Hi guys, the following question and proposition is just a part of a greater hypothetical line of enquiry that I am following.

The diagram below shows a simple metal frame supporting a ball that weighs 100 kgs.
<img src=http://www.paygency.com/energycreation.jpg>

The question is:

Is the metal frame performing work to suppost the ball?

Is the metal frame expending energy to support the ball?

I would like to pose that the answer is yes to both those questions.

Now if so , then the energy expended to support the ball can only be conserved if energy is being created directly proportional to the effect of gravity on the ball.

Gravity is being applied causing the frame to want to bend until the ball hits the ground but of course it doesn't in this scenario. The reason it doesn't is that energy is being created within the frame in direct relationship to the energy expended in supporting the ball and the atomic field strength of the frame. Thus in this scenario the energy expended is being conserved by it's creation.
If energy is not being created then how is the energy required to support the ball conserved.

The thinking:
It takes energy to lift and hold the ball against the pull of gravity.


Care to discuss?

say we imagine the ball is actually a rocket expending energy [100kgs equivelant] with it's vector pointing to the ground.
How is it's energy expenditure conserved?

This might be a better self explanitory diagram to use that poses the question I am contemplating.
<img src=http://www.paygency.com/rocket1.jpg>

The black box is the frame that the rocket if thrusting against.
[please excuse the bow in the right hand part of the box, it is not a correct assumption]

QQ:

Is the metal frame performing work to suppost the ball?

No. The ball is not moving, so no work is done.

Is the metal frame expending energy to support the ball?

No, for the same reason.

I would like to pose that the answer is yes to both those questions.

I would like to suggest that you are wrong.

Do you know what work is? Because that is the first step to understanding anything about energy.

Gravity is being applied causing the frame to want to bend until the ball hits the ground but of course it doesn't in this scenario. The reason it doesn't is that energy is being created within the frame in direct relationship to the energy expended in supporting the ball and the atomic field strength of the frame. Thus in this scenario the energy expended is being conserved by it's creation.

It seems you are confusing force and energy.

QQ:

No. The ball is not moving, so no work is done.

No, for the same reason.

I would like to suggest that you are wrong.

Do you know what work is? Because that is the first step to understanding anything about energy.

It seems you are confusing force and energy.

You are substantally correct other than perhaps you should have explained that in the case of the rocket energy is not being conserved by rocket motion because no work is being done by the anchored rocket energy transfer efficiency has gone to zero. (seen that in other areas. :D )

Fuel being consumed moves and heats air and is conserved in other ways.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, MacM.

Want to try again?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, MacM.

Want to try again?

He was showing a rocket which was secured and not allowed to move. I assume simulating a rocket vertical with insufficient energy to exceed breakeven with gravity and feels that shows opposing gravity consumes energy.

The energy being consumed has zero effieciency since no work is achieved (conventional line of thought). But when being applied to opposing gravity suggests gravity is energy based.

QQ,

Is that your point?

Maybe I am confusing the notion of "work being done" here....

say for instance in the ball scenario we place an electromagnet under the ball attached to the bottom leg of the frame.

The generator is fired up and the magnet applies a downward force upon the ball. How is the work done by the generator conserved?

say we replace rocket fuel with a repulsive force created by an electro magnet powered by a generator also with in our rocket. The rocket being restrained by the cables is non-productive but still consumes energy in it's desire to move.

He was showing a rocket which was secured and not allowed to move. I assume simulating a rocket vertical with insufficient energy to exceed breakeven with gravity and feels that shows opposing gravity consumes energy.

The energy being consumed has zero effieciency since no work is achieved (conventional line of thought). But when being applied to opposing gravity suggests gravity is energy based.

QQ,

Is that your point?
actually MacM this brings me to another point which will be the content of another thread....however in the context of this thread:

we are sitting next to a tall fence being protected by that tall fence from a strong westerly blowing continuously at 40 notts.

I would say that the fence is definitely doing work in deflecting the wind.

If you had to hold a sheet of three-ply against the wind how much energy is consumed in doing so? [abstraction]
The ball is applying a force against the frame of 100 kgs how much energy would it take to keep that ball in the same postion if it wasn't for the frame?

so as James says the frame is not doing any work...and this I personally believe or think is an incorrect assessment.

james, would you say that the wings of an aeroplane are doing work in lifting the weight of the plane with the help of the jet engines?

so as James says the frame is not doing any work...and this I personally believe or think is an incorrect assessment.
That's because you have a misunderstanding of the term "work".
Work is the energy transferred in applying force over a distance.
If there is no movement, there is no work done.

I think that the definition of work done - meaning movement is too narrow....the wings of an aeroplanein flight inspire movement...does this fall within the definition of work done?

I think that the definition of work done - meaning movement is too narrow

No, you just need to learn more words.
That's not meant to be rude, I hope it doesn't come off that way.

Not offended at all, and yes, what you say is quite correct. Terminology is unfortunately a weak point for me.

The issue I was wanting to address is that the "downward effort" of the 100 kg ball is being accomodated by the frame somehow in a way that conserves that downward effort.
With out the balls weight the frame only has to support itself against the force of gravity and I would pose that that requires conservation as well other wise the frame woudl eventually collapse, under it's own weight.

Often gravity is suggested to be a product of mass which is energy and I would suggest that any effort required by mass to resist gravity requires the expenditure of something and this is conserved by the creation of that something to replace that something that is expended.

When forces are applied to separate our atomic structure the forces must in someway be balanced or conserved.

James R:

Do you not agree that in order to raise ANY mass against a gravitational field requires WORK to be done, albeit work that took place over a long period? For instance, work was done within our universe whilst creating the elements under large pressures. Plus don't forget the energy put into creating and constructing the contraption.

Are you sure the frame is not expending energy to support the ball? How long would the frame last before collapsing?

Could you think of the energy required to support the ball as being equal to the minimum energy required to release it?

He was showing a rocket which was secured and not allowed to move. I assume simulating a rocket vertical with insufficient energy to exceed breakeven with gravity and feels that shows opposing gravity consumes energy.

I had to think about it but yes this is similar. A rocket hovering without exceeding gravity is non-efficient. This is similar to my case but would tend to confuse the issue.

The rocket in my scenario could be expending an amount of energy any where greater than necessary to achieve the horizontal position. in fact achieving the horizontal is work done but any energy in excess of that is frustrated work done.

A hovering rocket is expending energy relative to gravity so there fore the energy is conserved but if the rocket was tethered to the ground any energy in excess of that needed to tighten the tethers is frustrated. so unconserved unless the tethers and anchors provide the conservation.

The frame and ball is probably the clearest example. A rocket being attracted by an electro magnet would also but a little more confusing.

QQ: a very small fraction of the potential energy of the ball has gone into compression of molecules in the frame. Any more potential energy the ball has is not enough to overcome the potential repulsion of these molecules within the frame. the ball is thus balanced and there is no further expenditure of energy.

James R:

Do you not agree that in order to raise ANY mass against a gravitational field requires WORK to be done, albeit work that took place over a long period?

Raising the mass requires work.
Maintaining its height does not, at least in the short term.

Are you sure the frame is not expending energy to support the ball? How long would the frame last before collapsing?
In the longer term, it may be necessary to consider the laws of thermodynamics. The raised mass is in a state of lower entropy than a fallen mass, therefore it is likely that the mass will eventually fall... but this is beyond the scope of QQ's idea.

Could you think of the energy required to support the ball as being equal to the minimum energy required to release it?
Not unless you use the word "energy" to mean something different to it's scientific meaning.

QQ: a very small fraction of the potential energy of the ball has gone into compression of molecules in the frame. Any more potential energy the ball has is not enough to overcome the potential repulsion of these molecules within the frame. the ball is thus balanced and there is no further expenditure of energy.
thanks John, but would asking how these repulsive forces are maintained be a valid question?

The thinking is that there seems to be a direct relationship between gravity/magnetic forces and energy.
The ball places the frame under stress this stress causes the atomic structure to distort their fields. How is this distortion consereved if not for an appropriate generation of an opposite force.....

A windbreak diverting wind is performing work in that diversion. How is that work conserved?

Pete, is stopping something from moving considered as work?

If the weight of the ball was generated by energy delivered to the ball how would this energy be conserved even though the energy is being frustrated by the frame.
If I stand against a wall and push with all my might and the wall fails to move how is the energy I am applying to the wall conserved?
It is certain that I have expended energy and achieved no movement [apart from miniscule initial distortion]

another example would be the application of am emergency brake in a car on a steep hill. The car is not moving but is work being done to stop the car from rolling down the hill?

or
I put the car in reverse [automatic] and apply enough throttle to stop the car from rolling forward down the hill.

are these examples fundamentaly different?

Pete, is stopping something from moving considered as work?
No, since the kinetic energy of the moving object becomes available to do work. Stopping something releases energy, it doesn't require it.

If I stand against a wall and push with all my might and the wall fails to move how is the energy I am applying to the wall conserved?
If the wall doesn't move, you're not applying energy to it.
You're applying a force, but that force is doing no work on the wall.
You expend energy to keep your muscles contracted, but that energy just heats you up - no energy is applied to the wall.

another example would be the application of am emergency brake in a car on a steep hill. The car is not moving but is work being done to stop the car from rolling down the hill?
No.

I put the car in reverse [automatic] and apply enough throttle to stop the car from rolling forward down the hill.
The energy goes toward heating the car (mainly the clutch, I think, but I'm no mechanic).

are these examples fundamentaly different?
Yes.
The static friction (brake pad on disk or drum) holding the car in the first example generates no heat.
The dynamic friction (clutch plate??) in the second example does generate heat. The energy for that heat comes from the engine.

Note that stopping a car using regenerative braking puts energy back into the batteries of an electric car. This shows that slowing something down doesn't require work, it performs work (which is wasted as heat in the case of friction braking).

QQ :

The frame exerts, on the floor, a force equal but opposite to that of the gravitational force on the frame+ball. No extra energy is required to maintain this stable state.

ok....accepted
does it require extra force to maintain this stable state?
And if so how is this extra force required achieved?

Technically, if a force slows an object down, then the force does negative work on the object.

James, would you go on to say that the 100kg ball is being slowed by that force and therfore a negative energy is being applied......[I understand that I maybe mixing up the terminology here]

I am just trying to understand the dynamics in this static situation.

With out the ball the frame has to support itself, when we add the ball the frame now has to support something more than before and if we keep adding balls the frame will either bend or break.

If we bounce the ball on it's cable the frame will get hot due to the flexing. Thus one can infer energy is being produced and conserved.

If the ball is stationary and applying a static or constant force on the frame it would suggest that the forces are in equilibrium and are unchanging. But if the forces are changing then the result is energy.

so can one state that energy is the result of forces changing over time?

The contention:
If so then the frame with or with out the ball is subject to change in a miniscule way thus the frame must be producing energy to maintain it's integrity. This energy would be conserved with in the frame itself.

another approach to this question could be:
If you place a magnetic field next to a copper wire and leave it in stasis. No energy is created. ( other than possibly miniscule fluctuations)

But when you move the magnetic field in relation to the copper wire energy is created. Thus the force of the magnetic fieldis acting on the forces within the copper causing the forces to change thus electrical energy is created.

So forces that are changing create energy.

contention:
everything is constantly changing thus energy is constantly being created.

the created energy is conserved by it's eventual neutralisation such as a potitive charge meeting a negative charge thus anhilating the energy produced.

So for mass to maintain it's structure it has to maintain an energistic state.

I dunno if any of that makes sense......

If an object passes through a gravity field it's inner forces must change thus it creates energy.

if an object is suspended from a frame attached to the earth, then if sometnhing was suspended by that frame it would be the force of gravity pulling downward, that keeps it in the air

vsalyer would you care to elaborate?

QQ:

What we need here is some solid definitions of work and energy.

If a force F acts on an object as it moves a distance d in the same direction as the force is applied, then the work done by the force is W=Fd. If the object moves in the opposite direction to the force, the work done by the force is W=-Fd.

Notes:

1. The work done on the object is always the same as the work done by the force.
2. If the object does not move, then d=0 and there is no work done.
3. If we calculate the net work done by all forces acting on an object (which is the same as saying the work done by the net force), then this is always equal to the change in kinetic energy of the object as it moved through the distance d.
4. An object which does not move has no work done on it, and hence no change in kinetic energy.
5. An object which has no net force on it as it moves through a distance d also has no net work done on it, and hence its kinetic energy does not change.

Now, let's consider what you have said in light of this.

Take a ball hanging from a frame. We can consider the work done by forces acting on the ball alone, or on the frame alone, or on the ball and frame taken together, or on the ball, frame and earth taken together, etc.

If we consider the ball alone, the ball has two forces on it: an upwards force due to the tension in whatever the ball is hanging from (a wire, attachment to the frame or whatever), and a downwards force due to the pull of gravity from the Earth. These forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, so the ball does not move. Therefore, neither force does any work on the ball, and its kinetic energy remains at zero relative to the frame.

With out the ball the frame has to support itself, when we add the ball the frame now has to support something more than before and if we keep adding balls the frame will either bend or break.

What is changing here is that as you add more balls the total force of gravity on the balls increases, and the force provided by the frame to suspend the balls also increases. However, these forces are still equal and opposite, and still do no work, unless the force gets so large that the frame breaks and things start to move.

If we bounce the ball on it's cable the frame will get hot due to the flexing. Thus one can infer energy is being produced and conserved.

That is correct. In this case, the forces actually do work, since the ball is now moving up and down.

If the ball is stationary and applying a static or constant force on the frame it would suggest that the forces are in equilibrium and are unchanging. But if the forces are changing then the result is energy.

Only when the ball moves. W=Fd.

so can one state that energy is the result of forces changing over time?

It depends on the force, but also on the distance moved. Both parts are important.

If so then the frame with or with out the ball is subject to change in a miniscule way thus the frame must be producing energy to maintain it's integrity. This energy would be conserved with in the frame itself.

No. Look at the definition W=Fd. If we consider the frame, it does not move, so d=0. Therefore, no forces do work on the frame, and so no energy is expended.

another approach to this question could be:
If you place a magnetic field next to a copper wire and leave it in stasis. No energy is created. ( other than possibly miniscule fluctuations)

But when you move the magnetic field in relation to the copper wire energy is created. Thus the force of the magnetic fieldis acting on the forces within the copper causing the forces to change thus electrical energy is created.

This is half right. The energy is not created from nothing, though. What is happening is that energy is being transferred from movement of the magnet into electrical energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It is only ever transformed from one form to another.

So forces that are changing create energy.

Not exactly. They can do work, though.

everything is constantly changing thus energy is constantly being created.

No. Some things do not change in such a way that work is done.

James, thanks again for taking the time to show conventional thoughts on the subject to me and other readers. It is appreciated.

From what you have described I am obviously attempting to describe something that does not apply to conventional definition.

If energy is only described by W=Fd then that is how it is decribed.

A thougth occired while reading your response was:

If I heat the steel ball and the ball fails to move is work being done?
I would normally assume that the answer is yes.

Maybe if you could define distance and include in this description whether this involves atomic distances, vibrations and the like.?

Congrats to all U humans , U have just discovered to discuss the repulsive force in the universe. This repulsive force is what keeps everything from collapsing in to one object. This force is inside the atom and stops universe from becoming a monocball.

What U humans have been discussing is infact the balancing between attractive forces and repulsive forces. I didn’t knew U all didn’t knew about it, I find it so intuitive to understand all this.

This is no arogance but out of experience ...

so, Raw, maybe you could tell us all what keeps the stars apart as certainly no one has yet been able too......

James, thanks again for taking the time to show conventional thoughts on the subject to me and other readers. It is appreciated.

From what you have described I am obviously attempting to describe something that does not apply to conventional definition.

If energy is only described by W=Fd then that is how it is decribed.

A thougth occired while reading your response was:

If I heat the steel ball and the ball fails to move is work being done?
I would normally assume that the answer is yes.

Maybe if you could define distance and include in this description whether this involves atomic distances, vibrations and the like.?

The problem with your example is the assumption that disatance hasn't changed. In the case of heat the distance change is internal by increased velocity of particles, kinetic energy increases and the distance particles travel increases per unit of time.

in the frame I guess we could say the distance has changed but does it go on changing or does it enter a stasis?

Thus the only time work is done is when the ball is initially accomodated by the frames structure. After this initial phase there appears to be no work being done.

The problem I have with all this is that 'stillness' and "unchanging" are both illusions and not actual as everything is constantly changing and moving.

QQ:

Heat and work are different kinds of energy. Work is "organised" energy, which can be used to do something useful. Heat is "disorganised" energy, which is not useful in itself.

It is possible to convert a certain proportion of a given amount of heat into work, which is what all engines do.

If you heat a steel ball and it doesn't move, then you do no work on it, but you are adding energy to it - heat energy.

QQ:

Heat and work are different kinds of energy. Work is "organised" energy, which can be used to do something useful. Heat is "disorganised" energy, which is not useful in itself.

It is possible to convert a certain proportion of a given amount of heat into work, which is what all engines do.

If you heat a steel ball and it doesn't move, then you do no work on it, but you are adding energy to it - heat energy.

Not disagreeing but I think your response lacks specifity or is to broad. i.e. - If I rub the ball it heats, if I smack the ball with a hammer it heats, if I move a magnet around the ball (assuming it is of certain materials) it heats. So many if not most methods of heating the ball involve work. If I light a match I do work but it is not in direct relation to the heat input to the ball, etc., etc.

but for the ball to get hot it to has to do work....doesn't it. I mean the atomic structure has to increase velocity ......yes? No? So the heat imparts energy on the ball and the ball uses that energy to get hot......or maybe I got it all mixed up again?

For the ball to reflect the heat it has to heat up.....so the ball must be doing work [within itself]

but for the ball to get hot it to has to do work....doesn't it.

Forces do work. Objects don't. Forces do work on objects. W=Fd.

I mean the atomic structure has to increase velocity ......yes? No?

Yes. The atoms in the ball will usually vibrate faster when it is heated.

So the heat imparts energy on the ball and the ball uses that energy to get hot......or maybe I got it all mixed up again?

Energy goes into the ball, which causes the atoms to move faster. That's all. If you touch the ball, some of that vibrational energy will be transferred to your hand, making atoms in your hand vibrate faster. That's why the ball feels hot.

Can heat be formally differentiated from work via entropy?

Probably, Pete. What are you thinking of, in particular?

QQ, I seem to remember reading an article on line about a book that presented the same concepts as you are, but haven't read it. Is that where you're getting this idea from about the ball suspended in the air doing work? If that's the case, perhaps you can tell us what the book said so there's something to discuss.

As James R and others have mentioned, that interpretation (force with no movement) is inconsistant with the conventional approach to this. Work is a force times a distance.

The concept of "conservation of mass and energy" says the sum of mass and energy can't be created or destroyed. If we claim that energy (and mass) is conserved, then we need to determine what energy/mass is being used to hold this ball up, otherwise, you'll also need to replace the conservation of energy/mass rule.

Lets change it just slightly. Say there's this metal tower that weighs many hundreds of tons. Using the approach that you've suggested, the very top of the tower doesn't support anything, so it isn't doing any work. But if you look at a section in the middle of the tower, there's
1. a force pushing up and keeping it from falling, and
2. a force pushing down from the weight of everything above.

For this hypothetical section of tower, the force pushing down from above is going to be less than the force pushing up from below by the weight of the section. That is, the section weighs something, so there's some force pushing upwards which is equal to the weight of the section plus the weight of everything above the section of tower.

Since these two forces are not equal, then per the idea presented originally, this section must be either gaining or loosing energy, is that correct? This section is being pushed upwards harder than it is pushing up.

If this section of tower (and everything in a gravitational field for that matter) is either gaining or loosing energy, they one has to determine where it is coming from. Is mass getting lighter all the time? or heavier? Or changing weight in some way? or is it getting hotter or colder while sitting there holding itself up?

There's no such change we can measure going on. Things under a gravitational field do not gain, nor loose weight (actually, mass). They do not gain nor loose energy in the form of heat or any other type of energy. They just kinda.. sit there... If one clings to the concept of a force somehow being equivalent to energy, you'll need to reconcile that with the conservation of mass and energy. If you hold onto the idea that holding up mass is work, then you need to have mass and energy 'created' somehow.

Q_Goest
QQ, I seem to remember reading an article on line about a book that presented the same concepts as you are, but haven't read it. Is that where you're getting this idea from about the ball suspended in the air doing work? If that's the case, perhaps you can tell us what the book said so there's something to discuss.
I am afraid I have not sighted or discussed this book....nor even heard of it.....but I don;t doubt that there woudl be some discussion some where along similar lines.

Your last sentance actually is more or less what I am exploring
If you hold onto the idea that holding up mass is work, then you need to have mass and energy 'created' somehow.

I suppose it is premised on the basis that the atomic particle is a form of PPM [psuedo perpetual mobile]

In that it moves [travels distance "on the spot"] generates heat [abiet in small quantities] and is held together by forces either magnetic or gravitational in form.

When these atomic particles are placed under stress such as in the tower analogy or the frame analogy the atomic structure has to compensate for this stress in some way to maintain it's integrity. So there for I am contending that more energy is required to cycle in this PPM. The gain and loss of energy over time or change in forces over time allow the atomic binding to be maintained under greater stress.

But as James has pointed out the terminology I am using to explore this hypothetical is confusing.
As has been shown in the observation of spontaneous manifestations and demanifestations of particles energy is indeed being created and destroyed all the time and I am suggesting that this is an constantly ongoing event in all reflective mass. or matter.


Conceptualy it is about drawing energy from vacuum and then returning that energy back to vacuum, a cycle that is not sequential but based on simultaneousness. Not unlike the generation of electricity always needing an earth for the current to flow back to whence it came after doing some form of work leaving it's effect on mass over time.
Whether that be increased internal distances [vibrations] or increases in both internal and external distances [velocity]

For the whole thing to work there must be an equalibrium of creation and decreation of energy to sustain the seemingly static postion of our frame and or tower.

The main contention is that once forces are changed energy is created as a by product if forces continue to change then the energy is conserved over greater periods of time but if the forces are brought back to relative stasis then the energy created also falls back to just background rates.

[ it is worth noting that you may not be aware I am but a mere amatuer when it comes to physics so please accept my post with this in mind]

James, would you go on to say that the 100kg ball is being slowed by that force and therfore a negative energy is being applied......[I understand that I maybe mixing up the terminology here]

I am just trying to understand the dynamics in this static situation.

With out the ball the frame has to support itself, when we add the ball the frame now has to support something more than before and if we keep adding balls the frame will either bend or break.

If we bounce the ball on it's cable the frame will get hot due to the flexing. Thus one can infer energy is being produced and conserved.

If the ball is stationary and applying a static or constant force on the frame it would suggest that the forces are in equilibrium and are unchanging. But if the forces are changing then the result is energy.

so can one state that energy is the result of forces changing over time?

The contention:
If so then the frame with or with out the ball is subject to change in a miniscule way thus the frame must be producing energy to maintain it's integrity. This energy would be conserved with in the frame itself.

The ball attached to the frame becomes a part of the frame total mass and is indistinguishable as a separate object. Once the frame moves the conditions change due to the acceleration and the ball gyrates however the laws of physics dictate, but this is a different problem than the static case, completely different.

so, Raw, maybe you could tell us all what keeps the stars apart as certainly no one has yet been able too......

The reason is nearly the same. The rotation of galaxy is throwning things out but the gravity is holding it yet. And yes some of it was lost in its formation from the edges of the galaxy.

Isn't that book The Final Theory, for which links have been posted in the Physics and Math forums before. The author seems to have a basic failure to understand concepts of physics further than "energy is always conserved" and keeps referring to the apparent necessity for all the repulsive and attractive forces to have "power sources". He mistakes a permanently osscilating object under the influence of gravity (talks about drilling a hole through the Earth, having apparently never noticed that an object in orbit is doing the same thing) with a "perpetual motion machine." He therefore does not understand what a perpetual motion machine is - it isn't a system which is perpetually moving or oscillating without the input of further energy, it is a machine from which we can get work perpetually without inputting further energy. We cannot harness the motion of the moon to provide us with work, because we'd decrease the amount of work the moon was doing, and it would ultimately crash into the Earth.

At any rate, I'm not sure if QQ's basic problem was adequately answered here. The difference between a ball on a chain on a frame and a rocket maintaining a height is that the rocket (or car with reverse gear engaged) can only continue to do what it is doing by expending energy in the form of rocket fuel (or petrol). There must be a clear difference between the two items regardless of the fact that no work is being done because there is no distance travelled. Clearly some kind of work is being done in the form of the rocket or car, because when it's store of "use-up-ableness" of energy is reduced to zero it will fall to the ground.

The reason is nearly the same. The rotation of galaxy is throwning things out but the gravity is holding it yet. And yes some of it was lost in its formation from the edges of the galaxy.

Raw unfortunately this is an inadequate assessment in that stars that are parallel to rotation have nothing stopping them from being attracted to each other and merging [in a spiral galaxy at least.]

Silas you are correct I am not fully satisfied my question has been answered. The frustration of energy is not often considered when discussing conservation.

We often talk of momentum applied but what if this momentum is frustrated?

@RawThinkTank
Hum,
i would just point out that of course the spiral arms of a galaxy (for example) is just a density wave that is creating very massive stars... the bulk of the stars we probably don't see, and may orbit radially or counter to the spiral arms. A star in the centre is probably more likely to have a close encounter with another star and be kicked out of the galaxy than say one on the outer edge...

by Silas:

"We cannot harness the motion of the moon to provide us with work, because we'd decrease the amount of work the moon was doing, and it would ultimately crash into the Earth."
================================================== =

The motion of the moon is doing work on Earth, it is moving oceans (tides).
And, yes, the orbit of the moon is slowing down, as well as the rotation of
the Earth.

but say we use a tidal generator that harnesses a very small amount of tidal movement. The tide was moving anyway. Does this impinge on the moon/earth system?

Raw unfortunately this is an inadequate assessment in that stars that are parallel to rotation have nothing stopping them from being attracted to each other and merging [in a spiral galaxy at least.]

Yes That is true, And that is the reason we have stars of different sizes. Otherwise all the stars would have been of same size. But the stars are so sparsely distributed that we dont see any collisions yet. By the way the majority of stars happen to be binary systems , ternary systems exists too, there one with six stars together.

The motion of the moon is doing work on Earth, it is moving oceans (tides).
And, yes, the orbit of the moon is slowing down, as well as the rotation of
the Earth.

Actually, the velocity of the moon is speeding up, as the Earth transfers angular momentum to the moon through the tides. Once the Earth has the same rotational period as the moon's revolutional period, the moon will start slowing down due to frictional losses.