Is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

[fletcher]

Ex .. the problem I have is that no one completely understands WHAT gravity is - at best we can derive & use formula's that explain a masses behaviour when subject to it with high degree of certainty, probability & predictability.

As you know, there are competing theories about just what is gravity, & each has its good points in certain contexts & reference frames - IMO however, it serves no purpose to try & find a deeper truth in one over another, in the context of engineering mechanical gravity OU machines, other than as an intellectual exercise, & I have enough to think about.

We are dealing fundamentally with Newton mechanics at a macro level, & using Newton's Laws to explain & predict behaviour has stood the test of time & accuracy, thus far reliably - until at least a member here comes up with new Laws [or behaviour to demonstrate those embryonic replacement Laws] that has an even greater factor of predictability & significance in this context.

So for now, I confine myself to the happy coincidence that gravity can be explained & modeled on an acceleration which doves tails nicely into the known macro Laws of physics & mechanics & also works within the framework of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

What I do know is that ANY field of potential has an acceleration associated [as defined] with it, by the nature of the potential - I also know that I have to do Work to raise a masses potential in order to get the same Work [Energy] back again in a useful mechanical way, less losses.

Whether the field is depleted of Energy, as you suggest, is not of intellectual importance to me at this time, no disrespect - though I'm sure that if there were many gravity PM/OU wheels in existence the question would be paramount in some minds, especially if there was a noticeable change in the earth's gravitational acceleration over short amount of time - until then I won't loose any sleep about it.

[Omnibus]

On the contrary, total disrespect for anybody claiming that field (gravitational in this case) is depleted of energy. Such crap must be nipped in the bud. There are too many confused souls around to allow an aggressive incompetent element such as @exnihiloest to muddle the matter even further. There are certain activities  by elements such as @nihiloest, in his trying to appear learned by blabbering about notions he has no clue about, that have to be confronted without apologies.

As for Newton's laws, they are also incomplete (especially the second law) if they should indeed be laws of motion. We saw directly the deficiency in Hamilton's equations in this respect. I showed them in my earlier posts -- Hamilton's equations directly contradict CoE. Of course, for basic engineering (practical) tasks these laws are useful even in their present form but they are wanting in a more rigorous analysis.

[brian334]

When the sun sends energy to earth it causes water to evaporate and rise,
The air goes up, the air expands, the water vapor condenses. Next the earths energy/gravity pulls the water down.
The suns energy/light makes the water go up, and the earths energy/gravity makes the water come down.
Case closed gravity is a form of energy.
Humans are never going to understand gravity at the basic level, the best we will ever be able to do is describe its effects.

[Omnibus]

When the sun sends energy to earth it causes water to evaporate and rise,
The air goes up, the air expands, the water vapor condenses. Next the earths energy/gravity pulls the water down.
The suns energy/light makes the water go up, and the earths energy/gravity makes the water come down.
Case closed gravity is a form of energy.
Humans are never going to understand gravity at the basic level, the best we will ever be able to do is describe its effects.

And, so you think you've proven with the above triviality that gravity is a form of energy? You haven't at all. Read carefully the exchange in this thread to understand why. Case is indeed closed but not with the conclusion that gravity is a form of energy.

[fletcher]

As for Newton's laws, they are also incomplete (especially the second law) if they should indeed be laws of motion.

We saw directly the deficiency in Hamilton's equations in this respect. I showed them in my earlier posts -- Hamilton's equations directly contradict CoE.

Of course, for basic engineering (practical) tasks these laws are useful even in their present form but they are wanting in a more rigorous analysis.

hmmm .. a theory becomes a Law when it is 100% predictable & reliable, to that point in time - it remains a Law right up to the moment that someone demonstrates a circumstance where it no longer is 100% predictable & reliable - at that time it is knocked off its perch & relegated to something less than a Law [i.e. back to a theory] because it has been proven to not be 100% predictable - hopefully, it is immediately replaced by new 100% accurate LAWS !

Whilst you may think them incomplete Newton's Laws aren't called Newton's Theories for a reason.

As for Hamilton's Equations - I may have to leave that for another time.