Overunity.com Archives

The purpose of this post is to discuss weather or not there is proof gravity can not be used as a energy source.

Gravity cannot be used as an energy source because gravity isn't energy to begin with. It's like asking to discuss weather or not there is proof that apples can not be considered oranges or better yet that apples cannot be considered a railroad.

Gravity makes things move. Gasoline in a internal combustion engine makes things move. Gasoline is a form of energy. Because gravity has the ability to make things move it to is a form of energy.

How is gravity acting on an apple, sitting still on a table, making it move?

The earth spins, things on the earth are held on earth by gravity.
Without the work gravity does on things on earth, things on earth would fly off in a tangent.

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
The purpose of this post is to discuss weather or not there is proof gravity can not be used as a energy source.

It is prooven without doubt that gravity alone cannot be used as a energy source.

Vidar

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
The earth spins, things on the earth are held on earth by gravity.
Without the work gravity does on things on earth, things on earth would fly off in a tangent.

Gravity doesn't do work on things that stand still on earth. Gravity doesn't do work on an apple standing still on a table.

Gravity alone cannot be an energy source not because it has been proven without a doubt that it cannot do so. Nothing like this needs to be proven at all. Simply, gravity isn't energy. Period.

Post your proof. Lets chat about it.

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
The earth spins, things on the earth are held on earth by gravity.
Without the work gravity does on things on earth, things on earth would fly off in a tangent.

Work are done ONLY if a gravitional force are able to move an object into another potential energy level.
Work are also ONLY done if an object has changed its position in line with the gravitional field. Moving an object from A to B, angular to a gravitional field, does in sum not require work because the altitude are not changed. What work we spent to accelerate the object are taken back when deaccelerating it into a stop at point B.

Vidar

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 04:55:32 PM
Post your proof. Lets chat about it.

Like I said, there's no need to prove apples are not a railroad. So, no need to talk about that.

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 04:55:32 PM
Post your proof. Lets chat about it.

Here is a proof you can do on your desktop:
Place a pencil on your desktop. Look at it for a very long time. Does it move? Did it suddenly jump upon a shelf? No, I didn't think so. That is your proof that gravity cannot be used as an energy source - because, as Omnibus also said, gravity are not energy.

I want to stay on topic.
Is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

The pencil on my desk is moving at speeds we will never understand.
The earth spins, the galaxy expands, the pencil is moving.

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 05:07:54 PM
I want to stay on topic.
Is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

Stay on what topic? That there is no prrof that apples are a railroad? The case is closed, don't you understand?

I will give it a day or two to see if anybody can prove gravity can not be a energy source. Free speech is a good thing- gold shines and shi t stinks.

You may keep it as long as you wish but the truth won't change. All the free speech in the world, obeying reason and scientific argument, will tell you that the very essence of force, as it is defined, is not energy and therefore needs no proof it's different.

@all,

This has to do with the physics of metric fields. A gravitational metric field is
how the universe computes how much gravitation potential energy an object
has and it has the responsibility to covert gravitational potential energy into
(dynamic) energy. These are two different things. The universe uses quaternion
math calculations for doing this. The question is for any complex situation
is; “Can the quaterians be computationally overloaded?” causing the real root
solution of the equation to not match up with the COE conservation-of-energy
solution. If so the universe might “select wrong” when asked to compute complex
situations and it may even be possible to have all solutions to the quaterians be
in violation with COE. This should be study-able mathematically. This overloading
would be expected to occur during cross product operation between two different
classes of metric fields like magnetic and gravitational.

I expect that COE was accepted using only simple classes of experiments as models
and that perhaps more complex situations (like double acting pendulums) should
have been studied. Also there are not many classes of metric fields to study and
they may not have had magnetic systems with sufficiently high magnetic energy
for doing valid experiments using cross field experiments. Behavior of magnets
was apparently used as suggestion for some of Newton questions about gravity.
So I don’t think this is an irrelevant subject and may still be an open question.

“I think this points out the we should study the universe in askance through
scientific experiments rather then having humans attempt to dictate the
creator’s design decisions.”

One could see a potential energy to dynamical energy converter screwing up
because the potential energy metric field is the only way the universe knows
how much p. energy is left. There would be no cross checks to stop energy
errors from continuing to occur if one did.

:S:MrkSCoffman

Some people post things here that do not make any sense.

I have already shown in several instances that violation of CoE is inherent in the standard theoretical physics but has been missed. No need for quaternions and other complex constructs. This has nothing to do, however, with the question at hand which is well understood and needs no further discussion.

I asked a simple question, is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
I asked a simple question, is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

You asked a simple question and got the answer you were looking for. What else do you need?

Mostly I would like to discuss the issues,

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 06:28:37 PM
Mostly I would like to discuss the issues, but I have to point out, some people that post here are assholes.

What issues? That force is not energy? This is not an issue that needs to be discussed. You were told that and if you continue insisting you are one of those fitting your last characterization.

If you have other issues you feel need discussion just spell them out.

Can you prove what you say? Can you prove gravity does not make things move? And if gravity makes things move it is a source of energy.

Quote from: brian334 on February 07, 2011, 06:46:55 PM
Can you prove what you say? Can you prove gravity does not make things move? And if gravity makes things move it is a source of energy.

I've proved it already -- put an apple on your kitchen table and let it stay there. Gravity acts on it and yet it doesn't move, correct? Energy only appears when there's also displacement under the action of gravity. So, to have energy you have to have two things -- displacement and force (gravity). Only gravity isn't enough to have energy. Gravity is not energy and therefore cannot be a source of energy.

The enormous energy of Niagara Falls has long been recognized as a great source of hydroelectric power.    Gravity can be leveraged and used to create electrical power realizing the stored potential energy of water behind a dam.   So to answer the question, there is proof that gravity is being used as an energy source.   The rest of the discussion is just a matter of semantics.   The actual real source of the energy comes from our sun and the water cycle.   

Bill

Quote from: maw2432 on February 07, 2011, 07:06:44 PM
The enormous energy of Niagara Falls has long been recognized as a great source of hydroelectric power.    Gravity can be leveraged and used to create electrical power realizing the stored potential energy of water behind a dam.   So to answer the question, there is proof that gravity is being used as an energy source.   The rest of the discussion is just a matter of semantics. 

Bill

Do you not recognize in your Niagara falls example the two elements -- force (gravity) and displacement -- I pointed out to you, which characterize energy? Gravity acting on still water, even if that water stands still at a height thus having potential energy, does no work. For gravity to do work conditions must be ensured for the second element -- displacement -- to come into play. Gravity itself isn't enough to produce energy. Gravity isn't energy. This isn't semantics but is the essence of this problem.

For MSCOFFMAN

i have been a daily visitor of this forum for several years and this is
my 1st time to reply to any topic. I really like the way that you explained that it might take at least 2 different totally separate systems in conjunction to make a gravity engine self sustaining.

Since everything starts as an idea 1st, I am still wondering ,why out of all the ideas that are discussed daily, there has never been one reference to a practical idea that I have had for some time now.

With most ideas that I have seen there is always some problem to
overcome having to do with friction,levers,ramps,shifting weights,and etc.

My idea has to do with continuous gravitational fuel with a small amount of energy needed to return the fuel to its starting point.

My reason for replying to you is that I think you are the most fair minded on the forum.I think now is the time to put this idea into a real world project.If interested, please email me cdglobalprojects@gmail.com

Quote from: camelherder49 on February 07, 2011, 08:37:54 PM
For MSCOFFMAN

i have been a daily visitor of this forum for several years and this is
my 1st time to reply to any topic. I really like the way that you explained that it might take at least 2 different totally separate systems in conjunction to make a gravity engine self sustaining.

Since everything starts as an idea 1st, I am still wondering ,why out of all the ideas that are discussed daily, there has never been one reference to a practical idea that I have had for some time now.

With most ideas that I have seen there is always some problem to
overcome having to do with friction,levers,ramps,shifting weights,and etc.

My idea has to do with continuous gravitational fuel with a small amount of energy needed to return the fuel to its starting point.

My reason for replying to you is that I think you are the most fair minded on the forum.I think now is the time to put this idea into a real world project.If interested, please email me cdglobalprojects@gmail.com

What gravitational fuel? It was explained that gravity is not energy and therefore cannot constitute fuel to be spent as energy supply. That is nonsense and should be nipped in the bud from your first posting.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 07, 2011, 07:14:22 PM
Do you not recognize in your Niagara falls example the two elements -- force (gravity) and displacement -- I pointed out to you, which characterize energy? Gravity acting on still water, even if that water stands still at a height thus having potential energy, does no work. For gravity to do work conditions must be ensured for the second element -- displacement -- to come into play. Gravity itself isn't enough to produce energy. Gravity isn't energy. This isn't semantics but is the essence of this problem.

Just for the sake of argument let's assume for a minute that gravity did not exist.  Or that gravity had zero force and did not cause an object to fall to the ground.  Having taken gravity out of the equation what will happen now with all that water at Niagra Falls?  We could call it 'No Falls' and No Electricity.  And no work being done with the electricity because there is no electromotive force.  It would seem gravity can cause work to be done although in this case it is just capturing the energy the Sun created when it raised water from the ocean to the air which then rains down and once again falls down the river until it reaches Niagra Falls.  So we are using gravity to do work as an object goes from a higher to a lower energy state.  So I say it is semantics as to whether you consider gravity a 'source'.  I say it is a source for energy although ultimately it is the Sun.  You could say water is the source of energy but without gravity it would not be able to turn turbines to generate power.  Is any one thing a true energy source or does it take a combination of things to produce energy?  I'm actually assuming the OP is asking the question to decide if a gravity device can be built to produce usable energy.  I may be wrong but if that is the case then I say yes it can if combined with other natural forces.  I don't recall the name of the device or the inventor at the moment but there is a person selling a device which uses a combination of gravity in air and buoyancy in liquid (counter forces) to generate power.  He has a web site and it has been posted around here.  So if that is the OP's intention in this question I would say yes.  Otherwise I say it's just semantics. 
   

Undoubtedly. You're quite right but never forget "combination of things to produce energy". Like I said, combination of force and displacement. That's not at all semantics but is the very essence of things, as I noted already. If you have this in mind then, yes, gravity, provided also there's a construction ensuring spontaneous displacement, can produce energy. Gravity all by itself isn't energy but given the proper conditions to induce displacement of a body, gravity can do work.

I was looking for the invention I mentioned in my last post about gravity and buoyancy.  I haven't found it yet but found this very interesting device at this web site.  I've never seen this before but it has patents and claims quite a lot using just gravity in what appears to be a very complex sort of Bessler's wheel.
http://www.karragreenenergy.com/electricity.html

Yeah, I've seen that couple of years ago and that's one of the presentations that has really fascinated me only to, sadly, find it has gone into oblivion. I think it was an Armenian invention. So, look what we've got -- Bob Kostoff, Aldo Costa, Sjack Abeling, that Armenian one with claims for self-sustaining run, not to mention Veljko Milkovic or that latest Gravitational Energy Corp. huge one with the 18,000lb bob. And yet, the world is not only hesitant but is ignoring outright this most revolutionary way of producing energy. Who's to blame do you think?

I think that one listed Syria as the country origin.  Here is the other one I was referring to:
http://sustainablepowerstation.com/

Ultimately I would say mainstream scientists hold a lot of the blame since investors hesitate on anything not following the traditional laws they have written.  I do believe though that thanks to the Internet the snail pace at which traditional science moves in upgrading it's theories may begin to change as an overwhelming amount of evidence becomes so much easier to find, observe and replicate.

Both names, that in Syria and the other in Australia are Armenian. I can only guess they did what Kapanadze is trying to do -- look for opportunities outside of their countries thinking it would be different. It isn't. Probably only worse.

As for who's to blame, I don't think it's only the mainstream. The participants in the OU movement, many of them, are mostly to blame. The secrecy, games, pipe dreams of riches and outright fraud. All this mixture harms the movement to no end. I wonder if that karra motor couldn't be sized down to fit a lab table for a demonstration at universities. Yildiz is the closest to that but you see how secretive he is too, only allowing partial inspection of the device. It could be that these folks are just not certain in what they're showing but want very much financing.

So far no one has offered any proof that gravity all by itself can not be a energy source.

Quote from: brian334 on February 08, 2011, 06:36:03 AM
So far no one has offered any proof that gravity all by itself can not be a energy source.

Funny you should continue this after so much explanation. Are you one of those who just don't get it?

If a weight is resting on the ground and I lift it to a height of 10 ft. I have performed work to get it to that height. If I then release it and allow it to drop back down to the ground again the total displacement (from its original height on the ground) is zero. Therefore, by definition, the net amount of work is zero.

All you are doing is reversing the process if you want to use gravity as an energy source. You need to lift something to a higher elevation to create the potential energy. When you release it to gain your energy you again return to your original elevation and the amount of work is zero.

This is why gravity cannot give you back more energy than you put in. This is why you cannot run a motor off of gravity. The most you get back is what you put in (assuming 100% efficiency.)

I can't think of any simpler way to explain it.

RR2

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 08, 2011, 12:01:29 PM
If a weight is resting on the ground and I lift it to a height of 10 ft. I have performed work to get it to that height. If I then release it and allow it to drop back down to the ground again the total displacement (from its original height on the ground) is zero. Therefore, by definition, the net amount of work is zero.

All you are doing is reversing the process if you want to use gravity as an energy source. You need to lift something to a higher elevation to create the potential energy. When you release it to gain your energy you again return to your original elevation and the amount of work is zero.

This is why gravity cannot give you back more energy than you put in. This is why you cannot run a motor off of gravity. The most you get back is what you put in (assuming 100% efficiency.)

I can't think of any simpler way to explain it.

RR2

You may think you have explained it but you haven't. When you're lifting a thing above ground at certain height that thing not only has potential energy but also kinetic energy. If you leave that thing at rest at that height the upon letting it go back to the ground it only gives off energy equal to its potential energy. Therefore, the balance you're talking about isn't at all there.

Another example is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded# Unlike what is seen in the vid, if the weight is attached directly at the rim the same gravitational potential energy won't be enough for even one full turn. In the vid that same potential energy causes almost three turns.

And yet another example, CoE which you invoke with your example contradicts the most fundamental equations of theoretical mechanics -- the Hamilton equations -- as I have shown.

Of course, the above has nothing to do with confusing force with energy as is the topic at hand.

Ok, I should have said that the weight was lifted infinitely slowly so as not to instill a velocity (Kinetic Energy) to the weight.

RR2

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 08, 2011, 12:47:17 PM
Ok, I should have said that the weight was lifted infinitely slowly so as not to instill a velocity (Kinetic Energy) to the weight.

RR2

That's fine but in reality the velocity of lifting is finite. So, CoE goes, right?

I don't understand the point of that. The velocity of lifting does not come from gravity, it is instilled into the weight by the force that is used to lift it. Once the weight is in motion downward then gravity gives it momentum, yet this momentum is lost on the way upward again. So there is no net gain in energy.

In order to complete the circle again, more energy must be supplied to push the weight upward again.

Again, no net gain. Only loss. This is how I understand it works.

Sorry, Omnibus, what do you think I am missing here?

Mr. Rat,
Your example is to limited to prove gravity can not be used as a energy source.
But at least your on the right page.

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 08, 2011, 02:03:48 PM
I don't understand the point of that. The velocity of lifting does not come from gravity, it is instilled into the weight by the force that is used lift it. Once the weight is in motion downward then gravity gives it momentum, yet this momentum is lost on the way upward again. So there is no net gain in energy.

In order to complete the circle again, more energy must be supplied to push the weight upward again.

Again, no net gain. Only loss. This is how I understand it works.

Sorry, Omnibus, what do you think I am missing here?

The point is the following: thermodynamics only considers the energy of the ball itself, that is, how much energy a ball has at a given moment. When lifting the ball at the moment it reaches height h it not only has energy of position mgh but also has kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2. The ball has it, right? Thus, the ball at height h in this case has energy mgh + (1/2)mv^2. If we decide to keep it at height h, have it there at rest, the ball now will only have energy mgh and if we then let it go back to the floor only that energy mgh will be recovered. The kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 will not be recovered. There is nothing that can comensate for the kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 which was lost by the ball. That's a violation of CoE in purely classical terms, inherent in theoretical mechanics. Is that clearer?

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 02:21:46 PM
The point is the following: thermodynamics only considers the energy of the ball itself, that is, how much energy a ball has at a given moment. When lifting the ball at the moment it reaches height h it not only has energy of position mgh but also has kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2. The ball has it, right? Thus, the ball at height h in this case has energy mgh + (1/2)mv^2. If we decide to keep it at height h, have it there at rest, the ball now will only have energy mgh and if we then let it go back to the floor only that energy mgh will be recovered. The kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 will not be recovered. There is nothing that can comensate for the kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 which was lost by the ball. That's a violation of CoE in purely classical terms, inherent in theoretical mechanics. Is that clearer?

I'm not sure for how long will people here tolerate such a BS.

It's quite obvious that this OmniBus doesn't have a clue what he's been preaching here and elsewhere, for years.
It's sad...

Obviously what is not to be tolerated by people is gibberish as that in the above post. That person impudently continues to clutter the thread with his nonsense and someone should put a stop to that.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 02:21:46 PM
The kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 will not be recovered. There is nothing that can comensate for the kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 which was lost by the ball. That's a violation of CoE in purely classical terms, inherent in theoretical mechanics. Is that clearer?

OK, if you can picture the ball raising up. This time I will give it some velocity while it's in your hand. As long as your hand is pushing it at a specific velocity it has that momentum; but as soon as your hand places the ball down on say a shelf at a higher level, the momentum is gone because the hand no longer is pushing it at a velocity. This doesn't violate the laws of physics at all. Your hand was the force that kept the momentum going. Now the force is gone.

The topic is - is there proof gravity can not be a energy source.

Again, it is the energy of the ball itself (not of anything else, hand and such) that is considered when pondering about CoE. Undoubtedly, when you're lifting the ball at bring it to height h the ball does have potential energy there (at height h) equal to mgh but it has also a kinetic energy there (at height h) equal to (1/2)mv^2. That is undeniable. The ball itself, not anything else, has under these conditions energy mgh + (1/2)mv^2 the that height h. Now, you hve decided ahead of time that when you lift the ball at height h you'll freeze your hand there (at height h). It is indeed what you are doing but, again, we're interested in what happens with the energy of the ball frozen at that height h. Now, being frozen at height h has no more kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 simply bevause you (mind you, 'you') have stopped it from moving. Thus, the ball at height h only has energy mgh to recover. The kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 is lost. It cannot be recovered. CoE is violated.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 04:29:18 PM
Again, it is the energy of the ball itself (not of anything else, hand and such) that is considered when pondering about CoE. Undoubtedly, when you're lifting the ball at bring it to height h the ball does have potential energy there (at height h) equal to mgh but it has also a kinetic energy there (at height h) equal to (1/2)mv^2. That is undeniable. The ball itself, not anything else, has under these conditions energy mgh + (1/2)mv^2 the that height h. Now, you hve decided ahead of time that when you lift the ball at height h you'll freeze your hand there (at height h). It is indeed what you are doing but, again, we're interested in what happens with the energy of the ball frozen at that height h. Now, being frozen at height h has no more kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 simply bevause you (mind you, 'you') have stopped it from moving. Thus, the ball at height h only has energy mgh to recover. The kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 is lost. It cannot be recovered. CoE is violated.

This is - simply, unbelievable.

Try to get some help, please.

Isn't there someone to take care of the spammer @spinn_MP? His impudent disruptions of multiple threads with sheer gibberish should be noticed by someone who can free the forum from nuisance such as @spinner_MP's clutter.

Quote from: brian334 on February 08, 2011, 04:27:12 PM
The topic is - is there proof gravity can not be a energy source.

That question was already answered. Gravity is not an energy source by definition. Gravity is force. Force is not an energy source.

Brian33 .. Force = mass x acceleration.

Gravity Force = mass x 'g' ... where 'g' ... = acceleration due to gravity, approx 9.80665 Newton's.

So, gravity is an acceleration, or a field potential, where an object with mass within the field will experience an acceleration, providing it has Potential Energy [Pe = mgh] of Position & is free to displace

This has already been explained a numner of times and therefore it need not be repeated over and over again in bulkier and bulkier posts.

One thing, however, shouldn't happen. No further confusion should be instilled in his already confused enough wqy of understanding elementary physics, namely, acceleration should not be equated with gravity. Gravity is not acceleration as any force is not acceleration. If it were acceleration then we will not have the use for the term 'force' or 'gravity' for that matter. And , it is obvious that acceleration is not a substitute for gravity because an apple at rest on a table is acted upon by gravity but it isn't observed to experience acceleration. The most one can say if one wants to mention acceleration and force in the same sentence is to say that when a nody of mass m is moving its acceleration can be expressed as the ratio F/m. That, however, is trivial and one need not dwell into trivialities to overexplain a simple question (with the aim to appear very learned) thus confusing the student.

Brian33 - an apple resting on a table IS experiencing a constant acceleration due to gravity of 9.80665 N's [assumes at earths surface].

It is just unable to move vertically, but the acceleration 'g' is there always - since it can't move vertically it doesn't have any Ke or ability to do Work - it does have Pe but that is unrealised until the table is moved out of the way etc & it can move downward.

N.B.1. these fundamental equations are based on Newton's Laws & Newton mechanics & hold true for 100% of the time we discuss things like masses on wheels etc.

N.B.2. note that when discussing Gravity Force we have to introduce MASS into the equation & have it multiplied by acceleration to get Newton's of Force.

e.g. to find the number of N's that a 10 kg mass has we use ... F = m x a where a = 'g'

therefore m = F/a  => 10 kg = F / 9.80665 = 98.0665 N's.

As an analogy, there is a way to return the gravitational fuel (water)
in the instance of Niagara Falls, back to its' original starting position
using far less input energy than is being created, with a pseudo "sun" process handling the water cycle circulation.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 06:12:47 PM
This has already been explained a numner of times and therefore it need not be repeated over and over again in bulkier and bulkier posts.

One thing, however, shouldn't happen. No further confusion should be instilled in his already confused enough wqy of understanding elementary physics, .. snip ..

We agree on one thing omnibust.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 04:53:00 PM
That question was already answered. Gravity is not an energy source by definition. Gravity is force. Force is not an energy source.

4 statements above, 2 false assertions due to ignorance or stupidity.

There is energy in the gravity field. Gravity is not force.
When two bodies attract one each other, and accelerate, energy is taken from their gravitational field, whose energy density decreases while the field redistributes in space, changing of topology due to the bodies movement.
Gravity field energy density is: D = g²/(8*pi*G).
It is the same as the energy density of an electric field (1/2*epsilon0 * E²) or magnetic field (1/(2*mu0) * B²). It is a general law when fields are the source of 1/r² forces.

Quote from: brian334 on February 08, 2011, 04:27:12 PM
The topic is - is there proof gravity can not be a energy source.

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 09, 2011, 04:11:25 AM
4 statements above, 2 false assertions due to ignorance or stupidity.

There is energy in the gravity field. Gravity is not force.
When two bodies attract one each other, and accelerate, energy is taken from their gravitational field, whose energy density decreases while the field redistributes in space, changing of topology due to the bodies movement.
Gravity field energy density is: D = g²/(8*pi*G).
It is the same as the energy density of an electric field (1/2*epsilon0 * E²) or magnetic field (1/(2*mu0) * B²). It is a general law when fields are the source of 1/r² forces.

So the question is answered.



                                        ************  THE END  ************

                                           (PLEASE let it be the end of this thread)

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 09, 2011, 04:11:25 AM
4 statements above, 2 false assertions due to ignorance or stupidity. 

There is energy in the gravity field. Gravity is not force.
When two bodies attract one each other, and accelerate, energy is taken from their gravitational field, whose energy density decreases while the field redistributes in space, changing of topology due to the bodies movement.
Gravity field energy density is: D = g²/(8*pi*G). 
It is the same as the energy density of an electric field (1/2*epsilon0 * E²) or magnetic field (1/(2*mu0) * B²). It is a general law when fields are the source of 1/r² forces.

Now the above is nothing short of sheer crap. There's a reason why I'm so adamant when telling off this confused element going by the handle @exnihiloest. His aggressive confusion and incompetence can be really damaging for people already confused enough to be pounced by another blind leading the blind.

The formuli above are akin to gravitational potential energy. The fact that a body in a gravitational field placed at rest at a given position in this field has gravitational potential energy does not at all mean that gravity is a source of energy. It is absolutely not true that a body at rest in a field of gravity does anything to the gravity, depleting it in some way. Nor does a body deplete gravity when moving under the action of that force. It has to be understood once and for all, there is potential energy connected with gravity (as with other fields detived from a potential) but gravity is not a source of energy, it is not a pool of energy which can be depletednto do work. Gravity is force which is different from energy and that force can do work provided it induces displacement of a body with mass. Therefore, not only there's no proof that gravity is a source of energy but such proof cannot even be sought for because energy and force are incompatible when trying to equate them.

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 09, 2011, 06:35:51 AM
So the question is answered.

a well-known proof is Hydroelectricity

look at the strong rain falling on the ground and you see the power

and look at the Gwatt of electricity produced ( approximately 20% of the world's electricity )

                                        ************  THE END  ************

                                           (PLEASE let it be the end of this thread)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity)

Quote from: tagor on February 09, 2011, 11:35:07 AM

a well-known proof is Hydroelectricity

look at the strong rain falling on the ground and you see the power

and look at the Gwatt of electricity produced ( approximately 20% of the world's electricity )

                                        ************  THE END  ************

                                           (PLEASE let it be the end of this thread)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity)

I thought it was over but I guess not.

The actual energy for this comes from the sun that evaporates the water and runs the weather cycle that brings in the rain and deposits the water at higher elevations so a waterfall can exist. So the energy is only indirectly produced from gravity.

Quote from: tagor on February 09, 2011, 11:35:07 AM
...
look at the strong rain falling on the ground and you see the power
...

It is not a proof. The solar energy is the primary source of rain: water evaporation, then condensation, fall on earth and the cycle continues. The energy of gravity is not concerned, it is balanced, the same mass of water that falls, had been raised before by the sun energy.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 11:01:56 AM
Now the above is nothing short of sheer crap. There's a reason why I'm so adamant when telling off this confused element going by the handle @exnihiloest. His aggressive confusion and incompetence can be really damaging for people already confused enough to be pounced by another blind leading the blind.

http://tinyurl.com/4h7n5pn

Quote
The formuli above are akin to gravitational potential energy. The fact that a body in a gravitational field placed at rest at a given position in this field has gravitational potential energy does not at all mean that gravity is a source of energy. It is absolutely not true that a body at rest in a field of gravity does anything to the gravity, depleting it in some way. Nor does a body deplete gravity when moving under the action of that force. It has to be understood once and for all, there is potential energy connected with gravity (as with other fields detived from a potential) but gravity is not a source of energy, it is not a pool of energy which can be depletednto do work. Gravity is force which is different from energy and that force can do work provided it induces displacement of a body with mass. Therefore, not only there's no proof that gravity is a source of energy but such proof cannot even be sought for because energy and force are incompatible when trying to equate them.

Blah blah blah, an act of faith asserted arbitrarily, not scientific because refutable elements are not provided. I don't discuss Coran sourats.

Of course the sun is the source of the energy but the sun lasts for billions of year, how long does something have to last to be able to be called perpetual motion. If you wait long enough eventually all atoms will fall apart and nothing is perpetual.   

Confusion and incompetens @exnihiloest calls science. What is there to refute when confusion in @exnihiloest is so blatant, as I already explained?

Quote from: fletcher on February 08, 2011, 05:41:39 PM
...
Does that make gravity Energy ? - No, it is an acceleration that needs a mass to be raised by expending Energy [Input Energy] from something else before it can give back that same Energy [Output Energy].
...

Hi Fletcher. I agree. Nevertheless there is an exchange of energy: the potential energy is stored in the gravitational field or recovered from it. This is not obvious because we always think about objects whose mass (and gravitational field) can be neglected when comparing to the mass of the earth.

This becomes obvious when we think of bodies of equal mass.
Suppose the universe with two identical planets far from one each other. Their gravitational field fills the whole space. Now they are attracted and accelerate toward one each other. When they are near from one each other, the gravitational field at about mid distance between them, is reduced or null because their gravity is of opposite direction. But at the same distance from each planet, it was strong when they were at their start point.

Thus:
At the start point, at near distance from the planets, there was a strong gravity field.
At the end point, in some areas of space there is a reduced field, even a null field (between the planets).
And energy has been obtained.
We can deduce from this case and from the analogy with electric or magnetic fields and their energy density, that the energy is conserved and has been exchanged between the field and the work done to move the bodies.
It is easy to calculate that the energy density of the gravitational field is g²/(8*pi*G), by the same methode as calculating the energy density of the electric field (1/2*epsilon0*E²) from the work to move between different potentials.

In other words the potential energy of bodies depends on the topology of the field in which they are placed. When they move, the field topology changes. When the movement produces energy, the field is globally lowered, what can be verified by integrating its energy density over the whole space:  the quantity of energy that it has lost is the same as the work which has been gained.
This applies in the context of Newton mechanics, not GR.

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 09, 2011, 03:27:09 PM
Hi Fletcher. I agree. Nevertheless there is an exchange of energy: the potential energy is stored in the gravitational field or recovered from it. This is not obvious because we always think about objects whose mass (and gravitational field) can be neglected when comparing to the mass of the earth.

This becomes obvious when we think of bodies of equal mass.
Suppose the universe with two identical planets far from one each other. Their gravitational field fills the whole space. Now they are attracted and accelerate toward one each other. When they are near from one each other, the gravitational field at about mid distance between them, is reduced or null because their gravity is of opposite direction. But at the same distance from each planet, it was strong when they were at their start point.

Thus:
At the start point, at near distance from the planets, there was a strong gravity field.
At the end point, in some areas of space there is a reduced field, even a null field (between the planets).
And energy has been obtained.
We can deduce from this case and from the analogy with electric or magnetic fields and their energy density, that the energy is conserved and has been exchanged between the field and the work done to move the bodies.
It is easy to calculate that the energy density of the gravitational field is g²/(8*pi*G), by the same methode as calculating the energy density of the electric field (1/2*epsilon0*E²) from the work to move between different potentials.

In other words the potential energy of bodies depends on the topology of the field in which they are placed. When they move, the field topology changes. When the movement produces energy, the field is globally lowered, what can be verified by integrating its energy density over the whole space:  the quantity of energy that it has lost is the same as the work which has been gained.
This applies in the context of Newton mechanics, not GR.

Another piece of total crap. The sorry individual @exnihioest will not stop spewing it, evidently. The gibberish that element is cluttering the thread with has to be nipped in the bud.

There's absolutely no evidence (and there can never be because of the very essence of the concept of fields)  of exchanging energy between bodies at rest with each other neither there is evidence for exchanging energy between stationary withe respect to each other electric charges. Like I said, all these formuli regarding electric and magnetic field are only concerning the potential to do work (consider a charged capacitor) and in no way prove that gravitational, electric or magnetic fields are energy sources. Like I said, it is absolutely not true that there's any exhausting of gravity acting between two stationary bodies of the same size. To assert the opposite is as unscientific as to claim that pigs can fly. As for the gravity formula give, that must be rejected out of hand because it has been "derived" at by one of the most non-scientific bs science has ever had to deal with.

Quote from: pinobot on February 09, 2011, 02:59:36 PM
Of course the sun is the source of the energy but the sun lasts for billions of year, how long does something have to last to be able to be called perpetual motion. If you wait long enough eventually all atoms will fall apart and nothing is perpetual.

I agree. The sun energy would be enough for humans if we could get it easily.
2/3 of the earth are oceans, so the surface of water that can be evaporated is enormous.
But if we want directly use the sun energy, we have to cover vast surfaces of the earth with panels. In the best case, the sun provides about 1KW/m². We must divide by 2 due to the alternating day/night. We must divide again by 1 to 1.5 depending on the regions, due to weather conditions. We finally must divide by 3 to 6 due to the solar panel efficiency. Therefore it is not satisfying to cover thousands of Km² of earth to get energy. It would be possible in space, but not now because of terrible technological problems.

It is absolutely not true that gravity is derived from Sun's energy or that work done under the action of force of gravity when inducing displacement has anything to do with the energy of the Sun. How long is such confusion going to govern this thread? Solar energy is a topic separate from energy obtained during displacent caused by gravity. Make no mistake about that.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 03:50:32 PM
Another piece of total crap. The sorry individual @exnihioest will not stop spewing it, evidently. The gibberish that element is cluttering the thread with has to be nipped in the bud.
...

http://tinyurl.com/4h7n5pn

A lack of around 20 IQ points separates Omninut from the most of the other participants. With such a gap, it is well known that communication is not possible.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 04:04:08 PM
It is absolutely not true that gravity is derived from Sun's energy
...

Completely crazy.   Nobody said that!  ::)
There is a very very big difference between what is said and what Omnibus "understands".

@exnihilosest's incompetence is rampant and the only recourse he has is ad hominem, as evident.

If nobody said that gravity is derived from Sun's energy then why Sun's energy is being discussed  in the context of the question posed here? Solar energy on the one hand and gravity on the other are incompatible in the present discussion. You don't need to spell out that there's connection. The very fact that Sun's energy is discussed in the present context is nothing but incompetence. Let alone giving as an argument a formula "related" to gravity which has no meaning whatsoever. How is an incompetent element such as @exnihiloest to know that said formula has no physical meaning? No way, of course. Like I said, his incompetence is rampant and to conceal that and appear learned he would slap any random formula he has heard of.

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.

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.

On the contrary, total disrespect for anybody claiming that field (gravitational in this case) is depleted of energy. Such crap must be nipped in the bud. There are too many confused souls around to allow an aggressive incompetent element such as @exnihiloest to muddle the matter even further. There are certain activities  by elements such as @nihiloest, in his trying to appear learned by blabbering about notions he has no clue about, that have to be confronted without apologies.

As for Newton's laws, they are also incomplete (especially the second law) if they should indeed be laws of motion. We saw directly the deficiency in Hamilton's equations in this respect. I showed them in my earlier posts -- Hamilton's equations directly contradict CoE. Of course, for basic engineering (practical) tasks these laws are useful even in their present form but they are wanting in a more rigorous analysis.

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.
Humans are never going to understand gravity at the basic level, the best we will ever be able to do is describe its effects.

Quote from: brian334 on February 09, 2011, 06:22:39 PM
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.
Humans are never going to understand gravity at the basic level, the best we will ever be able to do is describe its effects.

And, so you think you've proven with the above triviality that gravity is a form of energy? You haven't at all. Read carefully the exchange in this thread to understand why. Case is indeed closed but not with the conclusion that gravity is a form of energy.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 06:01:38 PM

As for Newton's laws, they are also incomplete (especially the second law) if they should indeed be laws of motion.

We saw directly the deficiency in Hamilton's equations in this respect. I showed them in my earlier posts -- Hamilton's equations directly contradict CoE.

Of course, for basic engineering (practical) tasks these laws are useful even in their present form but they are wanting in a more rigorous analysis.

hmmm .. a theory becomes a Law when it is 100% predictable & reliable, to that point in time - it remains a Law right up to the moment that someone demonstrates a circumstance where it no longer is 100% predictable & reliable - at that time it is knocked off its perch & relegated to something less than a Law [i.e. back to a theory] because it has been proven to not be 100% predictable - hopefully, it is immediately replaced by new 100% accurate LAWS !

Whilst you may think them incomplete Newton's Laws aren't called Newton's Theories for a reason.

As for Hamilton's Equations - I may have to leave that for another time.

Quote from: brian334 on February 09, 2011, 05:46:28 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: fletcher on February 09, 2011, 05:47:25 PM
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.

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 10, 2011, 04:45:08 AM
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.

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 10, 2011, 04:45:08 AM
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.

QuoteMy 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.

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.

Quote from: fletcher on February 10, 2011, 03:33:03 PM
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.

lets stay on topic.

Quote from: brian334 on February 10, 2011, 04:41:15 PM
lets stay on topic.

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

Quote from: brian334 on February 09, 2011, 06:22:39 PM
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.
Humans are never going to understand gravity at the basic level, the best we will ever be able to do is describe its effects.

Gravity are for any given object, just a force. The energy lies in the sun which heats up the water into steam. Steam rises and condense. The water droplets are now no longer a light gas, but a liquid. This liquid droplets are too heavy for the air to keep up there, so it falls down to the ground.
The energy here are 100% applied and released by the sun.

Further, we do not have to learn what gravity are "made of" if we already know what it does to objects we use to make gravity motors. We know by numberless of experiments that gravity are conservative - a constant force which cannot contribute to any gravity motor.

What we know is that gravity can slow down time. So there must be a relationship between time and gravity. Time are determined by the speed of light. If light can change direction, slow down, in the presence of a gravity field, there must be a relationship between light, time and gravity.

We know that the greater the gravity is, the more time slows down (Even the clocks in satelites which controlls our GPS systems are compensating for the difference in how fast time are going on earth versus time in space due to the difference in gravity. If not, our GPS would show 12 meters out of course every hour).
So what we might say, is that gravity, as a consequence of time going slower, or vica versa, gravity are a form of potential energy that is stored in mass. Gravity are probably time which is stored as mass. However, releasing 1g mass into pure energy, would be enough to power 1500 average housholds for one year. This means that there is a tremendous amounts of energy stored in mass. It takes the whole earth's mass to provide a relatively weak force as gravity on earth are.

Anyway. It is not important to know what gravity are "made of" as long we know what it does to objects. Describing gravity are just as useful as trying to save a drowning person by describing the water - what good does it do?

What I mean is, describing gravity will not change its nature - nor make gravity motors work. Because we base our experiments on gravity, with normal natural objects which is in presence of a gravity field.

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.
Gravity provides half the energy and does half the work in the cycle.

Sun light provides half the energy and does half the work in the cycle.

Gravity does the same amount of work and provides the same amount of energy as sun light.

Energy from gravity = energy from sunlight

Quote from: brian334 on February 10, 2011, 05:13:54 PM
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.
Gravity provides half the energy and does half the work in the cycle.

Sun light provides half the energy and does half the work in the cycle.

Gravity does the same amount of work and provides the same amount of energy as sun light.

Energy from gravity = energy from sunlight

Oh, c'mon, please.

Quote from: brian334 on February 10, 2011, 05:13:54 PM
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.
Gravity provides half the energy and does half the work in the cycle.

Sun light provides half the energy and does half the work in the cycle.

Gravity does the same amount of work and provides the same amount of energy as sun light.

Energy from gravity = energy from sunlight

The Sun provides the total work.
You forget that the work of gravity applies one time against the water raise, and another time when the water falls.
It is a classical problem. We have to provide an energy W=P*H to raise a weight P of water at an height H (sun energy) because the gravity exerts a work W=-P*H. And when the water falls under the action of gravity, we recover W=P*H. Thus the gravity provided -P*H + P*H = 0, and the usefull energy W=P*H is just the input from the sun.

Quote from: Low-Q on February 10, 2011, 05:09:14 PM
Gravity are for any given object, just a force.
...

Gravity is an acceleration, not a force. Its energy is stored in the gravity field around the masses, not in the mass: if the mass of a star disappeared, a body placed in its field at a distance d, would be always submitted to the star gravity during a time t=d/c after the event, due to the speed limit c which delays the field collapse at distant locations. Same thing as still receiving light from a far dead star. If the body was at 10 lightyears from the exploded star, it would feel the same gravity during 10 years after the star have disappeared. Bodies can fall in such a gravity field from phantom stars.
This means that gravity can exist without a mass, in the same manner that EM waves still exist without the electric charges that produced them in the past. Therefore energy that can be extracted from a body falling in a gravity field, is really coming from the field; it is a consequence of locality principle.

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 11, 2011, 07:16:35 AM
Gravity is an acceleration, not a force. Its energy is stored in the gravity field around the masses, not in the mass: if the mass of a star disappeared, a body placed in its field at a distance d, would be always submitted to the star gravity during a time t=d/c after the event, due to the speed limit c which delays the field collapse at distant locations. Same thing as still receiving light from a far dead star. If the body was at 10 lightyears from the exploded star, it would feel the same gravity during 10 years after the star have disappeared. Bodies can fall in such a gravity field from phantom stars.
This means that gravity can exist without a mass, in the same manner that EM waves still exist without the electric charges that produced them in the past. Therefore energy that can be extracted from a body falling in a gravity field, is really coming from the field; it is a consequence of locality principle.

The force are equivalent to the force provided at an acceleration of 9.81ms^2. Gravity are by definition not acceleration, but we call it gravitational acceleration. Because an object in free fall will accelerate at the given rate when constant force from the gravitational field are applied. Gravity are still a force. Acceleration per definition applies only to the accelerating object in free fall.

Anyway, gravity are not energy. It is constant, conservative, no change. Energy are only applied or released when an object change altitude. The energy applied on its way up, are exact the same as the released energy on its way down. That leaves gravity as a force, and the change in altitude leaves potential energy.

Vidar

Although the rest is correct this is incorrect, as I already explained:

QuoteThe energy applied on its way up, are exact the same as the released energy on its way down.

When a body is lifted at height h it not only has the potential energy mgh due to position but also has kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 due to the inevitable change of velocity when lifting it.  Now if the motion of the body is stopped at height h and the body is left at rest there the kinetic energy is lost (transformed into other energies, ultimately into heat) and the only energy that can be recovered in completing the loop is mgh. The energy balance is always performed on the energy of the body. Thus, there's violation of CoE even in this simple case.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 11, 2011, 11:21:39 AM
Although the rest is correct this is incorrect, as I already explained:

When a body is lifted at height h it not only has the potential energy mgh due to position but also has kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 due to the inevitable change of velocity when lifting it.  Now if the motion of the body is stopped at height h and the body is left at rest there the kinetic energy is lost (transformed into other energies, ultimately into heat) and the only energy that can be recovered in completing the loop is mgh. The energy balance is always performed on the energy of the body. Thus, there's violation of CoE even in this simple case.

Ouch.

So, every time I put a book on the shelf - if I do that quick enough - CoE is violated?
Nice.  :D

There really is no violation. When a mass is released at the top of a circular path, the only force applied on it is gravity downward.(assuming it is released at rest just past the top of the circle.) This gives the mass momentum up until the bottom of the circle. At that point the momentum begins to fall because gravity is now working against it. The mass will never reach the top of the circle because energy is lost from friction, etc. and the ball will stop, ending all momentum. All energy conserved and accounted for.

Unless energy is added from an outside source to allow the mass to complete the circle, there is no momentum enough to allow that to happen. No violation of CoE. Continual input of energy is needed to keep the motion going. No violation of CoE. The momentum will stop unless energy is continually applied to the mass. No violation again.

Maybe I am not clear. What are the starting parameters of your moving mass that allows it to violate CoE?

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 11, 2011, 12:17:15 PM
There really is no violation. When a mass is released at the top of a circular path, the only force applied on it is gravity downward.(assuming it is released at rest just past the top of the circle.) This gives the mass momentum up until the bottom of the circle. At that point the momentum begins to fall because gravity is now working against it. The mass will never reach the top of the circle because energy is lost from friction, etc. and the ball will stop, ending all momentum. All energy conserved and accounted for.

Unless energy is added from an outside source to allow the mass to complete the circle, there is no momentum enough to allow that to happen. No violation of CoE. Continual input of energy is needed to keep the motion going. No violation of CoE. The momentum will stop unless energy is continually applied to the mass. No violation again.

Maybe I am not clear. What are the starting parameters of your moving mass that allows it to violate CoE?

We're not talking here about circular motion (although violation of CoE can occur there as well). The violation at hand is when you have a body lying on the floor then lifted to height h, and then let it go on its own from height h back to the floor.

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?

Quote from: brian334 on February 11, 2011, 12:35:52 PM
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.

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

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?

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 11, 2011, 01:49:06 PM
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.

Mr. Rat,
I generally agree with ever thing you post, but to prove gravity is not a energy source a few limited examples will not due.
My definition of energy is the ability to do work, or the ability to make things move.
Gravity clearly can make things move.

So, Omnibus, I am trying to clarify what you mean by just the object.

If I were to take an automobile out of gas, and four strong men push it up a pretty steep hill for say a quarter of a mile to its top. Then these guys push it over the top of the hill and let it roll back down the other side (without stopping it at any time of course) then this is a violation of CoE in your definition?

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 11, 2011, 03:52:52 PM
So, Omnibus, I am trying to clearify what you mean by just the object.

If I were to take an automobile out of gas, and four strong men push it up a pretty steep hill for say a quarter of a mile to its top. Then these guys push it over the top of the hill and let it roll back down the other side (without stopping it at any time of course) then this is a violation of CoE in your definition?

Correct, it is a violation of CoE. At the top, because it can't be gotten there without moving it, that is, because of imparting velocity to it, the car will have both potential and kinetic energy. Now, once at rest at the top and then let go down the hill it will give back only the potential energy when reaches the foot of the hill. The kinetic energy will be lost. The energy balance along the closed loop ground-top-ground will be non-zero which is a violation of CoE.

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

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

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

Quote from: brian334 on February 11, 2011, 04:23:10 PM
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.

Quote from: tak22 on February 11, 2011, 04:23:32 PM
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.

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 11, 2011, 04:23:18 PM
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.

Thank you.

RR2

Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 11, 2011, 04:52:50 PM
Thank you.

RR2

To conclude this exchamge I just wanna mention that it is exactly such violations of CoE, inherent in the very basis of theoretical physics (recall also how Hamilton's equations which are the very backbone of all theoretical mechanics, violate CoE), that keep my interest in this field and make me certain that soon we will see the so much desired psychologically continuous violation of CoE in a working perpetuum mobile.

I agree this threat is exhausted, and no one offered any proof gravity is not a energy source.
I will conclude my participation in this thread with this simple statement.
Gravity makes things move therefore gravity is a energy source.
Thanks to all for chatting about this issue.
Brian334

It is no more of an energy source than a spring is. That is until gravity is manipulated at the atomic level.

Gravity a force that we supposedly measure and understand yet we lack the ability to manipulate it or even use this force to create energy... Gravity has an effect on all movement but movements adjacent to it seem to be easier to achieve. Gravity to me is a downward pressure while gravity seems to fluctuate in different areas "with no concrete reasoning as to why this occurs" I believe that the answer should be searched for to better understand gravity.

Things we should note:

- Magnets produce anti gravity like effects but are limited to short distance relative to the strength of the magnet.

- A magnet in a copper tube slows the effect of gravity

- High voltage seems to defy gravity in lifter testing but it is yet for me to determine weather this is true or is it the wires that become stiff and hold the object up....

- Space the vacuum of has zero gravity

- The more dense an piece of matter the stronger the gravitational force.

- Super dense matter can be exhibited in the form of black holes containing such a massive gravitational force it will not let light photons even escape its massive power.
"Yet they tell us gravity is a weak force... so wasn't the atom I say."

-infringer-

The only way to use gravity as a source of energy is by harnessing falling matter to move other matter, for example a water wheel, or by creating an imbalance condition, whereby one side of a rotating wheel is perpetually heavier than the other side.

Perhaps by using a spinning superconductor, an anti-gravity effect can allow for perpetual rotation of a wheel...

Quote from: Omnibus on February 11, 2011, 04:02:57 PM
Correct, it is a violation of CoE. At the top, because it can't be gotten there without moving it, that is, because of imparting velocity to it, the car will have both potential and kinetic energy. Now, once at rest at the top and then let go down the hill it will give back only the potential energy when reaches the foot of the hill. The kinetic energy will be lost. The energy balance along the closed loop ground-top-ground will be non-zero which is a violation of CoE.

This clearifies everything. Now I finally understand what your definition of violation of CoE is.
It's simply this: Your definition of CoE are different than my definition. Not strange I have been arguing against your theories all the time.
Good luck with your definition, and let's hope you one day are able to find the key to perpetual motion - based on your own definitions about violating CoE.

On the other hand, the car will remain on the bottom if no one pushes it up the hill... CoE are obeyed.

All the best.

Vidar

I don't know what your definition of violation of CoE is. Mine is what science requires.

Quote from: Low-Q on February 14, 2011, 10:07:22 AM
This clearifies everything. Now I finally understand what your definition of violation of CoE is.
It's simply this: Your definition of CoE are different than my definition. Not strange I have been arguing against your theories all the time.
Good luck with your definition, and let's hope you one day are able to find the key to perpetual motion - based on your own definitions about violating CoE.

On the other hand, the car will remain on the bottom if no one pushes it up the hill... CoE are obeyed.

All the best.

Vidar

Unfortunately, Omnibus's definition is not one that can ever result in a self running machine.

As far as Brian, the guy is an obvious troll.  He just asks questions in the dumbest way possible, and repeatedly attempts to invert the burden of proof (e.g.  "Prove to me that gravity cannot be used as energy!").

Brian, if you want energy from gravity so bad, prove to us that it is possible.  Show us the design for a gravity motor, and we can poke holes in your proof.

Why are you referring to this definition as 'Omnibus' definition'? The definition in question is what science requires, not I. Of course, the example with the car up and down the hill (placing of a book on a bookshelf is not violating CoE; to violate CoE there must be a closed loop), although violating CoE, doesn't allow to make a self-sustaining device. Violation of CoE can be in the negative sense as well. There are other, already well known examples, whereby a similar violation of CoE can be the basis of a self-sustaining machine.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 14, 2011, 12:16:40 PM
Why are you referring to this definition as 'Omnibus' definition'? The definition in question is what science requires, not I. Of course, the example with the car up and down the hill (placing of a book on a bookshelf is not violating CoE; to violate CoE there must be a closed loop), although violating CoE, doesn't allow to make a self-sustaining device. Violation of CoE can be in the negative sense as well. There are other, already well known examples, whereby a similar violation of CoE can be the basis of a self-sustaining machine.

Assuming zero friction, a car going up and down between two hills will still not make a self sustaining overunity machine.  At best, you will have perpetual motion - unity.  But not overunity.

So what is the point of this alleged CoE violation if it can never produce excess energy?  And to be clear, I do not see how there can be any CoE violation here whatsoever.  Potential energy is converted to kinetic, then back to exactly the same amount of potential.  Energy is perfectly conserved.

Quote from: utilitarian on February 14, 2011, 08:02:31 PM
Assuming zero friction, a car going up and down between two hills will still not make a self sustaining overunity machine.  At best, you will have perpetual motion - unity.  But not overunity.

So what is the point of this alleged CoE violation if it can never produce excess energy?  And to be clear, I do not see how there can be any CoE violation here whatsoever.  Potential energy is converted to kinetic, then back to exactly the same amount of potential.  Energy is perfectly conserved.

No, like I said, no self-sustaining machine can be made out of this. But not being able to make a self-sustaining machine is not a criterion for whether or not CoE can be violated. CoE in this case is violated because the integral of the work done in a closed loop is not zero as it should be if CoE is obeyed. And, no, in this case potential energy is not converted into kinetic on its way up. The kinetic energy at the top of the hill is in addition to the potential energy the car has there. So at the top of the hill the car has (potential energy + kinetic energy1) while at the bottom of the hill, when the car returns spontaneously that potential energy only is converted into potential energy2. So as far as the car is concerned we have: potential energy = kinetic energy2 < (potential energy + kinetic energy1). CoE is violated. If CoE were not violated we would have potential energy = kinetic energy2 = (potential energy + kinetic energy1) which is not the case.

Quote from: Low-Q on February 11, 2011, 11:00:16 AM
...
Gravity are by definition not acceleration
...

You are wrong against Einstein. All observations done until now proved he was right.
If you deny the equivalence principle, you will have to give solid evidence!

"The gravity of Earth, denoted g, refers to the acceleration that the Earth imparts to objects on or near its surface."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

http://roberta.tevlin.ca/Rel/GR%20I/GR%20I.ppt

Quote from: utilitarian on February 14, 2011, 08:02:31 PM
Assuming zero friction, a car going up and down between two hills will still not make a self sustaining overunity machine.  At best, you will have perpetual motion - unity.  But not overunity.

So what is the point of this alleged CoE violation if it can never produce excess energy?  And to be clear, I do not see how there can be any CoE violation here whatsoever.  Potential energy is converted to kinetic, then back to exactly the same amount of potential.  Energy is perfectly conserved.

Hi utilitarian, you are perfectly right. There is no CoE violation in a closed loop or in any path in a closed sytem in which the start and end points are at same potential.

Now a question remains. When the car is down the hill and the driver brakes and stops the car, the potential energy it had at the start point, has been converted in heat, finally radiated in the environment.
"Potential" energy doesn't mean "fictive" energy. The potential energy was real because the car used it. Thus the question is: where was stored the potential energy of the car at its start point? The only plausible answer is "in the gravity field of massive bodies" (car and earth). When the car is down the hill, the gravity field pattern has changed, resulting in less energy in the field.
The energy density of a gravity field, which can be calculated like the energy density of an electric field (1/2*epsilon0*E²) is g²/(8*pi*G), which is an enormous quantity. Its order of magnitude seems to be rather compatible with the weak change of the gravity field due to the "fall" of the car and supposedly equal to the difference of potential energy of the car between start and arrival points. By modeling the car as a sphere, adding its own gravity field to that of the earth in order to obtain the exact g field, and integrating the density energy all over the space, we should retrieve the potential energy that the car used (I think I could do that, but it is a bit tedious...   >:( ).

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 15, 2011, 04:16:51 AM
You are wrong against Einstein. All observations done until now proved he was right.
If you deny the equivalence principle, you will have to give solid evidence!

"The gravity of Earth, denoted g, refers to the acceleration that the Earth imparts to objects on or near its surface."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

http://roberta.tevlin.ca/Rel/GR%20I/GR%20I.ppt

OK, I was wrong about the definition. Anyway, the acceleration are constant for any object. The relative relationship between two objects with same acceleration are trivial, and can therfor not exchange energy more in one direction than the other without energy input - in order to achieve more acceleration to one of the two objects. Gravity are conservative. If gravity is acceleration, this acceleration is also conservative. Therfor gravity is not the same as energy, because energy is not conservative, but a process to equalize two different potentials. In order to achieve two different potentials, energy must be applied. Gravity cannot do this alone, because the acceleration, or gravity, are applied equally already between those two objects.

Vidar

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 15, 2011, 04:16:51 AM
You are wrong against Einstein. All observations done until now proved he was right.
If you deny the equivalence principle, you will have to give solid evidence!

"The gravity of Earth, denoted g, refers to the acceleration that the Earth imparts to objects on or near its surface."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

http://roberta.tevlin.ca/Rel/GR%20I/GR%20I.ppt

I am not wrong about Einstein because his "theory" fails before considering experimental evidence because sid "theory" internally contradictory. Proposals based on internal contradictions are called nonsense, not theorues. Nonsense cannot be the subject to examination by experiments whatsoever. In particular nonsense such said "theory" has nothing to do with the equivalence principle or with any principle for that matter. Nonsense is rejected out of hand without any consideration of any kind.

Quote from: exnihiloest on February 15, 2011, 05:03:12 AM
Hi utilitarian, you are perfectly right. There is no CoE violation in a closed loop or in any path in a closed sytem in which the start and end points are at same potential.

Now a question remains. When the car is down the hill and the driver brakes and stops the car, the potential energy it had at the start point, has been converted in heat, finally radiated in the environment.
"Potential" energy doesn't mean "fictive" energy. The potential energy was real because the car used it. Thus the question is: where was stored the potential energy of the car at its start point? The only plausible answer is "in the gravity field of massive bodies" (car and earth). When the car is down the hill, the gravity field pattern has changed, resulting in less energy in the field.
The energy density of a gravity field, which can be calculated like the energy density of an electric field (1/2*epsilon0*E²) is g²/(8*pi*G), which is an enormous quantity. Its order of magnitude seems to be rather compatible with the weak change of the gravity field due to the "fall" of the car and supposedly equal to the difference of potential energy of the car between start and arrival points. By modeling the car as a sphere, adding its own gravity field to that of the earth in order to obtain the exact g field, and integrating the density energy all over the space, we should retrieve the potential energy that the car used (I think I could do that, but it is a bit tedious...   >:( ).

@utilitarian is not perfectly right and I explained why. While it is true that there is no violation of CoE in a closed loop (has to be closed loop, not any path) in which the start and the end points are at the same potential, there is a violation of CoE if in addition to potential energy there is kinetic energy imparted as in the case with the car at hand. Kinetic energy imparted to the car when at the top has nothing to do with gravitational potential energy. That kinetic energy is in addition to the potential energy the car has there, as I already expleained. Also, that kinetic energy is a different kinetic energy from the kinetic energy the car has when spontaneously reaches the foot of the hill afte being at rest at the top, as I clearly explained earlier.

As far as storing the potential energy in the gravity field, changing the pattern of gravity field and spending it when car is back, all that is complete nonsense and need not be commented at all.

Lol!

The argument I'm providing should be looked into carefully. Spamming by elements such as @spinn_MP doesn't count as an argument.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 15, 2011, 04:31:50 PM
The argument I'm providing should be looked into carefully.

Spamming by elements such as @spinn_MP doesn't count as an argument.

Rotfl.

Yep, the great OmniBot retard...

Hope Stefan follows this exchange and can do something about curbing the spam by @spinn_MB.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 15, 2011, 04:48:18 PM
Hope Stefan follows this exchange and can do something about curbing the spam by @spinn_MB.

Lol, you wish... Idiot!

@Alexioco, are you around? Isn't this supposed to be a moderated thread? Who is going to curb @spinn_MP's spamming?

Omnibus is correct. Gravity is not energy.
But Gravity can be used to facilitate the change of one form of energy into another.

Consider "Gravity Assist": a term used in orbital mechanics. Say a spaceship approaches the Earth at a certain velocity. The gravity of the Earth pulls the ship closer. It then loops around the Earth and "slingshots" away. Now, the spaceship experiences no increase in velocity relative to the Earth (because Gravity cannot do work). From our point of view it's not going any faster when it leaves us than when it approached. But because the Earth is traveling at 29,8km per sec around the sun, the spaceship picks up speed relative to the sun. It has, in fact, gained a tremendous amount of energy.

Sounds like a violation of CoE?

No. What has actually happened is that the Earth's gravity has facilitated an "elastic collision" between the spaceship and the Earth. The Earth exerts a force on the spaceship, speeding it up, while the spaceship exerts an equal and opposite force on the Earth (assuming perfect conditions, without friction etc). But since the mass of the spaceship is so tiny compared to the mass of the Earth, the amount the earth slows down is negligible.

It's like shooting a fly with a cannonball. The fly gains kinetic energy, but the cannonball also loses kinetic energy (even if you'd be hard pushed to notice it).

The moon's gravity pulls at our oceans which, when combined with the Earth's spin, causes tides, which can be used an a source of energy. But the moon's gravity creates drag which slows down the Earth's spin. In this case the rotation of the earth is the source of tidal energy, not the moon's gravity. The moon's gravity (and to a lesser extent, the Sun's) merely facilitates the change.

So it is possible to build a machine that utilizes gravity (from the sun and moon) to tap the energy from the rotation of the Earth -- tidal power systems already do this.  But the gravity itself is not the source of the energy.

Quote from: Karmanaut on February 16, 2011, 11:19:23 AM
Gravity is not energy.

Quote from: Low-Q on February 15, 2011, 07:54:01 AM
...
Gravity are conservative. If gravity is acceleration, this acceleration is also conservative. Therfor gravity is not the same as energy, because energy is not conservative
...
Vidar

No one pretends that gravity is energy. What is asserted is that there is energy in a gravity field and that gravity could be an energy source (read the thread subject).
Energy is not conservative, but the gravitational force field is conservative because it is the gradient of a scalar potential. The potential energy is path independent.
Therefore the energy in a closed system, including that one in the field, is conserved. To take this fact into account after using the potential energy from a body which fell, there is no other way than to suppose this energy came from a little weakening of the gravity field, due to its topological change in space by the virtue of a new distribution of masses.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 15, 2011, 08:03:05 AM
I am not wrong about Einstein because his "theory" fails
...

Prove it!
Otherwise, the status of people affirming that Einstein is wrong while themselves being unable to oppose by logic arguments, is given there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunningâ€"Kruger_effect

Quote from: Omnibus on February 14, 2011, 10:10:57 PM
No, like I said, no self-sustaining machine can be made out of this. But not being able to make a self-sustaining machine is not a criterion for whether or not CoE can be violated. CoE in this case is violated because the integral of the work done in a closed loop is not zero as it should be if CoE is obeyed. And, no, in this case potential energy is not converted into kinetic on its way up. The kinetic energy at the top of the hill is in addition to the potential energy the car has there. So at the top of the hill the car has (potential energy + kinetic energy1) while at the bottom of the hill, when the car returns spontaneously that potential energy only is converted into potential energy2. So as far as the car is concerned we have: potential energy = kinetic energy2 < (potential energy + kinetic energy1). CoE is violated. If CoE were not violated we would have potential energy = kinetic energy2 = (potential energy + kinetic energy1) which is not the case.

I just have to say, this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever seen from a thinking person.

However the car gets up the hill initially, whether by push or by gasoline, that kinetic energy is traded for potential.  Then, as the car begins to slide back down the hill, it has very little kinetic, still lots of potential energy.  As it rolls down, it trades potential for kinetic, and assuming zero friction, will end up on top the second hill with zero kinetic and the exact same amount of potential it had when it started on the first hill.

Every bit of energy is accounted for and there is nothing extra.  If there was extra energy, then we could have a self sustaining apparatus out of this, but alas no.  Tell me where the extra energy is?  It is nowhere there.

Quote from: utilitarian on February 17, 2011, 10:21:43 AM
I just have to say, this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever seen from a thinking person.

However the car gets up the hill initially, whether by push or by gasoline, that kinetic energy is traded for potential.  Then, as the car begins to slide back down the hill, it has very little kinetic, still lots of potential energy.  As it rolls down, it trades potential for kinetic, and assuming zero friction, will end up on top the second hill with zero kinetic and the exact same amount of potential it had when it started on the first hill.

Every bit of energy is accounted for and there is nothing extra.  If there was extra energy, then we could have a self sustaining apparatus out of this, but alas no.  Tell me where the extra energy is?  It is nowhere there.

You should restrain from qualifications, especially when you're writing utter nonsense such as the above.

A car can get to the top of the hill very slowly or it can get to the top of the hill at a very high speed. An object of a given mass at the top of the hill has only a strictly given gravitational potential energy. That object can have at the top of the hill different kinetic energy, depending on how it got there. Therefore, in now way is the potential energy (a given) traded for the kinetic energy the body has at the top of the hill. Furthermore, the body can be brought up to the top of the hill at such a speed that its potential energy there will be negligible cpmpared to its kinetic energy. Like I said, the kinetic energy the body has at the top of the hill (having nothing to do with the potential energy that bodyhas at the top of the hill) is different from the kinetic energy the body has at the foot of the hill, exchanged for its potential energy when it slid spontaneously down the hill.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 17, 2011, 11:15:06 AM
You should restrain from qualifications, especially when you're writing utter nonsense such as the above.

A car can get to the top of the hill very slowly or it can get to the top of the hill at a very high speed. An object of a given mass at the top of the hill has only a strictly given gravitational potential energy. That object can have at the top of the hill different kinetic energy, depending on how it got there. Therefore, in now way is the potential energy (a given) traded for the kinetic energy the body has at the top of the hill. Furthermore, the body can be brought up to the top of the hill at such a speed that its potential energy there will be negligible cpmpared to its kinetic energy. Like I said, the kinetic energy the body has at the top of the hill (having nothing to do with the potential energy that bodyhas at the top of the hill) is different from the kinetic energy the body has at the foot of the hill, exchanged for its potential energy when it slid spontaneously down the hill.

Maybe I should not have used that term, but I just don't see it.  I will try to be more civil.  But based on your logic, even a pendulum would violate the CoE principle.  Yet we can observe a low friction pendulum swinging for a long time, eventually stopping due to friction losses.

How is energy not conserved?  All pendulums eventually stop, so there is certainly no extra energy, not even a tiny amount required to overcome the little friction there is.

Or are you saying that CoE is violated the other way, that more energy is lost than can be accounted for?

Correct. If you have a pendulum at equilibrium and deflect its bob to a certain height h, the kinetic energy you have imparted to the bob (which will be a different kinetic energy than the kinetic energy due to the transformation, after letting the bob go, of the potential energy the bob has at h) will not be restored after letting it go until reaching equilibrium. Thus, the pendulum will also violate CoE -- the closed loop integral of force over displacement (work) will not be zero.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 17, 2011, 03:55:20 PM
Correct. If you have a pendulum at equilibrium and deflect its bob to a certain height h, the kinetic energy you have imparted to the bob (which will be a different kinetic energy than the kinetic energy due to the transformation, after letting the bob go, of the potential energy the bob has at h) will not be restored after letting it go until reaching equilibrium. Thus, the pendulum will also violate CoE -- the closed loop integral of force over displacement (work) will not be zero.

Unbelievable... This OmniBot hyperproductive idiot is still preaching his eternal super delusional lying mantra, even if it's quite obvious that he doesn't have the slightest idea what potential or kinetic energy actually is...
Disgusting.

Where is the moderator to ban the spammer @spinn_MP?

I agree with "spinn_MP" .....OMNIBUS keeps cluttering this fine "free energy" website with his/her hand of God mentality! ....Alexioco, enough is enough! PLEASE!?

Quote from: Omnibus on February 17, 2011, 08:06:03 PM
Where is the moderator to ban the spammer @spinn_MP?

Yeah,  where is the moderator, to ban that supreme trolling BOT, the highest possible spamming mechanism, the super annoying "OmniBot" creature, which has quite successfully spammed several forums in the past few years???

For how long will this super-delusional lying pretender manage to rule this forum?

I'm really quite sick of this imbecile's constant calls for banning people.
That thing is totally shameless. It was banned from every possible OU-like forums over the past few years, primarily because of it's attitude and pathologically lying habits.
Shameless bastard...

Where is the moderator to ban the spammer @spinn_MP and people who support the spammer @spinn-MP? His postings are nothing but insults and gibberish. It's perfectly OK to be critical of someone's views as long as you provide arguments. Otherwise, resorting to ad hominem and supporting someone resorting to ad hominem is disruptive and can only play in the hands of the vicious forces who want to destroy the research in the field of OU.

Oh, please, don't play a victim...

It is you who constantly abuse the audience with your lies and half-truths.

From now on, I'll call you a lying bastard, which perfectly fits your description, at least regarding your most vocal statement: "I proved beyond a reason of a doubt that CoE has been broken on numerous occasions...."

Ok, Lying Bastard?

Where is the moderator to ban the spammer @spinn_MP? His supporters too.

STFU, you Lying Bastard!