Is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

[tak22]

Omnibus,

Simplifying the example, then anything that falls by your definition violates CoE? Because rolling down a hill is just falling with a lot of friction.

tak

[ResinRat2]

I hate to get in the middle of a cat fight but will both Mr. Rat and omnibus stick to the topic.

Sorry brian, I will be leaving this thread after this question. Sorry. Thanks.

[Omnibus]

Omnibus,

Simplifying the example, then anything that falls by your definition violates CoE? Because rolling down a hill is just falling with a lot of friction.

tak

No, friction doesn't lead to violation of Coe. It is just one of the ways of dissipation of the mgh.

[Omnibus]

OK Omnibus, now please bear with me I have one more question.

If this same car was not out of gas, and drove to the top of the same hill, then at the top it turned off its engine and coasted down, would that be a violation of CoE by your definition. (without stopping at any time during this example).

Again, I am just trying to clarify what you mean.

Thanks

RR2

Yes, CoE will be violated. Same explanation as before. It doesn't matter whether or not hand brought it to the top, gas or it was brought there by any other means. The energy balance of the car itself will be in violation of CoE -- on its going down it can only recover the mgh part, not the lost kinetic energy when brought to the top.

The topic of the thread is long exhausted and the question was answered. We're discussing something related to it.

[ResinRat2]

Thank you.

RR2