Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[fletcher]

Should anyone ever discover a means to break the conservative nature of gravity, they would not need new terms to describe what they would have found.  We already have appropriate terminology.  What would require explanation are the circumstances under which non conservative behavior can be observed.  So, no there is no: "he of course must throw in newly minted terms".

Well I beg to differ Mark - I'd like to see the terminology used & the reconciliation attempt between Work & Energy for Input & Output IF gravity was ever shown to be non-conservative in a Gravity Only mechanical device that did external work & was self sustaining.

Of course, we do know of non-conservative forces like friction, but no one ever claimed to have a self sustaining device run by harnessing friction.

The point being that a force x displacement equals Work [energy] - and we know that a constant acceleration applied to a mass results in that object having kinetic energy equivalent to the force times displacement equation - for a force to be non-conservative that same object with the same force applied over the same distance would acquire more or lesser Ke, without considering ordinary system losses to frictions etc.

[MarkE]

Well I beg to differ Mark - I'd like to see the terminology used & the reconciliation attempt between Work & Energy for Input & Output IF gravity was ever shown to be non-conservative in a Gravity Only mechanical device that did external work & was self sustaining.

Let us suppose that such a thing were possible:  Work and energy would not change their meanings.  Gravity would not change its meaning.  And certainly conservative would not need a new meaning.  What would be needed is an explanation of the conditions under which a gravitational field is not conservative.  Would objects have to travel at some super high or low speed?  Would two bodies have to have some extremely large mass separated by some small distance, etc, etc.

Of course, we do know of non-conservative forces like friction, but no one ever claimed to have a self sustaining device run by harnessing friction.

The frauds at Steorn came very close to making claims like that using magnetic viscosity instead of friction.

The point being that a force x displacement equals Work [energy]

You may mean:  integral of F*ds. Only in the special case where where F is constant over and in the direction of the path is F*S the the same as the integral of F*ds which is work.

- and we know that a constant acceleration applied to a mass results in that object having kinetic energy equivalent to the force times displacement equation

We know Netown's Second Law:  F=mA.  Again, direction of the force and direction of acceleration matter.  A satellite accelerates constantly, and is subjected to force constantly, but for practical purposes, no energy is expended.

- for a force to be non-conservative that same object with the same force applied over the same distance would acquire more or lesser Ke, without considering ordinary system losses to frictions etc.

Forces are not conservative.  The gravitational field is conservative.  The force on a 10lb weight is not the force on a 20lb weight.

[Marsing]

It seem you suggest that gravity is just like pi,
here g is not always have the same value,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

[MarkE]

It seem you suggest that gravity is just like pi,
here g is not always have the same value,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

Then you infer wrong.

[Marsing]

Then you infer wrong

Then you infer wrong too   ,