Where does energy go in resisting gravity

[Saiph]

when a helicopter hovers, it still does work against the drag forces. This is where the energy goes, as the blades are exerting a force, over a distance.<br /><br />No work is <i>required</i> to keep an object aloft, but a force is. For a table (or similar setup) the force is not exerted over a distance, and so no work is done. For a helicopter and plane, the supporting force is derived from a moving mechanism, and so work is done.<br /><br />A hovering helicopter should expend far less energy than one ascending, as it only has to "replace" the energy "lost" to the drag mechanisms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Well it does seem gravity is a complete red herring, perhaps not even existing,</font><br /><br />+100 yes.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Is what we call gravity a reaction of space & we've never found the originating force. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, that's basically Einstein's opinion on the subject: it's not a force, but rather a warping of spacetime. (This is eerily consistent with observations of light bent around massive objects, even when there is nothing there to diffract the light, or otherwise bend it in a way which is more familiar to us.)<br /><br />We do actually produce our own, individual warps in spacetime -- even things as small as people have their own gravitational fields. It's just that our fields are inconsequential compared to something really big, like the Earth. So far, the only way this has been exploited has been by things like placing spacecraft at or near Lagrange points, or gravitational boosts to accelerate a spacecraft faster than chemical rockets can accelerate it. Arguably, the geostationary orbit is also an exploit of gravity -- it keeps satellites conveniently positioned at what appears to be a fixed point in the sky. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I hope to hear news from the GEO 600 and LIGO projects eventually. I think it would be headline news if they reported a detection of gravity waves simultaneously with light from a cataclysmic event. It would certainly answer a few questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[siarad]

Yes but that means space must be immensely strong or it would tear.<br />Take bowling ball idea, it doesn't break the rubber but put 100 of them on it & snap.<br />So space must be incredibly strong as I don't recall reading about any tears in Space even by the SMBH.<br />Gravitational boost uses gravity as a intermediary, like a car fan belt & provides no boost it's the object being passed which provides the energy as gravity is inconsumable. If it's a planet it slows equally as the object increases or vice versa.<br />