Big try at gravity wheel

[Marsing]

 i thought that image want to say something to all of us

lol

[Marsing]

I dunno why mine didn't.

maybe ..
the file too big or file corrupt,
first try preview with explorer to ensure your file is Ok

i guest you have 1 hour to modify it, 
while modifing, clear checkbox above browse button and attach new one)

[MarkE]

Grimer, if this involves cycloid pendulums or their parts perhaps I can save some time.

Suppose that we construct a pendulum that has a cycloid restriction on both sides.  The pendulum swings in Quadrant III on the left and Quadrant IV on the right.  We can test that pendulum and determine:

It's oscillation frequency: Fosc, velocity at the bottom of its travel:  Vmax, swing height: Hdelta, and the apogee: Hmax.

We can also observe as has been observed since the time of Huygens that absent friction, the cycloid pendulum is truly isochronous, where as circular swing pendulums even in the absence of friction are not quite isochronous.

Then suppose that we remove the cycloid restriction from the right hand side: Quadrant IV.  What we will find is that:

1) Fosc decreases slightly:  The time swinging in Quadrant IV is greater than the time swinging in Quadrant III.
2) The pendulum becomes slightly non-isochronous.  Different starting heights yield slightly different oscillation periods.
3) The swing height change Hdelta on the right in Quadrant IV is the same as the swing height in Quadrant III.  The change in PE is the same.
4) The velocity magnitude at the bottom of the swing going from Quadrant III to Quadrant IV is identical to that going from Quadrant IV to Quadrant III.  The KE peak magnitudes are the same.

You can prove all of this to your own satisfaction by doing the calculus.  If you object then please show an appropriate reference and/or the math.  The important points we need to agree on in order to resolve the energy are points 3) and 4).

In short what all of this means is that basically the path taken between two equipotential points in a gravitational field doesn't gain or lose energy.  It also means that any closed path taken in a gravitational field doesn't gain or lose energy.  In other words:  the gravitational field is conservative.

[Grimer]

Spock 1


Back later.

[Marsing]

Marsing, if Grimer is correct in his ideas that gravity is non-conservative then exploiting that would change the world.  In that case every day that we waste without proving it and getting it out there is a day that people suffer needlessly. 

changing the world have two directions.
people will be more suffer , people will be  better.
( people :=  who are really,  really, really  suffer at this time).
which one your direction?
you asked  grimer hardly to prove his theory,
now can you prove your  position.