[GreatScott]

Gravity batteries work on the principle of stored gravitational potential energy.  The idea is lifting a heavy object and working against gravity generates gravitational potential energy in the object and when the object is allowed to fall, the energy is released and electricity can be generated.

I realize it sounds a little off the wall, but its a real thing and it works.

Gravitational potential energy is the work required to move an object in the opposite direction of Earth's gravity

 

In a gravity battery, a mass is displaced, or lifted, to generate gravitational potential energy that is transformed into electricity. Gravity batteries store gravitational potential energy by lifting a mass to a certain height using a pump, crane, or motor. After the mass is lifted, it now stores a certain gravitational potential energy based on the mass of the object and how high it was lifted. The stored gravitational potential energy is then transferred into electricity. The mass is lowered to fall back to its original height, which causes a generator to spin and create electricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery#:~:text=A%20gravity%20battery%20works%20by,a%20form%20of%20sustainable%20energy.

If you pick up a textbook from the floor and put it on a table, it will require about 10 joules of energy—a unit where 1 J = 1 kg*m22/s2. We can calculate the change in energy by lifting things using the work-energy principle. This says that work done on a system is equal to the change in energy of that system, and also that work depends on the force pushing on that system and the distance the force moves. Here I am using "system" to mean some thing or collection of things.

In the expression for work, Δr is the distance the force moves, and θ is the angle between the force and the direction it is moving.
If you want to lift a book with a mass (this includes most books you will find), then you will need to push up with a force equal in magnitude to the gravitational force. On the surface of the Earth, the gravitational force is the product of the mass (in kilograms) and the gravitational field with a value of approximately 9.8 newtons per kilogram.
So lifting a book up a distance h would have an angle between the force and displacement of 0° (remember that cosine of 0° = 0 1). The work done lifting an object of mass (m) and height (h) would then be:


This change in energy of the book is called gravitational potential energy. The more mass you lift, the greater the stored energy. The higher you lift the mass, the greater the potential energy.

https://www.wired.com/story/battery-built-from-concrete/

A few more resources

Gravity energy storage relies on the potential energy of an object due to its height relative to another object and could be key for intermittent power sources, like solar and wind. The basic concept is that excess energy captured from something like a solar array is used to lift a heavy object up. When there is not enough sunlight for direct power use, the heavy object is dropped down, converting the gravitational potential energy into electricity via generator.

https://www.engineering.com/story/are-gravitational-batteries-the-solution-to-grid-power-storage

The premise of these batteries is simple and does not use rare materials to construct. When the sun is shining, enough power is generated to lift a heavy object. When there is no sun, this object will slowly descend through gravity, operating a generator that converts that potential energy into stored electricity.
It is very similar to pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES), which uses the downward flow of water to power a generator which then pumps the water back uphill.
This has been a technology long hypothesised for use in solar systems, but the technology has never really evolved – until now.

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/how-gravity-batteries-are-set-to-transform-the-solar-network/

The system works by using an incredibly heavyweight and a long, tall structure. Some gravity batteries are housed in large, very tall buildings, while others use boreholes drilled deep into the earth to provide the height needed for the battery. 
At times when energy production outstrips demand, the surplus energy is diverted operate heavy machinery that winches the weight up to the top of the structure. When supply drops below demand and we need to harness the energy, the weight is dropped to generate electricity again using a generator and often utilising regenerative braking. The efficiency of a system like this can be as high as 90%.
Pumped hydro storage works on the same principle, except it uses reservoirs at different heights and moves the water between them to store and release energy as needed. The gravity battery has an advantage on this though as it can be used on much shorter notice. Moving a body of water is a more complex operation than dropping a weight. It also doesn’t have the same environmental impact as pumped hydro storage.

https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/what-are-gravity-batteries/

So the obvious question here is, on a flat earth where gravity doesn’t exist, where does the energy that is stored in a gravity battery come from?

[Pete Svarrior]

To be clear: gravity absolutely does exist on FE. To claim otherwise would be to argue that we're currently all floating aimlessly. You might be referring to gravitation.

But hey, your question is obvious, and so is the answer: Universal Acceleration. Since the Equivalence Principle holds, the two are locally indistinguishable.

You would have known this if you simply took the time to familiarise yourself with FET - it would have taken much less time than you spent thoroughly documenting trivial concepts like gravity batteries.

[GreatScott]

To be clear: gravity absolutely does exist on FE. To claim otherwise would be to argue that we're currently all floating aimlessly. You might be referring to gravitation.

But hey, your question is obvious, and so is the answer: Universal Acceleration. Since the Equivalence Principle holds, the two are locally indistinguishable.

You would have known this if you simply took the time to familiarise yourself with FET - it would have taken much less time than you spent thoroughly documenting trivial concepts like gravity batteries.

No, I’m talking about gravity. The force between the earth and objects near it’s surface.  The difference between flat earth gravity and round earth gravity, of course, is that flat earth gravity isn’t dependent on the mass of an object or its distance from the earth.

The operative phrase in the definition of the equivalence principle is “locally indistinguishable”.  In a large enough area the effects are distinguishable, which is why I don’t believe it applies here or would explain where the energy stored in a gravity battery comes from.

Here’s why.  The formula for gravitational potential energy is m*g*h. 

    • The strength of the force of round earth gravity on an object is proportional to its mass.  Flat earth gravity, or universal acceleration, isn’t dependent on the mass of an object. The strength of Earth’s gravitational field is 9.8N/kg. This means that for each kg of mass, an object will experience 9.8 N of force. The strength of flat earth gravity is the same on any object, regardless of its mass.
    •  And height wouldn’t be a factor either.  Universal acceleration would have the same effect on the battery whether it was lifted 100 ft. Or a 1000 ft.
    •  the “g” in the formula means the acceleration due to gravity.  Acceleration is a vector,  It has direction and magnitude.  The direction of acceleration due to flat earth gravity is opposite that of acceleration due to round earth gravity, so the “g” in the formula would have to be -g.

Is short, the formula won’t work.  If the earth were accelerating up, the amount of potential energy wouldn’t be what you’d expect from the formula.  That’s a simple way to distinguish between accelerating up and being in a gravitational field.  The equivalence principle wouldn’t apply because the space being tested isn’t small enough to be considered “local”.

[AATW]

But hey, your question is obvious, and so is the answer: Universal Acceleration. Since the Equivalence Principle holds, the two are locally indistinguishable.

Locally, yes. But there are measurable differences in gravity depending on latitude, because the earth spins, and because the mass of the earth is not distributed equally. You have Celestial Gravitation which could explain this but it feels like an ad hoc explanation. The Wiki page about it simply says:

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

That's the entire text of the article. That's so vague. Maybe you guys are behind the scenes doing some research into this and trying to form it into more of a theory, but right now it's basically "this might be a thing".

In terms of this thread, I agree that "Gravity Batteries" would work with UA. Just pointing out that UA + Celestial Gravitation are not as well formed theories as gravity.

[Pete Svarrior]

You have Celestial Gravitation which could explain this but it feels like an ad hoc explanation.

How it "feels" has very little to do with whether it would meaningfully affect the operation of gravity batteries. You acknowledge this much yourself, and you do not need to air your feelings in every thread that ever mentions UA.

Our friend is hopelessly confused (see above), and your bickering isn't helping. Be a good guy for a change.

No, I’m talking about gravity. The force between the earth and objects near it’s surface.

Yeah, that's gravity all right - something that's present in both RET and FET. It would be oh-so-helpful if you could stop these endless diversions.

The difference between flat earth gravity and round earth gravity, of course, is that flat earth gravity isn’t dependent on the mass of an object or its distance from the earth.

Incorrect on both counts. Imagine how much easier this would be if you had any idea what you're talking about.

The operative phrase in the definition of the equivalence principle is “locally indistinguishable”.

Indeed. An observer that is both in outer space and not affected by UA would hypothetically be able to observe a difference. Once you've identified such an observer, let me know.

In a large enough area the effects are distinguishable

A "large enough area"? What on Earth are you talking about? The Equivalence Principle says nothing about areas.

which is why I don’t believe it applies here or would explain where the energy stored in a gravity battery comes from.

Again - what are you talking about? The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.

Here’s why. <wasting everyone's time with an oversimplified explanation of RET>

I will say this one last time - learn the basics of the subject you're arguing against prior to arguing against it. If you cannot do that, do not post in the upper fora.

Acceleration is a vector,  It has direction and magnitude.

It is also relative. Change the frame of reference, and the direction changes accordingly. The two are indistinguishable for you and I. If you dispute this, you immediately invalidate all of RET.

[SteelyBob]

The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.

There is a bit more in this that needs consideration though. One of the main problems with UA is that it would require a massive, unexplained energy source, whereas gravity doesn't. Not quite the same thing, I realise.

[Pete Svarrior]

One of the main problems with UA is that it would require a massive, unexplained energy source, whereas gravity doesn't.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand, and likely incorrect (as discussed many times before, and as you are well aware). Allow me to remind you that this thread is not about whether or not you like UA - it's about gravity batteries.

[GreatScott]

A "large enough area"? What on Earth are you talking about? The Equivalence Principle says nothing about areas.

Of course it does.  What do you think the term local means in the context of the equivalence principle.? It means a small space, or area, like the inside of a rocket or an elevator. 

The equivalence principle holds locally, i.e., within a small patch of space and time

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.05%3A_The_Equivalence_Principle_(Part_1)

Locally, that is during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space, the person falling in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator or being in completely empty space, where there is no gravity.

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle#:~:text=Locally%2C%20that%20is%20during%20any,where%20there%20is%20no%20gravity.

Here "local" has a very special meaning: not only must the experiment not look outside the laboratory, but it must also be small compared to variations in the gravitational field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#:~:text=The%20Einstein%20equivalence%20principle,-What%20is%20now&text=Here%20%22local%22%20has%20a%20very,entire%20laboratory%20is%20freely%20falling.

Einstein even said the equivalence principle doesn’t transform away the entire gravitational field of the earth.

From our consideration of the accelerated chest we see that a general theory of relativity must yield important results on the laws of gravitation. In point of fact, the systematic pursuit of the general idea of relativity has supplied the laws satisfied by the gravitational field. Before proceeding farther, however, I must warn the reader against a misconception suggested by these considerations. A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such field for the co-ordinate system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one. We might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/333?highlightText=earth

The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.

No it doesn’t.  And that wouldn’t even make sense on a flat earth.  A body isn’t subject to any forces when released from a height on a flat earth.

The potential energy is generated by the work involved in displacing it to a higher elevation.  While the battery remains suspended, the potential energy is stored in the battery.  When the battery is lowered, the energy is released to produce electricity.

If you pick up a textbook from the floor and put it on a table, it will require about 10 joules of energy—a unit where 1 J = 1 kg*m22/s2. We can calculate the change in energy by lifting things using the work-energy principle. This says that work done on a system is equal to the change in energy of that system, and also that work depends on the force pushing on that system and the distance the force moves. Here I am using "system" to mean some thing or collection of things.

In the expression for work, Δr is the distance the force moves, and θ is the angle between the force and the direction it is moving.
If you want to lift a book with a mass (this includes most books you will find), then you will need to push up with a force equal in magnitude to the gravitational force. On the surface of the Earth, the gravitational force is the product of the mass (in kilograms) and the gravitational field with a value of approximately 9.8 newtons per kilogram.
So lifting a book up a distance h would have an angle between the force and displacement of 0° (remember that cosine of 0° = 0 1). The work done lifting an object of mass (m) and height (h) would then be:

This change in energy of the book is called gravitational potential energy. The more mass you lift, the greater the stored energy. The higher you lift the mass, the greater the potential energy.

The formula mgh tells you the amount of potential energy that is stored in the battery and that was generated by lifting it.  When the battery is lowered the energy is released.

Little by little, electric motors hoist the weight halfway up; it is now a giant, gravity-powered battery, storing potential energy that can be released when needed. And that moment is now: With a metallic moan, the weight inches back down. Reversing direction, the motors become electric generators, sending up to 250 kilowatts of power back to the grid. For peak power, the weight can descend in 11 seconds—but for testing purposes, it moves just a few meters at “creep speed,” says Douglas Hitchcock, project engineer at Scottish startup Gravitricity.

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.372.6541.446

It is also relative. Change the frame of reference, and the direction changes accordingly. The two are indistinguishable for you and I. If you dispute this, you immediately invalidate all of RET

You have to define relative to what. We aren’t talking about something that is falling.  The potential energy is stored in the battery while it is suspended from crane, or whatever mechanism is used. That amount is m*g*h.  The amount of potential gravitational energy any object possess is dependent on its mass and on its height relative to the earth because those are the factors that tell how strongly gravity is working on the object.  With UA, the mass and height don't effect how strongly it works on an object.  It works the same on any object of any mass at any height. 

There would be zero relative acceleration between the battery and earth with UA because they would be accelerating at the same rate.  The acceleration of the battery relative to anything else doesn't matter. But if you want to go that route, then fine.  There would be no potential energy in the battery with UA because  m*0*h=0.

In terms of this thread, I agree that "Gravity Batteries" would work with UA. Just pointing out that UA + Celestial Gravitation are not as well formed theories as gravity.

They would work with UA, just not consistent with what we observe.

The change in  energy equals the net amount of work required to displace an object.  It would take more net work to mechanically displace the battery working against gravity than it would take to displace it mechanically without working against gravity and with UA.

[Pete Svarrior]

It means a small space, or area, like the inside of a rocket or an elevator.

lol.

Let's not waste our time, pricelesspearl. If you don't understand the subject you're presenting arguments about, you should brush up before speaking.

I gave your your chance even though I said I wouldn't have. Behave or join your alts. Your choice.

[GreatScott]

The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.

There is a bit more in this that needs consideration though. One of the main problems with UA is that it would require a massive, unexplained energy source, whereas gravity doesn't. Not quite the same thing, I realise.

This description of how a gravity battery works is wrong. 

The work energy theory states that work done an object adds energy to it.  Work is just another way of saying moving it. After the battery is lifted, it possesses more potential energy than when it was on the ground. The harder something is to lift, the more energy is added.   Its harder to lift the battery against gravity, than if there was no gravity, so different amounts of potential energy would be generated with gravity than would be generated without it.

The potential energy in the battery is released when the object is allowed to fall and the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, which is what produces the electricity.

The formula to calculate how much potential energy is generated by lifting the battery is m*g*h.  If you know how much mass the object has and how high it is lifted, you know how much potential energy should be created in the presence of gravity, how much kinetic energy should be released, and how much electricity should be produced.  If there is no gravity, the amount of electricity that is ultimately produced would be different than what is expected or observed.

That is an easy way to determine if the earth is accelerating upwards without gravity or if a gravitational field is present.

[GreatScott]

It means a small space, or area, like the inside of a rocket or an elevator.

lol.

Let's not waste our time, pricelesspearl. If you don't understand the subject you're presenting arguments about, you should brush up before speaking.

I gave your your chance even though I said I wouldn't have. Behave or join your alts. Your choice.

“Locally” means in a small region. So, the equivalence principle says: If you can only make measurements in a small region around you, then you cannot tell acceleration apart from gravity. You can only tell them apart if you can make measurements over a large enough distances.

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/08/what-is-equivalence-principle.html

[GreatScott]

In terms of this thread, I agree that "Gravity Batteries" would work with UA. Just pointing out that UA + Celestial Gravitation are not as well formed theories as gravity.

Actually, now that I think about it.  I don’t think a gravity battery would work at all on a flat earth.  First of all, an object on the ground has zero potential energy.  As you lift against gravity, potential energy is is generated.  The amount that is generated would be equal to m*g*h.  A 10 kg object raised 10m would gain 980 joules in potential energy.  If you are lifting with UA, the formula would be m*-g[-/b]*h, because you aren’t lifting against gravity, you are lifting with UA. The amount of energy generated would be -980 joules.  The object didn’t gain potential energy, it lost potential energy.

On top of that, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when a force is applied that causes it to move.  Kinetic energy is energy an object possesses due to it motion, if there is no force of gravity to cause motion, no electricity can be produced.

[SteelyBob]

In terms of this thread, I agree that "Gravity Batteries" would work with UA. Just pointing out that UA + Celestial Gravitation are not as well formed theories as gravity.

Actually, now that I think about it.  I don’t think a gravity battery would work at all on a flat earth.  First of all, an object on the ground has zero potential energy.  As you lift against gravity, potential energy is is generated.  The amount that is generated would be equal to m*g*h.  A 10 kg object raised 10m would gain 980 joules in potential energy.  If you are lifting with UA, the formula would be m*-g[-/b]*h, because you aren’t lifting against gravity, you are lifting with UA. The amount of energy generated would be -980 joules.  The object didn’t gain potential energy, it lost potential energy.

On top of that, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when a force is applied that causes it to move.  Kinetic energy is energy an object possesses due to it motion, if there is no force of gravity to cause motion, no electricity can be produced.

Not quite right. It’s all about frames of reference, and this situation (ie the FE / UA model) is complicated by the entire system not being inert - it is constantly accelerating. Imagine being in a massive space station, in orbit, and hence a 0g environment. Now imagine getting in an elevator in that space station, and let’s say it accelerates at 1g. Everything in that lift would feel like planet earth does. If you picked an object up off the floor and dropped it, its velocity relative to the floor of the lift would be indistinguishable from the same situation in a stationary lift on earth. The same would go for its kinetic energy. The key point is the frame of reference - the lift. If you stand outside the system and watch, the maths gets a lot more complicated.

There is an awful lot wrong with UA, but these are not the droids you seek, as it were.

[Pete Svarrior]

I gave your your chance even though I said I wouldn't have. Behave or join your alts. Your choice.

I asked nicely. Get Rule 8'd.

Sorry, Steely. I'm sure he'll be back in a few months with another alt to tell us that the Sun would be purple on FE, or something like that.