It's an obvious consequence of the fact that the semi-major axis and orbital period of the Earth-Moon system depend on the total energy.That's just an assertion of yours, I think
Obviously.Dissipation reduces the Energy situation
Only if there is one. What is the minimum total energy of the Earth-Moon system? There isn't one, except in the sense that if the Moon gets close enough to the Earth to be inside the Roche limit, it breaks up, and you no longer have a two-body system.to a minimum
I never said it did. You appear to be reading things into my post that aren't there. Please read what I've actually said.How can it increase the Energy in a system?
Yes, until dissipation has reduced the total energy of the system and hence changed the zero torque equilibrium point.once the oscillations have died out there will be zero torque
This is not completely correct, because the "increase the energy in a system" part is not required. And it's not true for the Earth-Moon system, as we've already said multiple times in this thread.there will be equilibrium of a sort because (stable) Equilibrium is the state where a disturbance will increase the Energy in a system and that will cause a restoring Force
The quote you gave from me appears to be partially incorrect: I did not say "Please don't insist that a pendulum is the only alternative to tidal locking; I just chose it as a very simple situation - with very obvious differences from a planetary system." Perhaps you intended that to be part of your reply? (Also, the sentence before that is cut off.)What does that actually mean?
As for what it means, again, the fact that the equilibrium of zero torque for the Earth-Moon system depends on the total energy of the system is an obvious consequence of the fact that the semi-major axis and orbital period depend on the total energy, since the orbital period is what determines the rate of rotation required for the zero torque equilibrium.
If you're making an energy argument, yes. I'm not making an energy argument. The argument I'm making includes energy as a contributing factor, but it's not an "energy argument" in the sense of analyzing all of the system's dynamics using energy alone.It is not necessary to include Forces in an Energy argument.
I don't know what you mean by this or how it relates to what I've said.isn't this just the difference between Newtonian and Hamiltonian Mechanics? Your above argument is trying to mix the two together.