Is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

[brian334]

So far no one has offered any proof that gravity is not a energy source.
Because gravity makes things move it is a energy source. In the process of making things move gravity might need to work with other energy sources, but so what, is that against some law?

[Omnibus]

So far no one has offered any proof that gravity is not a energy source.
Because gravity makes things move it is a energy source. In the process of making things move gravity might need to work with other energy sources, but so what, is that against some law?

As it was amply explained, there cannot be a proof of that kind because force is not energy. Also, it was explained that gravity by itself does not make things move. In addition to gravity there should be a construction that would ensure spontaneous displacement under the force of gravity. So, two things in combination, not one, as you understand it, make things move. Therefore, energy (just one thing) all by itself is not an energy source and can never be proved to be an energy source.

[brian334]

No energy source acts alone, not wind, solar, oil, you name it all energy sources work with other energy sources.

[ResinRat2]

OK, last chance for RR2@ on this one.

If my hand is pushing a mass straight upward, the force of my hand is giving the mass a momentum. If I suddenly stop my hand the momentum given to the mass may allow it to leave my hand upward, but this momentum is quickly lost because gravity is influencing the mass to accelerate negatively, causing the mass' verticle velocity to decelerate to zero. The height the mass has gained over my hand was due to the force that my hand used to push it upward. There is no violation of CoE. All the energy came from my hand.

Now the mass, suspended in the air at zero verticle velocity (and it must be at zero verticle velocity at this point), begins to fall due to gravity's influence on the mass.

There is no violation of CoE. All energy has been accounted for and conserved.

Does this describe the motion you say violates CoE?

[Omnibus]

OK, last chance for RR2@ on this one.

If my hand is pushing a mass straight upward, the force of my hand is giving the mass a momentum. If I suddenly stop my hand the momentum given to the mass may allow it to leave my hand upward, but this momentum is quickly lost because gravity is influencing the mass to accelerate negatively, causing the mass' verticle velocity to decelerate to zero. The height the mass has gained over my hand was due to the force that my hand used to push it upward. There is no violation of CoE. All the energy came from my hand.

Now the mass, suspended in the air at zero verticle velocity (and it must be at zero verticle velocity at this point), begins to fall due to gravity's influence on the mass.

There is no violation of CoE. All energy has been accounted for and conserved.

Does this describe the motion you say violates CoE?

No, it doesn't. Like I said, the energy balance subject to study is only the energy balance of the object lifted, not how much energy you have spent lifting it. The energy of your hand doesn't play a role in the energy balance which is explored with regard to CoE. Only energy of the object matters and nothing else. Thus, in order for the CoE to be obeyed the energy of the object along the closed loop A-B-A (where A is on the ground, B is at height h) must be zero. It, however, isn't, as I explained.