16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you really think that gravity draws atoms together, then you really need to stop writing...and start reading.

As I said in my earlier post, the term "gravity" is the common term for this force. Gravity is defined online as:
"1. physics

The force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass."

It’s the last half of this definition I’m referring to. That is the attraction of matter to other matter, including atoms and even electrons. When you get down to that level, there is very little difference between matter and energy.

50 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

True. Hydro power is classed as renewable energy. What's your point?

Only that holding up Norway, a country that gets ~90% of its energy from hundred-year-old hydro technology as a shining example it a bit silly.

Incidentally, the US has well over twice the hydro Norway has, and almost 30 times the total renewables.

15 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I have sold over 100 books, but I give them away for free on my website, and I’ve had over 500 downloaded.

giving stuff away for free is not selling, its just a form of disposal

I'm giving away this very short nonfiction book because I want as many people as possible to read it. I even state, in what is usually my copyright claim, that I claim no copyright and that sharing this information is not restricted but encouraged. I also give away copies of my first book, which is a memoir. I do that to introduce readers to my books, hoping they will buy some of the others, which are all fiction - mostly sci-fi.

And the copies I give away are all downloadable e-books, not paperbacks or hardcovers.

And I vehemently disagree with your last sentence. I'd change it to: Giving stuff away for free is not selling, it’s a form of sharing.

8 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

As I said in my earlier post, the term "gravity" is the common term for this force. Gravity is defined online as:
"1. physics

The force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass."

It’s the last half of this definition I’m referring to. That is the attraction of matter to other matter, including atoms and even electrons. When you get down to that level, there is very little difference between matter and energy.

You are correct, as long as you redefine force.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I'm giving away this very short nonfiction book because I want as many people as possible to read it. I even state, in what is usually my copyright claim, that I claim no copyright and that sharing this information is not restricted but encouraged. I also give away copies of my first book, which is a memoir. I do that to introduce readers to my books, hoping they will buy some of the others, which are all fiction - mostly sci-fi.

And the copies I give away are all downloadable e-books, not paperbacks or hardcovers.

And I vehemently disagree with your last sentence. I'd change it to: Giving stuff away for free is not selling, it’s a form of sharing.

If it is your energy book. I would not refer to it as non-fiction.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You are correct, as long as you redefine force.

I equate the terms "force" and "energy."

6 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I equate the terms "force" and "energy."

You can equate the terms force and energy, but you would again be wrong, unless you redefine the terms: force, energy and or equate.

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

34 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I equate the terms "force" and "energy."

You can equate the terms force and energy, but you would again be wrong, unless you redefine the terms: force, energy and or equate.

Yellowtail WDSmart would indeed be wrong. I am not aware of any consistent approach that equates force and energy.

Is there some form of "woke" physics that allows anyone to define anything according to how they're feeling (perhaps cornered and unwilling to admit they're wrong) and requires everyone else to accept it?

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You can equate the terms force and energy, but you would again be wrong, unless you redefine the terms: force, energy and or equate.

I equate them in the context of what I was writing about in my book. The way I understand it is that any force carries energy with it. So, the force that is the attraction of two objects also includes energy. If you force two objects apart, as in nuclear fission or the partial separation of an object from the Earth's gravity, the result will be the release of energy. And if you force two objects together, as in nuclear fusion or the joining of an object with the Earth’s gravity, an increase of energy is the result.

6 minutes ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

Yellowtail would indeed be wrong. I am not aware of any consistent approach that equates force and energy.

Is there some form of "woke" physics that allows anyone to define anything according to how they're feeling (perhaps cornered and unwilling to admit they're wrong) and requires everyone else to accept it?

I equated the terms "force" and "energy," not Yellowtail. He objected to this also.

I replied to him above, and since I equate both of your posts, it would be the same for you.

9 minutes ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

Yellowtail would indeed be wrong. I am not aware of any consistent approach that equates force and energy.

Is there some form of "woke" physics that allows anyone to define anything according to how they're feeling (perhaps cornered and unwilling to admit they're wrong) and requires everyone else to accept it?

I have not equated force and energy, you are mistaken. Please read my post more carefully and apologize.

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I equated the terms "force" and "energy," not Yellowtail. He objected to this also.

So you did. My bad. I have corrected the original post.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I have not equated force and energy, you are mistaken. Please read my post more carefully and apologize.

I misread the nested quotes. I have corrected the original post. Apologies for the mix-up.

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I equate them in the context of what I was writing about in my book. The way I understand it is that any force carries energy with it. So, the force that is the attraction of two objects also includes energy. If you force two objects apart, as in nuclear fission or the partial separation of an object from the Earth's gravity, the result will be the release of energy. And if you force two objects together, as in nuclear fusion or the joining of an object with the Earth’s gravity, an increase of energy is the result.

You are contradicting yourself again.

First you said energy was being created by technology

Then you admitted energy could not be created by technology

Now you are back to claiming you can create energy

8 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I equate them in the context of what I was writing about in my book. The way I understand it is that any force carries energy with it. So, the force that is the attraction of two objects also includes energy. If you force two objects apart, as in nuclear fission or the partial separation of an object from the Earth's gravity, the result will be the release of energy. And if you force two objects together, as in nuclear fusion or the joining of an object with the Earth’s gravity, an increase of energy is the result.

That's usually analysed using kinetic and potential energy. A particle immersed in a conservative force field (e.g. gravitational or electromagnetic) experiences a force that arises from the variation of the field’s potential energy in space. As the particle moves, any decrease in its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, and any increase in kinetic energy comes at the expense of potential energy. I don't see how "force" and "energy" can be equated. They are related (in the case of gravity by the gravitational constant G), but for a start the units of force and energy are different.

12 minutes ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

That's usually analysed using kinetic and potential energy. A particle immersed in a conservative force field (e.g. gravitational or electromagnetic) experiences a force that arises from the variation of the field’s potential energy in space. As the particle moves, any decrease in its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, and any increase in kinetic energy comes at the expense of potential energy. I don't see how "force" and "energy" can be equated. They are related (in the case of gravity by the gravitational constant G), but for a start the units of force and energy are different.

I say I “equate” them as far as my book is concerned. I know they are different aspects, but all forces contain energy, and I am interested in the disturbance of the force because it expels or absorbs energy. This distinction between force and energy is not important in my book. I am only concerned with energy and where it can be found and harvested. And, it is my assertion that the harvesting results in more unusable (by humans) energy, usually in the form of heat, than usable energy, usually in the form of electricity.

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I say I “equate” them as far as my book is concerned. I know they are different aspects, but all forces contain energy, and I am interested in the disturbance of the force because it expels or absorbs energy. This distinction between force and energy is not important in my book. I am only concerned with energy and where it can be found and harvested. And, it is my assertion that the harvesting results in more unusable (by humans) energy, usually in the form of heat, than usable energy, usually in the form of electricity.

No. All forces do not contain energy.

According to the definitions of energy below, solar panels ( obviously depending on the location) have produced more energy than it used to make them within two years of production.

how much energy is used to make one solar panel and how much energy will the same solar panel produce in its lifetime? - Google Search

It is a common and valid question: Does a solar panel actually produce more energy than it took to build it?

The short answer is yes, and the "break-even" point happens much faster than most people expect. This concept is known as the Energy Payback Time (EPBT).

---

1. Energy Used to Manufacture (The "Investment")

The amount of energy required to make a solar panel depends on the technology (monocrystalline vs. thin-film) and the energy mix of the country where it's made.

• Average Energy Cost: Producing a standard 400W silicon solar panel requires roughly 500 to 1,000 kWh of energy.

• Where the energy goes: The bulk of this energy is used in the refining of silicon (which requires extreme heat) and the manufacturing of the glass and aluminium frame.

2. Energy Produced (The "Return")

A solar panel’s lifetime production depends on its location (sunny vs. cloudy) and its efficiency rating.

• Annual Production: In a moderately sunny area, a 400W panel produces about 500 to 600 kWh per year.

• Lifetime Production: Solar panels are typically warrantied for 25 years but often last 30+ years. Over a 30-year lifespan, that same panel will produce approximately 15,000 to 18,000 kWh.

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No. All forces do not contain energy.

Name a force that doesn't contain energy.

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

According to the definitions of energy below, solar panels ( obviously depending on the location) have produced more energy than it used to make them within two years of production.

how much energy is used to make one solar panel and how much energy will the same solar panel produce in its lifetime? - Google Search

It is a common and valid question: Does a solar panel actually produce more energy than it took to build it?

The short answer is yes, and the "break-even" point happens much faster than most people expect. This concept is known as the Energy Payback Time (EPBT).

---

1. Energy Used to Manufacture (The "Investment")

The amount of energy required to make a solar panel depends on the technology (monocrystalline vs. thin-film) and the energy mix of the country where it's made.

• Average Energy Cost: Producing a standard 400W silicon solar panel requires roughly 500 to 1,000 kWh of energy.

• Where the energy goes: The bulk of this energy is used in the refining of silicon (which requires extreme heat) and the manufacturing of the glass and aluminium frame.

2. Energy Produced (The "Return")

A solar panel’s lifetime production depends on its location (sunny vs. cloudy) and its efficiency rating.

• Annual Production: In a moderately sunny area, a 400W panel produces about 500 to 600 kWh per year.

• Lifetime Production: Solar panels are typically warrantied for 25 years but often last 30+ years. Over a 30-year lifespan, that same panel will produce approximately 15,000 to 18,000 kWh.

I use this very comparison in my book, but I arrive at a different result. It takes more energy to produce, operate, and retire a solar panel than the panel ever produces. The difference between my calculation and this one is that I include everything involved in producing, operating, and eventually retiring a solar panel, whereas this one considers only a small part of that. Just a quick example: I include all the energy it takes to mine the materials (trucks, excavators, obtaining the fuel for these, the pollution they produce, etc., for the solar panel, like aluminum and minerals, and all the associated items needed to operate one, like wires, alternators, batteries, etc. And then, the eventual disposal of them.

...Bill!

12 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Name a force that doesn't contain energy.

Chareadi

Blimey, Bill. I see you've already published 16 books. Is this the 17th?

2 hours ago, digger70 said:

He he ,your fudging the numbers to make yourself look/feel good.

You forgetting the 33.7% that have admitted to other questionable research practices..

For me ,End of comments.

Post the link to the study, I suspect you are pulling that 33.7% out of your @rse.

If you had said "about 34%" I might have bought it. Quoting data to three significant figures sent my BS meter off scale.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Post the link to the study, I suspect you are pulling that 33.7% out of your @rse.

If you had said "about 34%" I might have bought it. Quoting data to three significant figures sent my BS meter off scale.

He already posted the link, you responded to it.

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Chareadi

The only force Chareadi has is genocide.

10 minutes ago, bannork said:

Blimey, Bill. I see you've already published 16 books. Is this the 17th?

No, I’ve only written ten books which have been published.

As an online editor, I have helped format, edit, and publish well over 200 books that other people, my clients, have written.

10 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

The only force Chareadi has is genocide.

Wrong Chareadi

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

18 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

The only force Chareadi has is genocide.

Wrong Chareadi

I never heard of "Chareadi," so I looked it up online. Here's what I found: Charedi - The Jewish Chronicle - The Jewish Chronicle

If there is another chareadi, let me know what it is.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Hydro power is not a renewable energy source. None of the energy-harvesting sources is renewable.

I didn't mean the need for oil is not going away. I’m saying that the quantity of oil in the Earth is being reduced much faster than it's being created (by the Sun).

I agree with all the rest of your post above.

Renewable energy is defined as any energy source which is replenished at a rate equal to or more than the rate of consumption. That includes solar, wind, geothermal, tidal AND hydro.

Coal, oil, natural gas and uranium are not renewable energy sources, they are finite. No natural process is making more of them at a rate equivalent to their consumption.

OTOH, as long as rain and snow continue to fall in Norway, hydro is renewable and sustainable.

I am curious as to how much training in the sciences you have had. Your posts on force and energy indicate you have them confused.

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I never heard of "Chareadi," so I looked it up online. Here's what I found: Charedi - The Jewish Chronicle - The Jewish Chronicle

If there is another chareadi, let me know what it is.

Sorry, I misspelled shareadi.