Scissors Simplified

[ovyyus]

You may not like the answer, Bill, but I did answer your question.

Frank, it's not a matter of what I like. Your gravity wind powered engine is not an example of a real exception just like a fairy powered engine isn't an example of a real exception. ie; neither are real.

[Grimer]

Gravity is a real energy source. Wind is a real energy source. Wind was a real energy source, albeit unexploited, before the invention of windmills.

Gravity is the real energy source in hydro. It's not the ultimate energy source but if we start tracing things back to first causes uncaused then we leave natural philosophy and move on to theology.

You might as well say that petrol is not a real energy source because without the sun there wouldn't be any petrol.

[jim_mich]

So then the earth is growing?

Certainly.

By the accumulation of meteorites for one thing.

No matter how you try to intellectualize it, gravity has no mass. It is pure energy force.

The Earth is growing as the energy force of gravity is changed to mass at a rate of E = MC^2. Gravity also heats the Earth's core. Gravity is a shadowing effect and thus most of the gravity energy absorbed by the Earth turns to either heat or forms new matter. This is why the Earth and the universe is expanding, not because of some big bang theory.

But still, gravity does not have any mass and therefore it cannot turn any windmill type device.

See this older post for a link to Stan Byers website concerning the cause of gravity.

Of course the usual disclaimer that I reserve the right to be wrong.

[ovyyus]

Gravity is the real energy source in hydro.

Irrelevant. A similar diversion would be to say a spring is the real energy source in a clock.

The question stands.

[Grimer]

A spring is the real energy source in a clock.

Any other answer leads to an infinite regression to the big bang which as far as natural philosophy is concerned is the first cause uncaused.

[ovyyus]

Duh

[nicbordeaux]

I suspect Frank may be right on this one, the spring is the energy source. There comes a point when human knowledge limits how far back we can work things. We know that somebody wound the spring, that the said somebody is an inhabitatant of the planet earth, member of one of the homonid species. Further we can only speculate (or believe) that earth was created by (cross out where appropriate) God, random sequence of events, terraforming by aliens (or MIB), other.

[ovyyus]

Nick, discussion becomes pointless without context.

[Grimer]

...
Of course the usual disclaimer that I reserve the right to be wrong.

Very wise.

[erick]

Gravity also heats the Earth's core. Gravity is a shadowing effect and thus most of the gravity energy absorbed by the Earth turns to either heat or forms new matter.

Hi Jim,

A few things:

1.) Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Gravity does not form new matter.

2.) If gravitational force can be converted to heat isn't that an example of the energy that causes gravity to exist (E=MC2) being converted back into usable energy (heat)?

E

[eccentrically1]

Gravity doesn't turn to mass at the rate of E=mc^2, either. It isn't an energy that can be changed to mass.
I could be wrong.

[eccentrically1]

But matter can be created and destroyed, that is correct, erick.

[jim_mich]

Read Stan Byers website: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11k.htm

If Gravity is a shielding effect then something must happen to the gravity that is blocked by the Earth. There is much evidence to suggest that Stan Byers is correct.

[Richard]

I agree with Stan Byers and would add to his conclusion and research one more thing...

Where Newton Struggled and Einstein balked; we can complete the summation of Stan Byers works...."Absorption"

I.e. Absorption is a natural consequence to Byers Radiation, in the same sense that there exist:

...condensation and evaporation

...impact and momentum

...energy and force

(E=mc2) is actually a quantative value denoting an Energy paradox. It is the precise calculation of the" threshold value of energy"

It is the point at which energy is constantly "created and destroyed"

the paradox is that, at E=mc2 Energy is at both its greatest and least potential..It is the point at which mass ceases to exist (speed of light in a vacuum) and Force is "non restricted"....after all, energy is by definition, the result of "restricted Force."

above mc2 Force is infinitely unrestricted or absorbed. below mc2 Force is a quantative value, expressed as energy, which is the same as the restricted or absorbed force.

Stan Byers is clearly Brilliant....we must add absorption to radiation and conclude, that there is one energy and one force and both are "work" in terms of restriction, absorption and quantified in terms already familiar to us.

I see a future when men Like Byers and Euler are mentioned side by side with Newton and Einstein...

thats my story and I'm sticking to it...:-)

[erick]

I'm sorry... What?

Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Period. It can only change form.

My point, which seems to have been missed. Is that if the theory that gravity is a side effect of general relativity is true than gravity is the result of massive amounts of energy causing an object to accelerate (a-la the Big Bang) which causes a gulf in space time which we call and experience as gravity. If energy creates the effect of gravity than perhaps the gravity can be converted back to energy. We see this all the time in the form of our Earth's core and the Sun (energy in the form of heat and pressure).

As for the discussion of Stan Beyer's theory: With all due respect that sounds like a bunch of utter nonsense.

E