Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Hydroelectric dams don't use solely gravity, which is what I think he wants to hear about. The only reason water flows is due to the Sun, which bombards us with EM.
And the only reason that the sun can bombard us with EM is because the strong and weak force keep us from collapsing into our component subatomic particles! Honestly gravity is hardly involved in the hydroeletric dam at all. 😛
Originally posted by Colossus-Big CEssentially, thanks to the uncertainty principle, even the vacuum of space has energy: it's not truly 'empty'. Physicists Feynman and Wheeler say that a cup of coffee contains enough ZPE to evaporate the oceans. But not everyone agrees with this assessment.
what exactly is the theory behind that?
Originally posted by Astner
🙄 To have displace body of matter in the gravitational field to generate energy is to harness the energy of a gravitational-based interactions.
Originally posted by Astner
Is that why hydroelectric plants generates around 24% of the world's electricity, whereas nuclear power plants generate about 16% of it?
The original point still stands: nuclear forces yield far greater amounts of energy per quantity of fuel as compared to gravitational based interactions.
Originally posted by Darth JelloGravity may be so incredibly weak in our universe/brane because it is "bleeding through" from other branes. I don't think it pertains to the other forces.
doesn't brane theory say that gravity and possibly other fundamental forces are stronger or weaker depending on where you are in the universe...
Originally posted by Darth JelloOn the subatomic scale, the strong force dominates; on the astronomical scale, gravity rules. But I don't think their relative values actually change (at least in conventional models).
...as well as what scale you are looking at?
Originally posted by AstnerDid... did you just discount the Sun's involvement in the hydrosphere and attribute the flow of water on this planet solely to gravity?
Hydroelectric plants generates energy solely from displacing bodies of water (matter) in a gravitation field to a lower state of potential energy.The general principle is the same as displacing quarks or leptons in fields of the strong- and weak nuclear force, respectively, to generate energy.
The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from your replies is that neither of you have any idea of what you're talking about.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosBoosh!
And the only reason that the sun can bombard us with EM is because the strong and weak force keep us from collapsing into our component subatomic particles! Honestly gravity is hardly involved in the hydroeletric dam at all. 😛
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Did... did you just discount the Sun's involvement in the hydrosphere and attribute the flow of water on this planet solely to gravity?
Just like fossil-fuel power stations make use off of the energy chemically stored in fossil-fuels, and nothing else. Even though that energy initially came from the sun.
Originally posted by AstnerAh, ok. I read an insinuation that EM played no part.
No. I merely pointed out that hydroelectric plants make use of the energy of gravitationally displaced bodies of water, and nothing else.Just like fossil-fuel power stations make use off of the energy chemically stored in fossil-fuels, and nothing else. Even though that energy initially came from the sun.
Originally posted by Omega Visionffsss... Probably.
Isn't the sun's gravitational influence a facet of its involvement in the hydrosphere?
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
So if we make a large flat surface of quarts and placed weight on it, it would create power? Interesting.But i guess its hard to explain what im asking here.
Correct me if I am mistaken here.
What Im getting from your post is you are asking about gravity as a force. So gravity itself not from the cause gravity has on objects? Something like that?...
EDIT: like if I am pushing on a rock the energy that is transferred from me into the rock. That is the energy you want to know if we can harness?
Originally posted by Colossus-Big CIf you try to split a proton -- ie, separate it into its component quarks -- the "gluonic energy" binding the quarks increases such that, when the proton breaks, that binding energy becomes new quarks and you get a new proton. Basically, protonic quarks can't exist as isolated particles.
What happens if you split a Proton?
At least, I think this is how it goes.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big COn a large scale I don't think it's an effective energy source, otherwise you'd see large quartz surfaces everywhere. Piezoelectricity is useful for record players: as the needle works its way along the grooves of a record, the pressure on the needle's crystal tip generates electrical current, which in turn, is translated into sound by the phonograph.
So if we make a large flat surface of quartz and placed weight on it, it would create power?
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Exactly. This is Exactly What Im Asking.
Looking back on things from history a lot of things now would seem utterly impossible but we have them. So on that note I could see it happening at some point.
Though we would need a machine that could absorb energy. Almost in the same manner Vibrainium does in comics. Though it would need to work more efficiently then that. The machine would have to constantly absorb and release the energy it stores. Thats not even going into the complexity of what this said machine would run on.
^ I don't think energy works the way you think it does.
Asking about harnessing the power of gravity but not the force it exerts on things qua gravity is like asking for a glass of water without hydrogen or oxygen in it.
Gravity (by my understanding, one of the science majors in this forum can correct me if I'm wrong) simply is the set of its effects on the physical Universe.