Oops. Phobos is not losing kinetic energy, it is gaining kinetic energy, and will eventually slam into Mars at full tilt. Unlike our moon, which is currently moving away from Earth at about 3.82±0.07 cm/year (Dickey, et al., 1994), Phobos approaches Mars at about 18.3 cm/year (e.g., Sharma, 2008). By applying straightforward dynamics, we arrive at Phobos arriving at Mars in roughly 11,000,000 years (somewhat faster than the previously estimated 50,000,000 years, at least according to Sharma).
I am not speaking about deceleration.
But that orbiting objects are receiving energy from gravity.
You don’t see the energy supply - but based on a deeper understanding of the principle behind orbit motion you can calculate it and conclude such supply MUST take place.
The energy constantly received from gravity is used to pull the mother planet (or star) until at certain resistance against rotation speed is reached.
You can compare this with driven a car with the handbrake not completely released.
So long there is enery supply from the engine you will maybe not disover anything, and you'll also not decelerate.
From a superficial perspective you can easy conclude that what’s goes up comes down and hence that there is a nice energy balance.
But already when asking the simple question; where the gravity potential energy is at apogee, you have a problem to point to it, or understand what it really is, since it appears to be nothing at all.
But yes there is a perfect balance, and the reason for this is that the orbiting object simply always
converts the entire surplus KE to rotation speed and thereby to rotation resistance.
Therefore you’ll only see: "energy balance" and not that all orbiting objects always move with a not completely released handbrake.
If you suddenly should release that handbrake, the moon would quickly escape its orbit
We
believe that resistance against motion suddenly disappears out in the big nowhere when constant speed is reached. This is not true.
The reason to that we
believe this is only that we haven’t understood that gravity transfer energy to orbiting objects , and this always is used (solo or collective) to overcome motion resistance. – The rotation speed of a planet or a star reveals and fits with that model, - you easy can test it mathematical (4*KE/t^2)
If you want to follow the energy trace further, read this chapter >
http://www.science27.com/english/magnetism.html
There is a transfer of energy between a moon and its primary as a result of tidal forces, but this transfer is a direct result of the fact that both satellites and primaries in the real universe are both deformable and physically extended objects (i.e., they are not geometric points). See my short discussion of the topic for the Earth-Moon system here: The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System, 1999 or see Solar System Dynamics by Murray & Dermott (Cambridge University Press, 1999 & 2001 for a more detailed mathematical & physical analysis).
Yes there is a decelerating “lost” of KE to the tidal force, but much weaker than the KE “lost” necessary to keep the moon in orbit, and hence the “lost” to resistance against the Earth rotation.
We look at the planets and moons and don’t see the fact that for example the Moon
MUST have resistance to be able to keep orbiting.
Further we have no idea what this resistance is and why the energy used to that doesn’t “seems” to leave any trace.
Earth spins on its axis faster than the moon orbits Earth.
As a result, Earth pulls the moon from in front, whipping it so that it would go faster if it remained at a fixed distance from Earth. But the moon is not so constrained, and as a result of the transfer of energy from Earth to the moon, it moves into a higher orbit with a lower velocity, and therefore less kinetic energy, but rather more potential energy, with an overall gain in energy.
This is also true, but the effect is much weaker than the pull of the Moon, because you’ll only have an effect due to tidal or for example mountains.
To get the right proportions compared to what I claim, - try to calculate the KE involved.
There are several (small and larger) influences, for example also when planets passing by each other
Read for example what causes Venus retrograde orbit:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_space_wind.html
But Phobos is the only moon in the solar system (as far as I know) which is so close to its primary that it orbits Mars with a period that is less than the spin period of Mars on its axis; i.e., a "month" for Phobos (7.65 hours) is less than a "day" on Mars (24.63 hours). Hence, Mars pulls Phobos from behind, not in front, and so tends to slow it down. The transfer of energy is from Phobos to Mars, opposite from the transfer of energy from Earth to the moon. So Phobos would slow down if it remained at a fixed distance. But Phobos is not so constrained and drops into a lower energy orbit closer to Mars, where it must move faster. So Phobos gains kinetic energy but loses potential energy, with an overall loss of energy.
Right
Also this is not a contradiction.
All objects in the solar system affect each other in many ways.
The idea that there could be any natural resistance to motion, in the absence of friction, was disposed of by Isaac Newton several hundred years ago, which I assume has already been mentioned more than once in a thread this long. Anyone who wants to argue that Isaac Newton was wrong is welcome to give it a shot. But Newton has a pretty good track record for brains, and while he might be wrong here and there, don't count on anything quite that obvious. After all, it took 218 years and Albert Einstein to make the rather small correction from Newtonian gravity to special relativity. And we are definitely not dealing with Albert Einstein on this thread.
“Friction” is in my universe a little clumsy expression.
We have no idea how matter and space is connected.
It is difficult even to imaging what “the curvature” of space really is.
Considering that matter consumes / stretch space should be easy, since we already know that such stretching space property exist (the expansive universe).
An “elastic stretching property” automatically tell us that space must resist motion of a object, naturally ALSO by constant speed.
If you're saying that the KE lost per orbit is equal to (4*KE)/t etc., then I hate to break it to you, but that equation is completely and utterly wrong, and anyone familiar with high school physics would realise that without even seeing a derivation.
Your equation (4*KE/t) has dimensions of power, not energy. Therefore it is wrong.
No the equation reflect energy in this direction > is the opposite as energy in this < direction.
Your equation (4*KE./t^2) has dimensions of power/time, not power. Therefore it is wrong.
No
You can calculate the energy required to do an opposite job.
Like the energy of the two cows with a robe between walking opposite directions.
Therefore the equation is right.
!!
