you believe your use of the word doesn't violate the law of the conservation of energy.
You can continue to bolster all you want but we both know where this is heading unless you just pick up your toys and head home.
the more immediate source is the potential energy that exists due to the mass of water's location in the gravity field and it's kinetic motion which is caused by the competing gravity fields of the earth and moon.
Ha. So now all of a sudden you're the one talking about gravity fields and gravitationally stored potential energy. Funny, up until now you have been sticking to the "Gravity is the source of the energy". Now you're trying to backtrack because you know what's coming.
Even so, I am claiming that tidal energy doesn't come from gravitationally stored reserves at all. Sure, the process of our capturing the energy temporarily stores some energy that way, but this is quickly depleted and needs to be renewed. If it needs to be renewed every day, it isn't much of an energy SOURCE in my book. When we exhaust the gravitationally stored energy in the water mass in a single day, it is hard to make a case for that being the SOURCE of the energy we would be using for YEARS.
I've never said your way of looking at it was wrong, YOU claimed my way of looking at is wrong and you were, and continue to be, mistaken. In fact I explicitly said that it is fine (if less useful) to regard the matter the way you did. You still can't seem to grasp the reverse though.
This isn't strictly true. I mentioned some time back that I could understand why you would use the terminology the way that you are. I just want you to admit that the FORCE of gravity is not a SOURCE of energy.
It is a perfectly fine way of attaching a label on something, sort of like gravitationally stored potential energy. :-) Technically accurate and descriptive too.
Well that and I would like to believe that you actually understand how tidal energy really works, and where the repository of energy that we are tapping comes from. Given your posts, I don't believe that we are yet in agreement.
All political and personal sniping aside, you still seem to think that the waves are somehow the source of the energy we would be tapping. They are not. Like the water up on the hill, they too are only a means to an end in the ultimate transfer of power from the earth's rotation to my light socket.
Just as I deplete the energy stored by the tidal dam as the water flows back out to sea and therefore have to tap some other source to renew it), if I tap the waves themselves as you have already alluded to we will be reducing their amplitudes over time. Without some other source to renew them they would eventually subside to a smooth surface (ignoring solar effects which is not part of this discussion).
You are claiming that gravity isn't lifting the water up, right?
No, what I am claiming is that gravity is NOT what keeps the waves lifting up over time. As we tap energy from them something must be renewing them or they would eventually stop.
Since every wave that crashes onto every beach is converting some of its energy to heat (if nothing else) they have been tapped for energy for as long as the ocean has existed (probably a fairly significant part of 4.5 billion years?).
I claim that is loss (as well as any additional loss that we introduce) is offset by a corresponding reduction in the Angular Momentum of the planet. After that you start going back to the big bang, but let's just stick to the Earth and the Moon for a discussion of the tides.
Okay go find a pendulum. Notice it swinging? Notice how the weight at the end goes from a low point up to a high point? Now what force is acting on the pendulum? Gravity. Now do you really want to argue that gravity can't cause the water to lift up when you can watch it do the exact same thing with a pendulum?
Funny. My pendulum seems to be broken.
I seem to have to keep putting energy INTO mine to keep it swinging like that. Hmmm, if I don't keep adding energy to my pendulum it seems to ... wait for it ... stop.
I want one of your nifty alt-pendulums that just seems to keep going forever and ever.
For as long as we have been making pendulum clocks, clock makers have had to figure out ways the RENEW the energy stored in their pendulums too. Funny how that is. They have used springs and even gravitationally stored energy in the form of weights.
Funny, but even after they added the springs and the weights unless they kept adding energy to THOSE the clocks would eventually ... wait for it ... stop.
The wikipedia article puts the level of the tidal swell at about 10m (33ft). Is it actually your contention that the tidal swell is nothing more than a 10m standing wave that keeps circling the globe over and over again?
I don't think that this is actually an accurate description of the way things are working (since it ignores the effects of the moon), but for the sake of this discussion let's go with it. In your view of all this, is this standing wave (or any of the waves for that matter) capable of perpetual motion or is it going to be depleted over time as it crashes into the continents?
If your answer is no, goright, my waves are not capable of perpetual motion then I ask you again, what storehouse of energy is readily available that might actually be renewing the energy that we both know the waves and currents of the ocean must be loosing? [Note: tidal related answers only, please]
There is no good reason for me to have to come back to this over and over again, and I'm not going to, if you still can't get it, well I'll leave you to it.
We aren't going over it and over it again. I am teaching you new things with every round. Soon I hope that you too will have your very own rudimentary understanding of what makes the tides work. :-)
Don't pick up your toys and go home just yet, though. We're just getting to the good parts.
Forgive me if I find someone who argues using their imperfect understanding of high school physics as having no standing to critique my understanding of physics.
OK, you're forgiven. But let us not lose sight of the reality of who is winning this "debate".
Especially when that person has proven them incapable of understanding the matter at hand and has furthermore shown themselves to belong to the global warming deniers who decry science they personally don't like anyway.
WTF? I love science. Always have. That's why I went into science and engineering in college. Don't mistake my challenging you to be able to actually back up your claims as a sign that I hate science. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As for my understanding of these topics, I feel comfortable that I have more than adequately provided substantive references to back up my views. You? Not so much.
Your credibility to make such judgments is thin, goright. Maybe you should learn to trust that some of us are substantially better educated on these matters and accept that we are trying to help you correct your misunderstandings, rather than assuming you know more despite and inferior education in the matter.
Now don't get in a tizzy here. I'm just taunting you in good fun. You're doing it back ... although you're ratio of serious to tease might be slightly higher than mine. You don't see me taking it all personal and stuff.
I would be careful about using terms like superior and inferior education, however, given the way this discussion has gone, though. [Hint: It doesn't look good to be beaten in a debate by someone who you feel has an inferior education.]
I would honestly like to find a way for you to save some face here, but you have backed yourself into such a corner...
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
We aren't going over it and over it again. I am teaching you new things with every round.
This sums up the problem, you really are convinced that you are the teacher here. Nothing I can say or do, no matter how many ways or times I have shown you where you were wrong and why, makes a difference, you are dead set on the idea that you know better.
That makes you the worst kind of student.
And frankly you've exhausted my patience with you. My opinion of you is unchanged from where we started: you don't have a clue and are aggressive in proving that fact while claiming to be the master of all things. You evidently think I'm a moron.
Fine. I'll just have to live with my advanced degree in the subject and try to take condolence that the rest of the scientific community feels my pain everytime they argue with one of you dead enders. You can meanwhile trumpet your glorious victory to the other science deniers. They'll probably think you're really cool.
In that sense the weight is the "source" of the energy, not Gravity, strictly speaking.
If the weight is the source of the energy, then gravity is part of the source as weight is dependent on mass and gravity (Or would you say it was the mass that was the true source?)
Anyways, as for Tidal energy. Tidal energy is actually involved in a very complex system where the rotational energy of the earth is actually being siphoned off by the moon. That bulging effect, combined with the earth's rotation gives a gravitic slingshot effect that is slowly moving the moon further and further away. (Wikipedia has the rate at 1.3×10-9 m/sec). That energy is, in fact coming from the rotational energy of the earth, which is slowing down in proportion to the increased energy associated with a higher lunar orbit.
I believe tapping off of that tidal energy would slow down (to a small degree) that slingshot effect and we would be using some energy that would otherwise make it up to the moon's orbit.
After reading the wikipedia article and thinking about the mechanisms being proposed to harness tidal energy, I agree that predicting the net impact of our efforts as to whether they would enhance or diminish the effect that you describe requires a significant level of understanding of the exact mechanisms at work here.
By trapping water at high tide in a basin you are admittedly syphoning energy from the effects created by the moon. Whether doing so increases or decreases the net "drag" on the planet is unclear.
A few pictures and assessment of the force vectors involved seems to be in order here.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You are correct, I mispoke as well. Strictly speaking the energy involved exists independent of either the weight (mass) or the force (gravity). It is a completely independent quantity.
A more accurate statement might have been that the energy in question was "stored" in the mass by virtue of its location. Obviously the force in question, gravity, is also important and required because without the force the possibility to "store" energy in this manner would not be possible.
Hmm. The effect you describe is interesting for sure, although intuitively possible assuming the that directions of rotation are in the proper directions. I will assume that this must be the case or things would not have made it as far as the wikipedia, although for any discussion more substantive than this it would probably be prudent to double check.
The transfer of energy presumably occurs through what amounts to friction between the "bulged" water and the ocean floor as the bulged water is dragged around the planet? I need to think about this more but on first glance this seems plausible. Any skewing of the "bulge" due to friction (or whatever other processes would be involved) would create a force vector that could act on the moon in the manner that you describe.
Very interesting.
Now, you seem to think that our efforts to draw energy from this process would weaken the effect. This seems intuitively incorrect to me, however. Anything that we do to draw energy from this system should act to increase the "friction" or "drag" and thus increase the skewing of the force vector involved, rather than decreasing it.
In other words, anything that we do to syphon off energy should act to increase the coupling between the Earth's rotation and the slingshotting of the moon because it is that disparity that we are seeking to exploit. I will have to look into this further.
For the sake of discussion, lots assume that you are correct and our activities do, in fact, decrease this effect rather than enhancing it. This would suggest, then, that there is a limited amount of potential to be exploited here, correct? We could only exploit this phenomenon up to the point where we had completely negated the effect, correct?
In any event, you seem to be in agreement that the energy itself is stored in the angular momentum of the planet. On that I agree.
You are further arguing that the angular momentum of the planet is being slowly syphoned off by the moon ... thus causing the size of its orbit to increase and the rate of rotation of the Earth to decrease. So over (a very large amount of) time we would expect the mean length of a day to be increasing, correct?
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Continuation of Evolution Thread.
Let's continue this thread
here in the science open topic...
Here is a copy of the text of the last post in that thread:
OK, put up or shut up time.
First of all, I don't have to provide any proof for my claims. You as the champion of this "theory" need to provide proof of it's validity or it is just so much hocum like anything else.
Verified hypothesis:
OK, please explain to me exactly how this was verified. The fossil record provides no such definitive proof, so what else have you got?
Proven model:
Again, exactly how has this been proven? What new species have we created or observed lately?
Proven predictive power:
Hmm, OK. So what exactly is man going to evolve into? What new species will be derived from us? What new species will be derived from anything larger than a single celled organism or bacteria?
Has been tested over and over again:
To what are you referring here? Have we been developing new species without me hearing about it?
Actually, for that matter, exactly how are you defining species so that we can make a meaningful determination of when a "new" one has been developed?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Or,
if you're in the mood for some light Sunday reading, you could just check out the Evidence for Evolution
.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Please don't misunderstand.
I am just calling you to task to examine how intellectually honest you are really being.
I admit that I did not pursue you previous link. I don't care what the religious folks are using as arguments, I will try to construct my own. As such I want to view the information that you consider evidence for your side not refutations of arguments others have made aginst it. I may from time to time "borrow" some of their arguments, however, but only the ones that have some merit ... at least IMHO.
I will try to pursue this link later today, but just for starters I notice that it is labeled "Evidence for" Evolution, not "Proof and Verification of" Evolution. :-)
So, while we pursue this topic. I suppose we should agree to the definitions of the words "proof" and "verify", in addition to "species". I typically rely on Meriam-Webster On-line for these things but I reserve the right to quibble a bit given the scientific nature of this thread which demands some special consideration at times.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fair enough,
so I'll admit here that when science - not just evolution - uses the word "proof", it's never intellectually honest according to that standard. In fact, the word "proof" is never accurate, under any circumstance, if you want to go that far. We have only evidence that is more or less difficult to refute.
What we do have is damned-near-impossible evidence to refute on the level of basic biological evolution. That's not doubted even by the creationists, for the simple reason that we can do it with lesser organisms. Plants, fruit flies, rats, etc. A little manipulation of context, and voilà, you can affect future generations of that organism. That's what evolution is.
But, I'll stop throwing around the word 'proof' haphazardly, if you admit that no science can claim that, either. (which is why the stickers signaling out evolution are so dishonest).
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Let's continue for a bit, in any event...
OK, this is good. I appreciate that you recognize where I was going to head with this and acknowledge the limitations of our ability to "prove" and "verify" certain conjectures.
I also appreciate that you recognized that to be able to meet the burden imposed by words like "prove" and "verify" that we need a very specific definition of the word "species" as well which is objectively testable or observable in some way. As your response below illustrates I don't believe that such a clear cut and universally accepted definition exists.
So now you understand why I balked at your description of the status of Evolution as being a "proven and verified" theory.
Now, since you gave an inch I'll give you one in return.
I agree that no science can ever meet the notion of absolutely proven and absolutely verified. As you say, things are simply more or less able to be refuted. We typically have evidence for and evidence against any particular theory. While a theory can't ever be proven absolutely correct, it can be proven absolutely incorrect and it takes only one (sufficiently significant) counter example to do so.
For example, take the case of the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, which of course is the theory that life could spontaneously arise out of dead matter. This theory was in wide spread belief for quite some time despite a variety of experiments both for and against. This brief account of the history
provides a telling example of just how careful we need to be before calling something "proven".
If Louis Pasteur had not come along I might well still be here debating you about whether all of those fossils and new species we are talking about were proof of spontaneous generation as opposed to evolution, correct?
Now, I will give you even more. Do I honestly believe that the Theory of Evolution is totally bogus like I do the Theory of Spontaneous Generation? No, but neither do I think it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Of all the possible contenders for describing the plethora of species on our planet, I will even admit that Evolution is the one with the greatest amount of evidence on its side (currently). Although to be fair there is no other contender on the plate that I am even aware of that the "scientific establishment" will even entertain. Is there another that I am missing?
Even though you don't like the fact that Intelligent Design appeals to the notion of a supreme being as the source of some aspects of nature, that doesn't mean that from a purely scientific perspective that everything that the ID proponents have to say is bogus. The very concept of Irreducible Complexity poses a serious threat to Evolution even if you don't buy into all of the rest of Intelligent Design. Irreducible Complexity is not an inherently religious concept, is it?
At any rate, I would like to continue this discussion a bit further if you are willing. You have made reference to two things that I would like to pursue:
1) You say that there is almost irrefutable evidence available in support of Evolution. Can you point me to something that discusses the top 1 or 2 pieces of evidence that you feel are so compelling?
2) You also say that we have demonstrated that evolution exists using lower animals. Can you point me to the top 1 or 2 examples of this that you likewise feel are compelling?
Thanks.
<Long Winded Aside>
Now, let me also say a few things about mathematics, science and proofs. First, mathematics as a discipline is precise enough to allow for absolute proof. 1+1=2 absolutely and without question in the base 10 (and others) number system. Mathematics is not a branch of science, at least not in the sense that we are discussing here.
I have a mathematics, physics, and chemistry educational background with some required biological sciences thrown in for good measure. I don't claim to be an expert in any of these fields, but I do claim to have a master of the fundamentals in all of them. I admit that my personal knowledge may now be dated due to the passage of time since I have taken these formal classes, but nothing that I say on these blogs goes beyond these fundamentals and I am fairly confident of knowing my own limitations here.
Based on this background I tend to break the various science into what I will call (and I do not mean this in a pejorative way) the hard sciences and the soft sciences. For me the hard sciences tend to have mathematical underpinnings whereas the soft sciences do not.
So, for example, for me Classical Physics (not Quantum Mechanics) would an example of what I call a "hard science", whereas Biology would be an example of what I would call a "soft science". The distinction being the degree to which mathematical models form the basis of the underlying theories within each discipline. (Note I am not claiming the the Biological sciences don't have or use mathematics, but that the current state of the fundamental theories therein are not mathematically based. Evolution would be one such example.)
Why is this distinction significant? I would argue that while it is true that by the very nature of the universe reality will always vary from the theory by some amount. I would also argue, however, that those sciences which have a mathematical underpinning lend themselves to a level of precision that allows a somewhat stricter interpretation of a word like "proof" than the soft sciences can attain, at least for theories such as Evolution.
Again, this is not meant as a criticism of disciplines such as Biology but rather as an acknowledgement of the difficulty with reaching uniform acceptance on the "proof" of this or that because of the very nature of the problem under study.
</Long Winded Aside>
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Excellent comment,
since there's a lot in here, I'll begin with an overview of why I think Evolution and Intelligent Design are categorically different.
What's key to any scientific Theory (I'll start capitalizing it when I mean Theory in the scientific sense) is testability and repeatability. Do Evolution and Intelligent Design both meet those criteria?
Evolution - and I'll use it in the sense that you do, meaning macroevolution (development of distinct species) - proposes that organisms develop into separate species from common ancestry. It's not about the mechanism yet - we'll get to that later - but the larger vision of shared ancestry among ultimately all life forms.
- Is it testable? Yes, but not conventionally. The test of macroevolution relies on the discovery of new evidence to fit the established paradigms. If a fossil fits in the previously extrapolated tree of organisms, then we'd consider that a postive test result. If not, then the tree has to be rethought. So far, since the development of the tree, some discoveries have forced small reorganizations of the branches, but no discoveries have radically changed its shape.
- Is it repeatable? Yes, in the same way. One fossil can lead to a hypothesis about the development of a further branch, but evolutionary biologists are unlikely to extrapolate from a single fossil because of the extent to which individual mutation may not be representative of family genetics. The current shape of the species tree is the result not of one, or even of a dozen, but of thousands of fossils. One of the arguments IDers typically accuse Evolutions of lacking is in the "interspecies" area: transitional fossils showing that, while one branch did indeed split, the future two branches shared some common biological structures. Thing is, evolutions do have those fossils
, and lots of them. (by the way - within any particular subsection of Evolution, what you'll read can range anywhere from Theory to Hypothesis, since not every detail has been worked out. Same holds for much more benign scientific phenomena, like gravity.)
On to Intelligent Design. The keystone of ID theory (small T) is indeed Irreducible Complexity - a biological structure whose parts allegedly cannot have evolved over time, because they involve multiple complex structures, none of whom have an independent function.
- Is it testable? Not really: the fundamental tenet of IC is that X cannot happen, and that's not really a testable proposition.
- Is it repeatable? Since there's nothing testable, there's not really anything to repeat.
Furthermore, the accumulation of evidence shows why the differences between Evolution and ID are absolutely incompatible in terms of what we teach: when a fossil is found that contradicts the Evolutionary tree, scientists are forced to rethink its shape. When evidence is found to debunk the notion of IC (such as bacterial flagella
, which was the key argument of Darwin's Black Box, if I'm not mistaken), ID does not change or rethink its shape - it merely moves onto another structure it considers IC (see 200-300 
).
So Evolution is a Theory that grew out of observable, testable, repeatable phenomena; ID is an ideology that developed first, then sought phenomena to support it.
This is why it's repulsive to me to put the two into the same category, or to suggest that the first be treated as a "just another theory" in order to appease proponents of the second. Science is not infallible, but that's one of the first things students learn about it! One of my scientist colleagues used to say, "The worst thing about being a successful scientist is that you're just biding your time until someone debunks you." But that's how the Theories refine, and Evolution is as solid a Theory as anything else we teach. It's crime is that it runs counter to the ideology of some folk, and for that reason they'll go through great lengths to invent pseudosciences to debunk it.
If a contender to Evolution develops from the evidence, then I'd be all for discussing it in a science class. But ID fundamentally isn't science, even if it tries to use scientific terms.
Should we question the very nature of science, then? Sure, we already do: they're called philosophy and epistemology, and we teach both at the college level because they may be a little beyond the brains of kindergardners. But in a schoolroom, the key is teaching children a particular methodology of thought: start with a guess, test it, and as long as your tests continue working, your theory holds up; if your test fails, you have to rethink your theory. That's what we're teaching when we teach Evolution.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I'll be back later
with a more thorough response, but a few quick observations:
- evolution is as close to a proven theory as science has gotten. You're shifting a bit to discuss two other topics: evolutionary origins and macroevolution. That's fine, we can discuss both of those, as well - but there's absolutely no doubt that evolution itself takes place in species. A Catholic monk figured out how to manipulate it nearly 200 years ago.
- a few of your questions make me wonder if you've checked out that link I've sent you! You're right about your last question, though: what do we consider a "species". Fact is, there is nothing we can label a stable "species" - it's a process of cross-sectioning a place in species development, then separating different phenomena that we consider distant enough to qualify as different species. There's also a sexual definition
, though it has a whole series of caveates attached:
If you browse around a bit in the different family groupings (like this one
, you'll see why even this is a problem. But the problem is twofold: one, we're not always certain what the shared ancestors are between two species, and two (this is the important one), the process of categorization is unnatural and misleading, by nature.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Hey, Tlaloc, new physics thread here please ...
The other thread was getting a bit long so I want to continue here for a bit. Here's your chance to really put me in my place as far as my understanding of physics goes (yea, yea, I know you think you've been doing that all along).
I want to circle back to the gravity as a source of energy meme. Now after reading your recent posts it seems that you have something that you think you understand that I don't. This is fine. Teach me, smart boy.
Apparantly simply stating my position outright using standard physics terminology is insufficient to convey my point to you, so I'm going to try a different tack here.
Lets first see if we can at least agree on a couple of basics, OK?
I assert that the concept of a Force
(measured in Newtons or kg*m*s^-2) is NOT the same thing as the concept of Energy 
(measured in Joules or kg*m^2*s^-2).
Do you agree or disagree?
Now obviously there is a relationship between the two, and that is as you have described elsewhere and which is evident in the units by which they are measured.
In every day terms, Energy is the same the amount of work which is really a Force applied to an object over a distance. For example, Joules = Force (Newtons) * Distance (Meters) = (kg*m*s^-2) * (m) = kg*m^2*s^-2.
Does this represent a flawed concept of the relationship between Force and Energy?
Now, when you make a statement like "Gravity is a source of Energy", semantically that is saying the "a Force is a source of Energy" but this is non-sense so I protest when I hear it.
Now, there is the concept of a constant force defining a gradient, and also the concept of stored potential energy relative to that gradient, correct. The relative change in position of two objects along that gradient represents a change in the potential energy of those objects with respect to one another, correct?
So, for example, if the force in question happens to be Gravity we then have the concept of a gradient between the to objects based on their Gravitational attraction, correct?
Now, in order to change the amount of potential energy represented by the distance between those objects along the Gravity gradient, on must either perform and utilize work in some way and the resulting change in the distance is determined by the amount of work, correct?
So, when I lift a 1 kg weight 1 meter off the floor I will have done approximately 9.8 (m*s^-2)*1(kg)*1(m), or 9.8 Joules of work. And in so doing I will have increased the potential energy of the weight by the same amount. Do you agree?
Now I think of this as being Potential Energy because that is what it has classically been called. Since the Force in question happens to be Gravity, I can see how people might think of this as being "Gravitationally Stored Potential Energy", but in either case Gravity is still Gravity and its role in all of this is to be the Force defining the gradient, correct?
I have found a reference to the concept of Gravitational Potential Energy
. Is this the concept you meant when you used the (made up) word "Gravitic"?
So when I say that Gravity is not the source of the energy I mean that Gravity is not the place where the Energy originates from. In the example above, the energy in question came from me when I performed work against the Force of Gravity to lift the weight 1 meter. That work is conserved, of course, and is "stored" in the weight by virtue of its change in position relative to the Gravity gradient. Does that help to clarify my point? Is anything here demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant concepts as you understand them?
Now, if I later tie a string to that weight and use that to do something interesting like moving another weight across a table by allowing the first weight to drop back to the floor it will, of course, be the Force of Gravity that is doing the pulling but the Energy is coming from the change in position of the first weight as it drops. In that sense the weight is the "source" of the energy, not Gravity, strictly speaking. Do you at least see my point here?
Now, lets talk a bit more about the Tidal Energy and where it comes from. Again, you seem to want to view Gravity as the source of the energy that is being "provided". I would argue, similar to above, that the "source" of the energy is stored potential energy and it must be coming from some place other than the water.
Now here's your $64M question. If we set up an apparatus to exploit the tides as a source of energy, and we use that to do X millions or billions of Joules of work, then according to the conservation of energy the energy to perform that work has to have come from somewhere, correct?
I mean, that energy had to have been stored somewhere and when we syphoned some of it off for our purposes then something, somewhere has to have lost an equivalent amount of energy, correct?
Elsewhere you taunted me with the claim that the action of the Moon causing the water to bow out on opposite sides of the planet was based on Gravity (which is true) and that was the source of the Energy that we captured. I would like to understand how you think this system is operating a little better.
I make the following observations:
1) The level of the ocean's surface rises and falls according to the relative position of the moon. Do you agree or disagree?
2) As the water rises and then falls the mean value for "sea level" remains constant. In other words, when the water falls back down after the moon passes it falls back to the exact same level as it was before it rose. Do you agree or disagree.
3) If the mean water level remains unchanged then its Gravitational Potential Energy likewise remains unchanged. Do you agree or disagree?
4) Numbers 2 and 3 will not be affected by anything we do in terms of using the tides to generate power. Do you agree or disagree?
So my question really comes down to, if I am correct in items 2, 3, and 4, then where is the storehouse of energy which has been tapped?
I have argued that it must be located in the Angular Momentum of the Planet or the Moon (I think I called it Rotational Inertia for the Earth and Kinetic Energy for the moon previously).
Where would you argue it comes from, and what are the potential long term affects of using it up?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sorry, didn't see this post til now...
Correct. As I put in the last thread the change in energy is the line integral of the force along a path.
Close enough for government work. To make it better we'd have to say that the "change in" energy is the work...
Well if we just established that a change in energy is directly related to the action of a force, and logically a "source" of energy has to be a change in energy then I don't really see what the problem is. Wouldn't it be far more irrational to discuss an energy "source" where there is no force?
Partially I think it comes down to what we mean by source. Of course energy isn;t created or destroyed it merely changes form, and in that sense you can regard a source as merely being the former type of energy that you are converting to the new type. At the same time you can ask yourself which force it is that is giving the "oomph." That force then can also be regarded as a "source." Both of these statements then are correct:
1) Solar power uses the electromagnetic force to generate energy.
2) Solar power get's its energy from nuclear reactions, i.e. the conversion of mass into other forms of energy.
1 is fine, 2 is fine, it's 3 where the problem comes in. You are ignoring that the tide is not merely a potential energy level it is a state of moving back and forth between potential and kinetic. The tide (talking here about deep water tides, not the shore lateral motion) is essentially a very long very flat sine wave on the surface of the water. Each little area bobs up and down. Notice the word "bobs." It is moving, and hence there is kinetic energy there. The motion is similar to any simple harmonic motion (like the swing of a pendulum). When we try to draw on tidal energy what we are doing is affecting the amplitude of those peaks and lows. The mean height remains the same but the energy carried in the wave is reduced. Again this is talking about deep sea tidal. The motion of waves at the shore is more complicated but again there is a kinetic-potential play back and forth back which we tap into, changing the amplitude of the oscillation.
Why is it you so object to calling a force the "source" of an energy when you are fine with saying the same thing of a momentum? Just curious.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Tidal energy responses.
Yes, I know that you have not been around for a few days...
I agree with this observation. I basically came to the same conclusion after thinking about your posts some more. I obviously consider the underlined perspective to be the correct perspective, and the latter to be semantically incorrect ... although I understand why one might take the second perspective. I just feel, IMHO, that it is technically inaccurate.
I guess my objection comes down to the notion embodied by the law of the conservation of energy. As you say above, it is neither created nor destroyed. It can, however, be stored for later use or it can be moved to alternate forms of storage.
On the earth (and other very large masses as well), one way to store it is to change the potential energy "stored in a mass" by performing work against the force of gravity. In other words, by moving a mass further away from the center of gravity of the planet (using whatever means you wish to accomplish this task).
Now, if I allow the weight to drop in such a way that it imparts all of it's potential energy onto a frictionless flywheel (yes I know there is no such real world thing as a frictionless flywheel), then the delta in energy stored in the angular momentum on the flywheel should be exactly equal in magnitude to the delta in the potential energy of the weight, correct?
So while gravity was the force (i.e. the oomph) required to move the weight, the stored potential energy of the weight was converted to stored potential energy in the flywheel. From this perspective the source of the energy (i.e. the place it came from) to increase the potential energy in the flywheel was, in fact, the stored potential energy which was originally stored in the weight by virtue of its mass and its original position.
Since energy is conserved in this example, in a strict sense the force of gravity doesn't "create" any energy (as you are obviously aware). It has merely acted as a sort of catalyst to facilitate the conversion of the potential energy stored in the weight to the potential energy stored in the angular momentum of the flywheel.
This example illustrates why I just don't feel that it is technically accurate to call the force of gravity the "source" of the energy which has been imparted onto the flywheel.
Now, let's review this:
I maintain that this statement is accurate and correct. I want to discuss the "source" in the sense that I mean it above of the energy that we are utilizing when we make use of the tidal effect to generate electricity.
I want to take this discussion one small step at a time so that we don't end up talking past each other based on mismatched assumptions, such as the meaning of the word "source".
So, if we make use of tidal action to generate electricity and thereby do some amount of work, then the equivalent amount of energy which was previously stored somewhere else has to be reduced, correct? This is required by the conservation of energy.
So, as a thought exercise, let us consider the action of the moon on the oceans as the "source" of the tidal effect.
If it were possible to factor out all other potential factors which contribute to the surface level of the ocean (and any waves which are superimposed on it), then what we would expect to find is a completely smooth ocean surface. Without the action of the moon the water would essentially "flatten out" such that the actual surface at all points would be equidistant from the center of gravity of the earth itself.
Let us call this the resting state of the ocean's surface.
Now, if we add the moon back in (and my memory serves me correctly) what we would find is that the ocean's surface would bow out on the sides of the planet both closest and furthest from the moon owing to the gravitational attraction of the moon on the water.
I can't say definitively, but I believe that it is the surface tension of the water that would cause the sides to bow in, but in any event, the amount of water that bows out (due to the moon) will be exactly counter balanced by the amount of water that bows in (due to surface tension) such that the net change in potential energy of the sum total of the water in question remains zero. Do you agree? I see no reason that simply placing the moon in the sky would change the potential energy of the water with respect to the earth.
If the earth were NOT rotating and the moon were NOT revolving around it, then this situation would settle down into a static state with a completely smooth surface and the ocean statically stuck in this bowed state. Do you agree?
Now, if we allow the earth to rotate and the moon to revolve at their normal speeds relative to one another, what we would find is that the bowed part of the ocean would slowly cycle around the planet constantly keeping itself aligned with the position of the moon. And if we observe the water level at a specific point, say the coast of any continent, what we should observe is that the water level rises and falls accordingly. So when that coastline is at 0 and 180 degrees relative to the position of the moon the water levels will be at "high tide", and then the coastline is at 90 and 270 degrees relative to the moon that the water levels will be at "low tide". Do you agree so far?
Now, if we introduce something to take advantage of these changes in water levels, say a large basin where we trap water at high tide, and then use that water to generate electricity as it flows out of that basin back to the sea that energy has to have come from someplace where it was previously stored as potential energy, is that correct?
Now, remove the moon from our little scenario again and allow all of the water to drain out of the basin (and use the electricity being generated to do some work). After things go back to a steady state, I contend that since we have neither created nor destroyed any water that the resting level of the water will be exactly where it was in the beginning. As such, the potential energy of the water itself will remain unchanged, correct? Since it remains unchanged, the potential energy of the water itself CANNOT be the source of the energy (in the sense that I mean it above) which we have tapped into to perform work for us in the form of electricity.
So, again, my question to you is where was the energy that we captured originally stored?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Tides...
But that doesn't answer why you feel that saying angular momentum is the source of energy (in the case of tidal) is any more technically accurate. It's the same thing. Talking about a related (mathematically) quantity as a "source" because it has some role in the transfer of energy.
I suspect you are mistaken here. Let us imagine that we have a single planet in space. A small planetoid flies by near enough and at the right speed so that it becomes trapped in orbit. Doing so liberates energy (logically we know this because the mirror system- forcing a stable orbiting moon to leave orbit- requires energy and because this is not terribly different than electron capture in an atom). That energy is going to be absorbed by the planet that caught the new moon. The planet may change orbit or revolutionary period. Similarly I suspect some of the energy would end up stored in any fluid bodies of the planet (atmosphere and hydrosphere).
Sounds right.
It isn't that simple though. There is going to be a superimposition of a number of different waves on top of each other. The smallest frequency/longest wavelength wave will look like what you are describing but there will be tons of smaller frequency waves.
Think about it like this- if you dip you hand in a pool and quickly draw it down the length of the pool do you get just one ripple? No, it starts as one ripple but breaks down into multiples of that frequency based on the irregularities of the pool edges. These reflected waves then bounce back and forth creating new waves with differing frequencies yet as they collide with other pool edges and get reflected. This is essentially what the moon does. Granted it pulls up rather than pushes down on the water surface but same difference.
I answered this last time. You are looking merely at the mean potential energy rather than the real situation which is a fluctuation in potential and kinetic energy. The ocean as a whole has a total energy equal to the sum of these two. When you stick in a tidal power generator you divert some of the kinetic energy to electricity generation. As a result the tidal waves are smaller in amplitude. For simple harmonic motion the magnitude of the kinetic energy is proportional to the amplitude of the swing. I can find the exact equations if you like.
To put it another way there is a very big difference between a body of water that has a mean potential energy point of x and is perfectly flat and one that has the same mean potential energy but is also wobbling up and down. The latter has more energy in it than the former.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
OK.
It's not the same thing at all. The fact that they have some mathematically defined relationship isn't really the point here.
I honestly don't mean this to be snippy, but are you being intentionally obtuse or do you honestly not understand my point here?
We are talking about different mechanisms for storing energy. The energy in question (at least for the cases we are considering here) is always associated with a mass in some way, but the mechanism or characteristic associated with the stored energy can be different.
So, in the case of gravitaional potential energy when you add energy to a mass it goes up, and if you bleed energy off from the mass it goes down.
In the case of angular momentum, when you add energy to a mass it's rate of rotation increases. If you bleed the energy back off it's rate of rotation decreases.
We can use the mass's "regular" momentum to store the energy as well. Add energy to the mass and it's velocity increases. Bleed the energy back off and the velocity decreases.
Obviously I am ignoring relativistic effects here.
In all of these cases the deltas in the relevant dimensions are proportional to the amount of energy (work) put into/taken out of the system (mass). I realize that I may be simplifying things here but I don't believe that I have some drastic misunderstanding of things here.
If you disgree, please enlighten me.
Let us be more explicit here. For the scenario you describe the assumption is either that these are the only two objects that exist or that they are sufficiently distant from any other objects that the effects of those other objects are negligible for our purposes.
Since angular momentum
is a conserved quantity, the angular momentum of the two bodies taken together either remains constant during the capture or any change in that angular momentum will be transformed into some other form of energy. This might be a change in momentum for the two bodies taken together or it could be transfered to kinetic energy of the fluids on either of the bodies as you suggest.
In this latter case, if we assume friction is present that kinetic energy would ultimately be transformed into heat and possibly radiated out of the system.
If we assume things are frictionless, however, any angular momentum which had been transformed into kinetic energy within the fluids on the masses would continue to move around indefinitely and, under this scenario, I see no way for the combination to give off energy, do you?
In any event, this is all a bit moot because in my little though experiment I just plopped the moon into place without any particular kinetic energy or angular momentum involved just to keep things simple.
Well, actually, in our little thought experiment it is this simple. The primary effect here is the bowing of the water due to the gravitational attraction of the moon. Strictly speaking this effect does not operate like a normal "wave" in that the speed of the propogation of the "buldge" is tied to the position of the moon as opposed to the speed that waves propogate through water.
As the buldge runs into land masses, however, as you point out the impact is likely to cause waves to be reflected, along with their associated harmonics. All of these waves will ultimately be superimposed on top of the otherwise "bowed" surface of the water.
It should be noted, however, that any energy which exists in those superimposed harmonics ultimately came for the impact the the "buldge" with the landmasses and this "impact" will have transferred some amount of the angular momentum of the planet into the kinetic energy of the waves which arise through this process, correct?
No need to find the equations, I understand the concept perfectly well.
Now, I guess that we need to clarify a few things here. As this article calls out
, what you are describing is wave energy, strictly speaking, as opposed to tidal energy.
For this discussion we can ignore the ocean's thermal energy except to point out that this is likely to be primarily from solar absorption and geothermal transfer, but as the discussion above highlights, the impact of the tidal buldge with the land masses may also produce an (admittedly negligible) amount of thermal energy which represents a conversion of angular momentum into heat.
The wikipedia has a good write-up on tidal power
. Note that the mechanisms that they describe for capturing tidal energy are based primarily on the tidal swell rather than the energy present in the tidal waves.
You might also find this pertinent:
You still haven't weighed in on where you feel the energy reserve that is being depleted by our use of tidal power comes from. If not the angular momentum of the earth and the moon, then where?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
rehashing
You still aren't addressing my question.
You objected strenuously to using the term "source of energy" when talking about a force. Then you turn around and use angular momentum as a "source of energy." And you are admitting now that you understand that the two are analagous in terms of their relationship to energy, so why the hell have you been so huffy about my calling gravity a source when you're perfectly fine with doing something exactly analagous?
I honestly don't understand why I have had to ask this question three times and explain it twice and still received no meaningful answer to it.
But you have to realize that "plopping" a moon into place is doing something distinctly unphysical unless you also plop with it a net change in energy and momentum sufficient to conserve the system.
They are using "source" here in much the same manner you have used it, which is fine. But again the force here is still gravity. It isn't EM, and it certainly isn't strong or weak nuclear. That kind of narrows the list to one candidate. However you want to break it down gravity is a prime component of tidal generation which to my way of thinking makes it a gravity based energy source.
Even the shoreline tidal power described in that source works because water flows downhill. Why does water flow downhill? Why, gravity.
I really don't get why this is such a difficult issue. No gravity = no tidal power generation. The equation doesn't get much simpler than that.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ah, now I see.
I believe that you are confusing Angular Momentum
with Torque 
, which BTW, is the analogous counterpart to a Force 
.
I also believe that the reason you must ask a question three times and explain it twice, is because you make up words like "Gravitic" and misuse terms like "Angular Momentum". Words have meanings, and when you use them improperly it causes confusion amongst your readers. Confusion that typically results in requests for clarification so that a meaningful exchange of information and ideas can occur.
Here is a small excerpt from the wikipedia entry on Torque:
I'm not sure where you got your physics degree, but they certainly must not have stressed any sort of need for the proper use of terms and scientific rigor.
You were boasting a while back about how I don't understand these things, and that I obviously over estimated my understanding of physics. Then it turns out you don't even understand a simple concept like Torque? Or at least you don't understand the proper term to use for it? Perhaps I am not the one over estimating their abilities in this case?
Here are the analogous relationships, just to be clear:
1) Applying a force to a mass alters its momentum.
2) Applying a torque to a mass alters its angular momentum.
See how that works? This really is high school stuff.
Note that the work being done by the force (or the torque) is equal to the change in the stored potential energy within the momentum (or the angular momentum) associated with the mass. Since that is where the energy is stored that is why I refer to them as the source for the energy, and why I object to the use of the terms Force, or Torque, as being the source.
Why is that hard to understand? Do you finally see my point here?
I only resorted to this as a means of illustrating the effect the moon would have on the ocean's surface relative to if it were not present. If this offends you, then start and end my little thought experiment at the point where the moon is present but otherwise stationary. Same difference.
Gee, what an odd coincidence. Two independent sources came up with the same concept for where the energy is stored. I guess that means that they must BOTH be fooling themselves by your way of thinking.
Admit it, you are just being contrary because you don't want to admit that I was right.
Clearly you simply don't understand the discussion that has been taking place here at all. Either that or you are just being obstinate.
Where is the ultimate source of the energy that we are utilizing via tidal power coming from?
(Read that again just to make sure you understand what I am asking.)
And just for the record, I never side that the FORCE of gravity was not involved, I only said that it was NOT THE SOURCE of the energy.
So, in the case of tidal power and only tidal power, in order to move the water up the hill so that we can then use it to generate electricity, SOMETHING has to expend or loose energy in order to provide the energy to move the water up the hill in the first place, correct?
The law of the conservation of energy is going to demand this, correct?
So my question is, where is THAT energy ultimately coming from? Clearly gravity isn't moving the water UP the hill as well, is it? You have yet to provide any sort of response here, BTW.
No one said it was difficult, it is just the misuse of technical terms and the mangling of scientific concepts that I object to, especially from someone that claims they should know better.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Jeebus
*slaps forehead*
Okay we're on the third explanation now.
No, I'm not confusing angular momentum and torque. You just seem to be incapable of listening to what i am saying.
You objected, very strongly, to the idea of calling a force the "source of energy" because as you were looking at it it only another form of energy could be the source of energy. And then you call angular momentum a "source of energy."
Angular Momentum is not a form of energy.
So when I talked about the analagous situations here I was not saying angular momentum and a force are the same but that they are the same with respect to whether either is a form of energy: they aren't.
So we get back to my question for the (one..two... three...) fourth time now.
Why is it you:
A) object to calling a force a source of energy on the grounds that it is not a form of energy, AND
B) proceed to call angular momentum a source of energy when it is ALSO not a form of energy.
I'm sorry but if you still are incapable of answering this question I'm going to drop the whole argument because it is a waste of time to have to rehash over and over a simple point that should have been painfully obvious before I had to mention it the first time much less after four repetitions.
saying the energy is stored in the angular momentum is no more real than saying the energy is stored in the gravitational potential. They are analagous statements in the sense that in each case we are taking a separate mathematical identity that is related to energy and describing the enrgy source because it relies on that identity.
A hydroelectric dam relies on gravity to work. It also relies on angular momentum. Neither is more fundamental to the storage of energy. Describing it in terms of the force used is rather useful in some ways because it allows you to track back where the energy came from in a way that simply describing it as having to do with angular momentum does not.
I've never said your way of looking at it was wrong, YOU claimed my way of looking at is wrong and you were, and continue to be, mistaken. In fact I explicitly said that it is fine (if less useful) to regard the matter the way you did. You still can't seem to grasp the reverse though.
The ultimate source of all energy in the universe is the big bang, so I don't really see what that has to do with anything. the more immediate source is the potential energy that exists due to the mass of water's location in the gravity field and it's kinetic motion which is caused by the competing gravity fields of the earth and moon.
indeed as above you objected strongly to that idea and then proceeded to offer the analagous idea that angular momentum (also not a form of energy) was the source without realizing how you contradicted yourself.
Okay I want you to really listen to me here. Really really listen cause this is the last time I am going to help you figure this out.
You are claiming that gravity isn't lifting the water up, right?
Okay go find a pendulum. Notice it swinging? Notice how the weight at the end goes from a low point up to a high point? Now what force is acting on the pendulum? Gravity. Now do you really want to argue that gravity can't cause the water to lift up when you can watch it do the exact same thing with a pendulum?
Think really hard.
Yes the gravity always pulls down, but that can be transformed into harmonic motion that goes- wait for it- down and *up.*
You know that there is an up and down motion in the ocean. You've admitted it, and you seem to have a rudimentary understanding that it is caused by the moon's gravitational pull. Now I want you to think about what that would look like where the water comes up on a slanted shore. As you get a high point of the wave the water will "come in" because it will rise higher up the beach. The reason for this is that the beach is slanted so as the water rises it perforce also moves laterally "up" the shore. Similarly as it falls it moves "down" the shore.
There is no good reason for me to have to come back to this over and over again, and I'm not going to, if you still can't get it, well I'll leave you to it.
Forgive me if I find someone who argues using their imperfect understanding of high school physics as having no standing to critique my understanding of physics. Especially when that person has proven them incapable of understanding the matter at hand and has furthermore shown themselves to belong to the global warming deniers who decry science they personally don't like anyway.
Your credibility to make such judgments is thin, goright. Maybe you should learn to trust that some of us are substantially better educated on these matters and accept that we are trying to help you correct your misunderstandings, rather than assuming you know more despite and inferior education in the matter.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
P.S.
Well, there's you're problem right there! Stop doing that! :-)
(Come on, admit it, THAT was funny.)
I'll stop taunting you on this topic if you simply admit two things:
1) A force neither creates nor stores energy.
2) The true source of the tidal energy is coming from a net reduction in the Angular Momentum of the planet.
In return, and up front I'll acknowledge you seem to have a reasonable grasp of theoretical physics at least (and most likely stuff beyond me), and that I actually DID know what you meant by "Gravitic". But come on, you had to be horrified when that google search turned up a bunch of science fiction links. :-)
I too grow tired of this thread. I'll probably let you off the hook even if you don't admit the above. In that case we just agree to disagree.
I am curious, though, after all this do you honestly think I don't know my a** from a hole in the ground here, or was that just posturing? Be honest, I can take it, I'm a Republican.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Honestly...
...you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground on the topic.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Sorry, I guess I made you mad.
We were just playing.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Play has consequences...
It's an important lesson to learn at some point.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
One last question for you on this thread, Tlaloc ...
Did you ever move beyond that advanced BS in Physics (gee, that's sort of ironic phraseology actually)?
Based on our discussions here I wouldn't actually recommend Computer Science as a discipline for you. Computers tend to be picky and programming demands a level of logic and rigor that you seem to be lacking.
Just a little friendly advice on your future career choices. Always looking to help you out and all. It's a public career counseling service I provide. :-)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
My god.
I really am beginning to think that you really ARE a moron.
I'm sorry if I am having a hard time explaining this, you see I haven't had to do it before (give this explanation). Everyone else I've met just seems to just understand this stuff already.
Now, strictly speaking, I am not claiming Angular Momentum is energy (and to be fair you didn't make that claim about force) merely that this is the fundamental quantity that represents the applicable change in state of the mass ... in the sense that when we change the amount of energy in the system this is the quantity that is significant.
I can't just use the rate of rotation (which obviously has a mathematical relationship to the change in energy as well) because the effect also depends on the amount of mass. I can't just use the mass because that doesn't even change. I can't use the torque because unless we are in the process of changing the amount of stored energy there isn't even a torque to consider. It is the combination of the two (mass and speed of rotation), according to the proper equation, that clearly quantifies the net change in the system as a result of storing the energy there.
Similarly for linear momentum and force, or an object's height and mass for gravitationally stored energy. I guess in a sense I am focused on the observable effects of changing the energy levels of a system.
Force and torque provide the mechanisms for transforming one form of stored energy into another, but since they either do not change or do not even exist after the energy transfer has occurred, I find it difficult to view them as a repository for the stored energy in any meaningful sense. Why do you?
If I store energy in an object "gravitationally", what is the observable effect? It goes up. Does the force of gravity change in any fundamental way? No. Does the gravitational constant change? No. Did something happen to the mass? Yes. Can we measure that? Yes.
If I store energy in an object using linear motion, what is the observable effect? It's momentum increases. Does the force I was using to impart that energy change in any fundamental way during this process? No. Did something happen to the mass? Yes. Can we measure that? Yes.
If I store energy in a object using rotary motion, what is the observable effect? It's angular momentum increases. Does the Torque that I used to impart that energy change in any fundamental way during this process? No. Did something happen to the mass? Yes. Can we measure that? Yes.
If you can't comprehend the significance of these points I don't know how else to explain them to you. I guess my alt-speak science lexicon must be lacking. :-)
So let us consider the definition of the word "source"
:
I am clearly using the underlined portion when I claim that the Angular Momentum is a "source of energy", especially given the discussion above. Can you please explain which definition you are using when you refer to a Force (not a gravitational potential) as a "source of energy" and how that definition remains consistent with the law of the conservation of energy?
Oh, and one last point here, is it your contention that my use and understanding of the terms and concepts at play here is somehow inconsistent with the use and understanding expressed by the vast majority of the scientific establishment? I mean, given your position on the whole global warming debate, I recognize your reverence to having a consensus of opinion on scientific topics such as these. Where would you say that I actually stand on these points relative to others in the field, and if I differ significantly can you please provide some pointers to references for those who would also disagree?
I have answered your question each time, and have tried yet a fourth round of explanation in the hopes that you will ultimately be able to grasp the point.
This is starting to sound like backtracking to me, actually, if your position is so painfully obvious then please describe for me in any meaningful sense how you consider the FORCE of gravity to be a SOURCE OF ENERGY? What definition of the word SOURCE are you relying on and please include some description of why it is that you believe your use of the word doesn't violate the law of the conservation of energy.
You can continue to bolster all you want but we both know where this is heading unless you just pick up your toys and head home.
Ha. So now all of a sudden you're the one talking about gravity fields and gravitationally stored potential energy. Funny, up until now you have been sticking to the "Gravity is the source of the energy". Now you're trying to backtrack because you know what's coming.
Even so, I am claiming that tidal energy doesn't come from gravitationally stored reserves at all. Sure, the process of our capturing the energy temporarily stores some energy that way, but this is quickly depleted and needs to be renewed. If it needs to be renewed every day, it isn't much of an energy SOURCE in my book. When we exhaust the gravitationally stored energy in the water mass in a single day, it is hard to make a case for that being the SOURCE of the energy we would be using for YEARS.
This isn't strictly true. I mentioned some time back that I could understand why you would use the terminology the way that you are. I just want you to admit that the FORCE of gravity is not a SOURCE of energy.
It is a perfectly fine way of attaching a label on something, sort of like gravitationally stored potential energy. :-) Technically accurate and descriptive too.
Well that and I would like to believe that you actually understand how tidal energy really works, and where the repository of energy that we are tapping comes from. Given your posts, I don't believe that we are yet in agreement.
All political and personal sniping aside, you still seem to think that the waves are somehow the source of the energy we would be tapping. They are not. Like the water up on the hill, they too are only a means to an end in the ultimate transfer of power from the earth's rotation to my light socket.
Just as I deplete the energy stored by the tidal dam as the water flows back out to sea and therefore have to tap some other source to renew it), if I tap the waves themselves as you have already alluded to we will be reducing their amplitudes over time. Without some other source to renew them they would eventually subside to a smooth surface (ignoring solar effects which is not part of this discussion).
No, what I am claiming is that gravity is NOT what keeps the waves lifting up over time. As we tap energy from them something must be renewing them or they would eventually stop.
Since every wave that crashes onto every beach is converting some of its energy to heat (if nothing else) they have been tapped for energy for as long as the ocean has existed (probably a fairly significant part of 4.5 billion years?).
I claim that is loss (as well as any additional loss that we introduce) is offset by a corresponding reduction in the Angular Momentum of the planet. After that you start going back to the big bang, but let's just stick to the Earth and the Moon for a discussion of the tides.
Funny. My pendulum seems to be broken.
I seem to have to keep putting energy INTO mine to keep it swinging like that. Hmmm, if I don't keep adding energy to my pendulum it seems to ... wait for it ... stop.
I want one of your nifty alt-pendulums that just seems to keep going forever and ever.
For as long as we have been making pendulum clocks, clock makers have had to figure out ways the RENEW the energy stored in their pendulums too. Funny how that is. They have used springs and even gravitationally stored energy in the form of weights.
Funny, but even after they added the springs and the weights unless they kept adding energy to THOSE the clocks would eventually ... wait for it ... stop.
The wikipedia article puts the level of the tidal swell at about 10m (33ft). Is it actually your contention that the tidal swell is nothing more than a 10m standing wave that keeps circling the globe over and over again?
I don't think that this is actually an accurate description of the way things are working (since it ignores the effects of the moon), but for the sake of this discussion let's go with it. In your view of all this, is this standing wave (or any of the waves for that matter) capable of perpetual motion or is it going to be depleted over time as it crashes into the continents?
If your answer is no, goright, my waves are not capable of perpetual motion then I ask you again, what storehouse of energy is readily available that might actually be renewing the energy that we both know the waves and currents of the ocean must be loosing? [Note: tidal related answers only, please]
We aren't going over it and over it again. I am teaching you new things with every round. Soon I hope that you too will have your very own rudimentary understanding of what makes the tides work. :-)
Don't pick up your toys and go home just yet, though. We're just getting to the good parts.
OK, you're forgiven. But let us not lose sight of the reality of who is winning this "debate".
WTF? I love science. Always have. That's why I went into science and engineering in college. Don't mistake my challenging you to be able to actually back up your claims as a sign that I hate science. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As for my understanding of these topics, I feel comfortable that I have more than adequately provided substantive references to back up my views. You? Not so much.
Now don't get in a tizzy here. I'm just taunting you in good fun. You're doing it back ... although you're ratio of serious to tease might be slightly higher than mine. You don't see me taking it all personal and stuff.
I would be careful about using terms like superior and inferior education, however, given the way this discussion has gone, though. [Hint: It doesn't look good to be beaten in a debate by someone who you feel has an inferior education.]
I would honestly like to find a way for you to save some face here, but you have backed yourself into such a corner...
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'll leave you to dribble in private...
This sums up the problem, you really are convinced that you are the teacher here. Nothing I can say or do, no matter how many ways or times I have shown you where you were wrong and why, makes a difference, you are dead set on the idea that you know better.
That makes you the worst kind of student.
And frankly you've exhausted my patience with you. My opinion of you is unchanged from where we started: you don't have a clue and are aggressive in proving that fact while claiming to be the master of all things. You evidently think I'm a moron.
Fine. I'll just have to live with my advanced degree in the subject and try to take condolence that the rest of the scientific community feels my pain everytime they argue with one of you dead enders. You can meanwhile trumpet your glorious victory to the other science deniers. They'll probably think you're really cool.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
damn
tough stuff here... Maybe I should jump into these topics :) I just don't want to hurt you :)
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Feel free...
If you like going round and round you can pick up with my dance partner.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Cognitive dissonance.
Know it. Avoid it like the plague.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Pointer to previous thread.
For easy reference.
Doomsday nonsense.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
On gravity and tides
First a minor nit before I jump into the thread
If the weight is the source of the energy, then gravity is part of the source as weight is dependent on mass and gravity (Or would you say it was the mass that was the true source?)
Anyways, as for Tidal energy. Tidal energy is actually involved in a very complex system where the rotational energy of the earth is actually being siphoned off by the moon. That bulging effect, combined with the earth's rotation gives a gravitic slingshot effect that is slowly moving the moon further and further away. (Wikipedia has the rate at 1.3×10-9 m/sec). That energy is, in fact coming from the rotational energy of the earth, which is slowing down in proportion to the increased energy associated with a higher lunar orbit.
I believe tapping off of that tidal energy would slow down (to a small degree) that slingshot effect and we would be using some energy that would otherwise make it up to the moon's orbit.
Admittedly complex.
After reading the wikipedia article and thinking about the mechanisms being proposed to harness tidal energy, I agree that predicting the net impact of our efforts as to whether they would enhance or diminish the effect that you describe requires a significant level of understanding of the exact mechanisms at work here.
By trapping water at high tide in a basin you are admittedly syphoning energy from the effects created by the moon. Whether doing so increases or decreases the net "drag" on the planet is unclear.
A few pictures and assessment of the force vectors involved seems to be in order here.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fair point.
You are correct, I mispoke as well. Strictly speaking the energy involved exists independent of either the weight (mass) or the force (gravity). It is a completely independent quantity.
A more accurate statement might have been that the energy in question was "stored" in the mass by virtue of its location. Obviously the force in question, gravity, is also important and required because without the force the possibility to "store" energy in this manner would not be possible.
Hmm. The effect you describe is interesting for sure, although intuitively possible assuming the that directions of rotation are in the proper directions. I will assume that this must be the case or things would not have made it as far as the wikipedia, although for any discussion more substantive than this it would probably be prudent to double check.
The transfer of energy presumably occurs through what amounts to friction between the "bulged" water and the ocean floor as the bulged water is dragged around the planet? I need to think about this more but on first glance this seems plausible. Any skewing of the "bulge" due to friction (or whatever other processes would be involved) would create a force vector that could act on the moon in the manner that you describe.
Very interesting.
Now, you seem to think that our efforts to draw energy from this process would weaken the effect. This seems intuitively incorrect to me, however. Anything that we do to draw energy from this system should act to increase the "friction" or "drag" and thus increase the skewing of the force vector involved, rather than decreasing it.
In other words, anything that we do to syphon off energy should act to increase the coupling between the Earth's rotation and the slingshotting of the moon because it is that disparity that we are seeking to exploit. I will have to look into this further.
For the sake of discussion, lots assume that you are correct and our activities do, in fact, decrease this effect rather than enhancing it. This would suggest, then, that there is a limited amount of potential to be exploited here, correct? We could only exploit this phenomenon up to the point where we had completely negated the effect, correct?
In any event, you seem to be in agreement that the energy itself is stored in the angular momentum of the planet. On that I agree.
You are further arguing that the angular momentum of the planet is being slowly syphoned off by the moon ... thus causing the size of its orbit to increase and the rate of rotation of the Earth to decrease. So over (a very large amount of) time we would expect the mean length of a day to be increasing, correct?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Day vs Month
I've seen this theory discussed in multiple locations and the lunar recession is one of the key factors supporting the c