Brainlet here
How are Moon and Earth not a perpetual motion machine?
The Moon is orbiting the Earth and that creates motion in the water, which we call tides.
We could use hydroelectric power stations to Harvest that motion and turn it into power.
The Earth and Moon can orbit forever so this can go on forever right?
Other urls found in this thread:
home.hiwaay.net
sws.bom.gov.au
abc.net.au
cosmosmagazine.com
twitter.com
>the Moon is orbiting the Earth and that creates motion in the water, which we call tides.
This is what globalists believe, but it makes zero sense when you think about it. How can the moon's gravitational pull cause the tides of the oceans all around the world at once?
How does can the moon pull water, but not other objects?
And we do use hydropower stations.
But, whether we make use of the energy or not, there are on-going losses. The oceans sloshing in their basins have viscosity and friction and that winds up as heat.
The energy comes for a gradual slowing of the rotation of the Earth. Think of the planet as a flywheel.
Since angular momentum is conserved, what the Earth loses has to go somewhere. It goes into the Moon. As a result of this, the Moon is gradually receding. About an inch a year; easily measured with the retro-reflectors left by the Apollo astronauts,
The energy of the turning Earth is so enormous that we could tap it for millennia before the day increased by so much as a second. But it's not "perpetual".
is either a troll or an asshole.
The Moon pulls more strongly on the nearest water than it does on the Earth as a whole and lifts the water. At the same time, it pulls more weakly on the water on the far side than it does on the Earth as a whole and the Earth is pulled away from that water. So the two tidal bulges chance the Moon around the Earth, the "nearside" one always being somewhat larger than the "farside" one.
The Sun also causes tides, but not as strongly because tidal forces vary as the inverse CUBE of the distance. In addition to the water, the solid continents go up and down a little bit each day, but that's not as obvious.
As explained in , other objects ARE pulled. But by only a fraction of the Earth's gravitation, so they don't move unless they're already floating.
But shouldn't the Earth's gravity be much greater than the moon's, thus cancelling out the force exerted by the moons gravity?
>Things orbit forever
They don't, planets lose energy, usually due to geological activity, and the collision of gas in space (space isnt an empty void) along with solar wind creat a drag on planets and moons, which causes them to slowly lose energy over time, until their orbits decay, and they crash into their parent body
Gravity doesn't cancel out, Earth has a strong tidal effect on the moon, but it isn't easily visible since the moon doesn't have a body of liquid on its surface.. it will however be super slightly elongated, since the part facing the earch will be stretched more to the Earth than it's poles, but idk if it's visible outside of a few feet of distortion
It's the CHANGE.
Stand on a spring scale and your weight will decrease just a little when the moon goes overhead. It doesn't show on a balance scale because the counterweight also gets lighter.
Lets go back to the spring scale. How does that work? Your weight has compressed the spring. If the net gravity (Earth minus Moon) is lessened, you rise a trifle. That motion works gearing to rotate the dial.
If you stood on the spring scale on Mars, the reading would be much less because the gravity there is much less. A balance scale would show your same Earth-weight.
Right.
The Earth exerts tidal forces (and friction) on the Moon. The Moon was, long ago, drained of its rotational energy and that's why we see only one face today.
Gibberish. It makes no sense for the moon's gravity to push and pull the oceans, particularly in the same directions no matter where it is in its supposed "orbit".
True, but very minor.
The Moon is receding per and Earth and Moon will someday both be tide-locked, forever fading each other as do Pluto and Charon.
The chief remaining influence will be tides caused by the Sun. They will steal angular momentum from the Earth-Moon system and the Moon will start getting closer again.
This will take so long, however, that the Sun will likely expand into a red giant and swallow both before the Moon comes crashing down.
damn. nice insight.
Where are the scientific experiments backing this nonsense up?
Gibberish to you. Doesn't mean you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Learn a little physics before branding others brainlets. The physics, in this case, is pretty easy if you're willing to listen.
Would the fact that your weight varies when the Moon goes over convince you?
Or the laser measurements which show the continent flexing daily?
If not, I fear you're hopeless. Or part of the Russian "Make America Stupid" movement.
I know gravity doesn't cancel out, but shouldn't the force exerted by gravity cancel out? As in the force given by Newton's Fg formula
A satellite uses the same math for gravitational orbits as a planet, star, asteroid, etc. Why wouldn't they? They're all just masses in space. If our calculations were wrong, the satellites we use and the space objects we observe would behave differently, and we'd use different math.
>Would the fact that your weight varies when the Moon goes over convince you?
Not at all. If the moon was causing tides to go in and out, then my weight would go up and down too.
>Or the laser measurements which show the continent flexing daily?
It's a ridiculous assumption to think that's caused by the moon.
>If not, I fear you're hopeless. Or part of the Russian "Make America Stupid" movement.
Yes that's right I'm a Russian bot.
Is the OP a photo of ?
You win this round Mr Shill.
Where's the scientific proof that satellites exist as gravitationally orbiting objects?
There's apparently been over 10,000 satellites in space, do you know how many rocket launches that would take? Much, much more than have ever taken place.
No such thing as perpetual motion. The Earth and Moon will not orbit forever - in fact the Earth's rotational energy is gradually decreasing, the Moon is moving further and further away from Earth and will gradually be lost, but regardless before any of that the Earth and Moon both will probably be swallowed up by the Sun when it goes red giant in 5 billion years or so. And even if they aren't, the oceans will have dried up anyway.
Yes, from our perspective it seems like an "infinite" source of energy, but everything runs out eventually.
>the Earth's rotational energy is gradually decreasing
Zero scientific proof.
>the Moon is moving further and further away from Earth and will gradually be lost
Zero scientific proof.
>the Earth and Moon both will probably be swallowed up by the Sun when it goes red giant in 5 billion years or so
Zero scientific proof.
>And even if they aren't, the oceans will have dried up anyway.
Zero scientific proof.
>everything runs out eventually.
Zero scientific proof.
No wonder people are nihilists when they believe this shit.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. You are saying that man has sent over 9000 man-made, useful satellites into orbit, that each required it's own manned rocket launch.
There have been over 6000 rocket launches between 1957 and 2009. Communication satellites, which make up the majority of useful satellites, number about 2000 (civilian and military combined). Of the probes we've sent to other bodies, we've sent over 200 to the moon - which is, again, the majority.
we've launched thousands of rockets into space though user
>I don't believe thing but can't come up with an alternative. That mean's I'm right and they're wrong.
>if I didn't personally see it, then it never happened EVER
>How are Moon and Earth not a perpetual motion machine
Because they do no power anything. They move perpetually (approximately) but try and tap into all that good angular momentum, and you'll change the system. See Eulers Laws. Angular momentum is conserved and so there is an associated energy that is conserved.
It doesn't, only the spot the moon is above. The rest of the tides get lower.
I know you are but what am I?
6000+ rocket launches since 1957. So 1 launch every 3 days or so? Give me a break brainlets.
>So 1 launch every 3 days or so
There's literally nothing ridiculous about it.
And yet they continue to go in and out...
What does that even mean? That's exactly what we would exact to happen under my globeheaded model, you brainlet
How many fucking space rockets do you think there are?
yeah, we've launched a lot of rockets off. '
just an fyi, the united states isn't the only country that launches rockets, china does, Russia does, Europe does, Japan does, India, Pakistan, a like a whole range of other countries, you can find a list of every launch, the date, and possibly of a video as long as the launch isn't classified.. every year earth launches on average 80-100 rockets, which fits with the one every 3 days statistic
it's actually not very impressive considering how important launching probes into space for reconnaissance and logistics is.
what is the logic behind this? they can build new rockets
Your globe model exists in fantasy land, get some more neurons brainlet.
OK.
A couple of hundred million people are Wrong and Only You Know the Truth! We bow to your natural superiority and immeasurable intellect.
Enlighten us, Oh Wise One!
Tides are a side-effect of Princesses Celestia and Luna doing their jobs, right?
I hate seeing stupidity, so one last attempt.
Look up tide tables for the seacoast city nearest you. Newspaper or on-line.
Take the time-difference between successive high tides. They're not exactly the same over the course of a month, are they?
The Moon doesn't move at a constant speed in its orbit (Kepler's 2nd law). It goes slower when it's farthest away. That changes the high-tide-to-high-tide spacing (above and beyond the Solar tides.)
You have GOT to be a troll. I refuse to believe anyone could be so dense and still be breathing.
You think you're so smart. Enjoy your delusions of grandeur. Or resume taking your meds.
Russia (responsible for half the number orbital rockets) launched 111 rockets in 1971 alone. Some, such as Kosmos 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, and 418 were launched on the same day.
>possibly of a video as long as the launch isn't classified
Kek. How convenient. How many are classified I wonder...
>what is the logic behind this? they can build new rockets
Yeah because rockets are really easy to build and don't require extensive testing before launching...
>111 rockets in 1971 alone
1 every 3 days lmao how will flatbrains ever recover?
>...
>>what is the logic behind this? they can build new rockets
>Yeah because rockets are really easy to build and don't require extensive testing before launching
Like half of all rockets launched since the 60s have been Soyuz series. They don't need to design a new one each time.
>A couple of hundred million people are Wrong and Only You Know the Truth! We bow to your natural superiority and immeasurable intellect.
>Enlighten us, Oh Wise One!
Most people have the ability to debunk this nonsense, it just depends on how much of a cuck you are to accepting what you're told without questioning it.
>The Moon doesn't move at a constant speed in its orbit (Kepler's 2nd law). It goes slower when it's farthest away. That changes the high-tide-to-high-tide spacing (above and beyond the Solar tides.)
None of this is evidence that the moon causes the tides to go in and out, not is it evidence that it's a gravitational force causing this, you're just seeing a correlation and immediately assigning the moon's gravity as the cause with no scientific experimentation to back it up.
>I know literally nothing about the rocket industry, but I feel inclined to talk about it because of the dunning kruger
lol go away retard
How many have they built since the 60s in total?
So what's the real explanation?
Likely many thousands including hundreds never launched
thousands, there are also thousands of unlaunched ICBM's.. which make up the majority of rockets in stockpile at the moment
We haven't had the chance to actually experiment, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an electromagnetic phenomenon.
dunning kruger effect*
Why the fuck did we make so many icbms?
>I have no actual argument.
Sure kids. And how quickly can they build these rockets?
Fucking kek I spilled my water. Imagine you knowing anything about electrodynamics.
>See
Ever heard of Mutually Assured Destruction? Or M.A.D. as it's called?
With factories. Prototyping and designing an object is what takes the most time. Once you have a really good working model you can mass produce lol you'd be completely SHOCKED to find out how many cars were built since the 60s
Or how bout nuclear weapons? It took decades to build the first and only 10 years to built the next several hundred. Or what about electronics? You're so ignorant it's funny to me
Keep laughing gravitycuck, you'll see.
they have entire factories devoting to building rockets, the majority of their production are weapons for killing sand people al la the 600 billion dollar military us USA has, and that infrastructure makes it easy to build existing rocket design.
You're not taking into account those rockets are built mostly by ULA, which is owned by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, two massive weapons and military equipment contractors who have received tens of trillions of dollars for projects, which spaceX being a recent addition, albeit more peaceful, contractor for the government.
the US invests massive amounts of money into the development of rockets, trillions since the 1950s, but the majority of funds go to rockets designed to kill, not rockets for launching payloads into orbit, but the infrastructure makes it easier to build rockets very very quickly
same goes for Russia, china.
Please, PLEASE tell me about how the EM theory is supposed to work. I need a good laugh.
>inb4 tesla
>inb4 vortexes
>inb4 dialectic fields
This is just conjecture. You have no proof that there's been thousands of rocket launches into space apart from a list that says there has. You'll believe anything without actual proof.
At least I can make concrete claims with my theory that cannot be disproven. I would love to hear your explanation.
You're finally getting closer to the truth. All space agencies are just a front for the military industrial complex to get even more money to develop missiles. They do not create rockets to go into space (because it's physically impossible).
A good start would be to look at time lapse photos of the stars at the equator. Then compare them to a diagram of the earth's magnetic field.
>A good start would be to look at time lapse photos of the stars at the equator. Then compare them to a diagram of the earth's magnetic field.
Oh fuck that's rich
What?
I usually like trolls. They make me think more specifically. Encourage me to use my more general knowledge to sharpen what I know.
But this, I... I just can't do anything with it.
>"This is how thing works."
>"NO IT DOESN'T"
>"Here, I have data and proofs for you."
>"DOESN'T MEAN A THING"
>"But..."
>"NOPE"
Come on, man. At least TRY. You're making me miss the /b/astards of yesteryear.
>all at once
If that happened, it would stay still. You need it to specifically only pull one side at a time
The moon doesnt rotate? How would you explain phases then?
Yeah and what's pulling it back?
The moon doesn't appear to rotate because it's tidally locked with the earth. Phases are caused from the sun hitting the moon at different angles, illuminating a different percentage each night.
The massive gravity well centered on your mom.
the distancing of the moon
Even if the sun would last forever it's not a perpetual motion machine because of tidal locking.
As the Earth gets tidally locked to the moon the moon recedes away from Earth and if it doesn't fall out of orbit the Earth will eventually get tidally locked to the sun and the Sun to the centre of the galaxy. So there's my retarded explanation.
>Phases are caused from the sun hitting the moon at different angles
Kek, and you believe this happens by pure chance. The phases are so perfect and easily predicted year after year despite the enormous size and distance differences between the moon and earth, as well as the irregular speed that the moon orbits the earth as well as the irregular elliptical orbit the earth does around the sun.
It's far more likely that the moon illuminates itself. If you measure the temperature of moonlight, it is colder than shade, so it cannot be reflecting sunlight.
The sun may play a much bigger role if you study the flat earth.
People have been watching the moon for thousands of years. If there were a pattern, we'd probably see it. Wait, there IS a pattern? Woah. Crazy shit.
The earth has an atmosphere, meaning it can retain heat. The moon does not, giving it a higher fluctuation. For reference, despite being the closest planet to the sun, the shaded side of Mercury can fall to 110 K. Which, for those playing at home, is 10 degrees above absolute zero.
Direct quote from space.com
"Temperatures on the moon are very hot in the daytime, about 100 degrees C. At night, the lunar surface gets very cold, as cold as minus 173 degrees C. This wide variation is because Earth's moon has no atmosphere to hold in heat at night or prevent the surface from getting so hot during the day."
I can't believe what I'm reading. What in the fuck does the earth's atmosphere have to do with the moon's temperature?
A full moon during earth's day time would be absorbing the same amount of sunlight as a full moon during night time. What kind of ridiculous shit is this?
The atmosphere, having mass, is capable of storing energy - in this case, energy in the form of heat. This mass also allows for thermal retention, meaning that while it will get colder during the night, it will be drastically slower. This same atmosphere also prevents the earth from getting too hot - the wind carrying high pressure (caused in part by heat) to lows is one method of equalizing the temperature.
The moon, having no such protection, is thus entirely subject to how much sun it gets.
Your example is impossible. In order for a full moon to occur, it must have most of it's surface reflecting the sun, and have that illuminated surface seen by the earth. If the earth made a 90 degree angle with the moon and sun, you would have a half-moon.
The dark side of the moon is called that from another definition of dark. Specifically: hidden or secret. The side of the moon that faces the sun changes. When the moon passes between the earth and the sun, the "dark" side is hot, while the shaded side is cold.
We're talking about moonlight, which according to you is the reflection of sunlight, which is hot, it cannot cool things down to a temperature lower than shade, it's physically impossible, but that's what you have to believe.
Nope... I was going to contribute, but this overplayed hand at misunderstanding what was said, obviates the troll.
>110 K
>10 degrees above zero
No, 10 K would be 10 degrees above zero. 110 is still really cold, but there's no need to lie.
perpetual motion means perpetual acceleration, not perpetual change of position
Never been to the beach?
There are two high tides a day, one on the side of the Earth towards the moon, one on the opposite side of the planet.
Nihilism? Elaborate more please
>The Earth and Moon can orbit forever
No they won't.
>Build batch of rockets
>Launch them in a shorter timeframe than it took to build them
>HURR WHY IT 3 DAYS BETWEEN LAUNCH
