Is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

[Omnibus]

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.

Noting first that SR and GR are absolutely not a subset of the laws of thermodynamics. SR and GR are epitome of sheer stupidity, they are not even theories, so leave that nonsense alone. As for Newton's theory, yes theory, it is also wanting in terms of a full description of motion. Like I said, it it useful for certain practical purposes. It isn't incorrect but upon deeper consideration it is obviously limited.

P.S. There's a fire drill in the library so I gotta go. May add something later.

[fletcher]

If you think Newton's Laws are limited or flawed, then the task for you is to identify the deficiencies with practical demonstrations - then fit your new & more full explanations [yet to become Laws if you like], if you are able, into Thermodynamics which umbrellas all physics disciplines.

SR & GR are theories, but then so is quantum mechanics - we are dealing with the macro physical [what we can see] at the earth's surface - that is contained within Thermodynamics.

That task is not only for you omnibus but you are the most vocal about your findings.

[Omnibus]

If you think Newton's Laws are limited or flawed, then the task for you is to identify the deficiencies with practical demonstrations - then fit your new & more full explanations [yet to become Laws if you like], if you are able, into Thermodynamics which umbrellas all physics disciplines.

SR & GR are theories, but then so is quantum mechanics - we are dealing with the macro physical [what we can see] at the earth's surface - that is contained within Thermodynamics.

That task is not only for you omnibus but you are the most vocal about your findings.

No, like I said SR and GR don't qualify as theories. Nonsense doesn't qualify as theory. SR and GR based on SR are nonsense because they are based on internal contradictions. Quantum mechanics is a separate deal. It has to be perfected but it is a legitimate theory.

As for classical mechanics, I've shown already that its most basic equations -- Hamilton's equations -- are at odds with CoE. Newton's laws follow from Hamilton's equations. Also, as I've pointed out repeatedly, you don't need experiments to prove that violation of CoE is inherent in the standard theory. That is evident purely theoretically. Further, like I said, violation of CoE is already proven experimentally. Showing self-sustaining device isn't the necessary condition to show CoE is violated. There is scientific method which proves this violation and we will not destroy science because certain parties want, for purely psychological, political and all kinds of extraneous to science, reasons, to see a self-sustaining device in order to admit CoE can be violated.

[brian334]

lets stay on topic.

[Omnibus]

lets stay on topic.

What topic? The topic of the thread has already been exhausted.