Is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

[exnihiloest]

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.

Gravity is a form of energy but it is not obvious with your reasoning.
Here the work done by gravity when rain falls, is a useful work that can be harnessed.
But the gravity applies also the same work against the raise of the evaporated water, i.e against the solar energy.
Therefore the energy of gravity is balanced when we consider a complete cycle. Gravity has not provided energy, only the sun entered energy in the system. Gravity provides energy only during a half cycle (falling rain) and consumed energy when water rises. Finally for a whole cycle, gravity just acts as a catalyst.

[Omnibus]

Gravity is by no means a form of energy. Confusing gravity with energy is one of the most elementary mistakes which someone incompetent in physics usually makes.

[exnihiloest]

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.

I understand your viewpoint. But please note that my explanation didn't deal with what is really gravity. I didn't search for a "deeper truth". In such an attempt I would have used the context of GR instead of Newton mechanics.
My goal is just to provide operational methods to modelize and predict the functioning of systems, and to get a relative understanding of the phenomena in order to suggest new ideas for practical applications. According to your reply, I guess that you share also, at least partly, this goal.

Now, if we limit our understanding to the level of academic courses, we can't expect for finding more than what conventional scientists have already found. So we have either to go beyond the courses or to go a bit "differently", while staying compatible in both cases with the current academic knowledge which made the proof of its power.

My purpose was to use the second way: "academic compatible but a bit differently"  . Energy in a gravitational field is such a way.
I agree with you on the potentials you was speaking about. But as we deal with energy, here potential energy, a question remains: where is the potential energy? If we want tap it, it is interesting to know where it is. The concept of "potentiality" means a possibility for something to act or to come in existence. Rather vague, isn't it? It is less physical than magic. By translating this potentiality in a physical force/acceleration field pattern, my viewpoint is that we go from a kind of mystic interpretation, toward the real life.

[Omnibus]

I understand your viewpoint. But please note that my explanation didn't deal with what is really gravity. I didn't search for a "deeper truth". In such an attempt I would have used the context of GR instead of Newton mechanics.
My goal is just to provide operational methods to modelize and predict the functioning of systems, and to get a relative understanding of the phenomena in order to suggest new ideas for practical applications. According to your reply, I guess that you share also, at least partly, this goal.

Now, if we limit our understanding to the level of academic courses, we can't expect for finding more than what conventional scientists have already found. So we have either to go beyond the courses or to go a bit "differently", while staying compatible in both cases with the current academic knowledge which made the proof of its power.

My purpose was to use the second way: "academic compatible but a bit differently"  . Energy in a gravitational field is such a way. 
I agree with you on the potentials you was speaking about. But as we deal with energy, here potential energy, a question remains: where is the potential energy? If we want tap it, it is interesting to know where it is. The concept of "potentiality" means a possibility for something to act or to come in existence. Rather vague, isn't it? It is less physical than magic. By translating this potentiality in a physical force/acceleration field pattern, my viewpoint is that we go from a kind of mystic interpretation, toward the real life.

It is so pathetic to be incompetent and to try to modelize and predict (to muddle the issue, that is) the functioning of systems, espedially when gravity is used as what it really isn't. Can't believe I'm reading that. I won't even comment on the invoking of a non-theory such as GR because the element above has no clue even what the underlying it SR really is (a non-theory, sheer nonsense, that is). No better is his understanding of Newton's mechanic which is at once seen by his considering gravity as a form of energy. Ridiculous. So ridiculous as to ask where the potential energy is. Like I said, there are enough confused people around to let someone pretentious but incompetent as @exnihiloest to confuse them further.

[fletcher]

I understand your viewpoint. But please note that my explanation didn't deal with what is really gravity. I didn't search for a "deeper truth". In such an attempt I would have used the context of GR instead of Newton mechanics.

My goal is just to provide operational methods to modelize and predict the functioning of systems, and to get a relative understanding of the phenomena in order to suggest new ideas for practical applications. According to your reply, I guess that you share also, at least partly, this goal.

Now, if we limit our understanding to the level of academic courses, we can't expect for finding more than what conventional scientists have already found. So we have either to go beyond the courses or to go a bit "differently", while staying compatible in both cases with the current academic knowledge which made the proof of its power.

My purpose was to use the second way: "academic compatible but a bit differently"  . Energy in a gravitational field is such a way.

I agree with you on the potentials you was speaking about. But as we deal with energy, here potential energy, a question remains: where is the potential energy? If we want tap it, it is interesting to know where it is. The concept of "potentiality" means a possibility for something to act or to come in existence. Rather vague, isn't it? It is less physical than magic. By translating this potentiality in a physical force/acceleration field pattern, my viewpoint is that we go from a kind of mystic interpretation, toward the real life.

I think you answered your questions yourself - the goal is practical mechanical application of a gravity field i.e. a field of potential that causes masses to accelerate together proportional to their inertia.

The Energy Budget [full cycle] shows that Energy put in to raise a masses potential is given back, less losses from non-conservation friction forces.

If Energy were taken from a gravity field & given to a mass then I would expect the the Energy Budget to be different - now you might say it gives it Energy on the way down & takes it away on the way up - but where was that seen & measurable ? - because if that's what happens then we should see a change in velocities & Ke's that is not proportional etc.

Stripping away the more complex view & applying Ockham's razor the simplest view will usually suffice, if it adequately explains what we observe - in this case that at any height the Pe lost equals the Ke gained i.e. a direct trade-off one for one.

My view is that rather than look for Energy from a field, in order to find a way to produce a mechanical OU machine, that I would closely look at Newton's Laws to see if there were any situations where they do not hold - what I mean is his Laws may not encompass every situation or physical relationship & it may be one of those situations, if found & identified, that allows a way forward to the goal of mechanical OU - then you'd have the small task of explaining what you found within the greater Laws of Thermodynamics [of which Newton's Laws are a subset, as is SR & GR], & that may take a bit of thought & time to work thru.