Conservation of energy question

[Pirate88179]

I have a question about Coe.  First, take the orbits of the planets....yes it's a vacuum but, should not the orbits have slowed by now?  Now, take the orbits of the electrons and protons in matter.  Why don't they slow down over time?  They are not in a vacuum.  The molecules in the chair I am sitting in are still going about their orbits.  Are they slowing?  Probably not...and if not...why not?

I know I am showing my ignorance here, but I don't mind.  I would just like to hear from all of you why this is.  This is how I learn.

Also, is a nuclear explosion evidence of O.U.?  Or, does E=mc2 explain that as well?

As usual, I have more questions than answers.  But, that is what keeps me interested in life.

Bill

[mapsrg]

I have heard of a theory that states the planets receive energy from the sun proportionate to their size.This theory states that a sun without planets cannot loss energy as fast ,in tranfer,and will last longer .This might mean that a sun might not even produce light if it cannot be recieved.

[Paul-R]

The bottom line is that the COE is not accurate unless all forms of energy are taken into account, this including energy forms not understood, and energy forms whose existance we do not even know about as yet.
Paul.

[Mr.Entropy]

Hi Bill,

I can answer most of these:

First, take the orbits of the planets....yes it's a vacuum but, should not the orbits have slowed by now?

They slow down when they collide with space dust, meteors, and other bits of stuff. Planets are big, though, so it's not really noticable.

Now, take the orbits of the electrons and protons in matter.  Why don't they slow down over time?

Protons don't really orbit.  For electrons, well, what would slow them down?  They don't collide with each other, because they have like charges.  They do slow down when they emit light, but that only happens after you give them enough extra energy to do that.  Why they don't radiate light (or radio waves) all the time is a hard question that I can't really answer, except to say that the answer has to do with quantum mechanical interference.

They are not in a vacuum.  The molecules in the chair I am sitting in are still going about their orbits.  Are they slowing?  Probably not...and if not...why not?

The molecules in your chair aren't orbiting.  They're quivering in all directions.  When one "collides" with another one, one slows down and one speeds up. The total kinetic energy of all the molecules remains unchanged.  The average kinetic energy per molecule is a quantity you're familiar with, called "temperature".

Also, is a nuclear explosion evidence of O.U.?  Or, does E=mc2 explain that as well?

not OU.  Yes, it's mass being converted to energy.  A helium nucleus has less mass than the hydrogen nuclei it's made from.  When a uranium or plutonium nucleus breaks up, the products have less mass than the original nucleus.  In both cases, that mass becomes the explosive energy.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[Pirate88179]

@Mr. Entropy:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  The only other question I have is about electrons.  You asked.."what would slow them down?"  Well, given that an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force..etc. (Newton) does this mean that at the atomic level there is no friction due to resistance of the fluid they are moving through?  I guess air molecules are too large but, they are moving through something right?  No friction or resistance?  Does this mean a vacuum exists at the atomic and subatomic levels?  Or, does this mean that there are no other particles small enough for them to collide with?  Nothing else there?

None of the physics books or nuclear energy books I have read addresses this at all.  Or, if it did, I must have missed it.  Thank you.

Bill