Definition of "Gravity is conservative" ?

[nicbordeaux]

"Any energy gained from a mass in an gravity field, must be paid for by a loss in height of the mass; and that height cannot be regained utilising the energy generated alone; Irrespective of its path!

Kas

Kas, if that is a universally accepted definition of the conservative nature of gravity or the actual wording of some "law" ,and if it means not just one weight but a system comprising of several weights where the "loss/regain of height" applies to the mean average of all the components, I would be prepared to devote some serious time and resources to proving it utterly wrong. Without busting any holes in COE.

Can you clarify the source please ?

[rlortie]

I do not involve myself with these philosophic threads very often and some never, but here I will make an exception.

If I inadvertently drop something and it falls to the ground, have I wasted irreplaceable force leaving less gravity?

If I drop it on purpose have I utilized the force of gravity and did the supply diminish?

Related debates regarding gravity is always based on something vertically loosing Pe as it falls.

Gravity is an attraction of masses not unlike magnetism. It applies to everything from an electron orbiting a nucleus to the Galaxy. Gravity can and does pull sideways. This was proven by a scientific test using the latest high tech equipment available back in the early 1900's, I use to have a link to the sight but can no longer find it.

To prove that gravity is an attraction created by mass a plumb bob was dropped over the shear side of a tall mountain, it was objectively ascertained that the plumb bob did not hang plumb but was attracted toward the mountain. Obviously the pull was not of much significance as it was competing with the mass of our planet.

This also explains the phenomenon about the deep mine in Michigan discussed here on another thread. If the mass or density of what miners refer to as 'Country rock' is more dense on one side of the mine than on the other, the plumb bob would be attracted to the denser side.

That is a Law (man made) it is not the truth, Mass creates a force of gravity

I will buy that literally!

Ralph

[nicbordeaux]

Ralph, the discussion is far from philosophical. To make it worth the hassle of serious "research" and money, rather than just fun playing around with bouncy balls and OB wheels, I need a clear definition of what I need to provide. Thx a lot for the input.
Nick

[FunWithGravity2]

Nick

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who will not understand, no explanation is possible.
For those who are unable to understand, changing the subject is best way to avoid aggravation.

seems YOU are THOSE

[nicbordeaux]

Couldn't agree with you more, pal. The only hassle is I am going to get to it before you ;)

edit : just punched your greenie.

[Unbalanced]

KAS wrote:

"Any energy gained from a mass in an gravity field, must be paid for by a loss in height of the mass; and that height cannot be regained utilising the energy generated alone; Irrespective of its path!

Kas

Nicbordeaux wrote:

Ralph, the discussion is far from philosophical.

Kas, if that is a universally accepted definition of the conservative nature of gravity or the actual wording of some "law" ,and if it means not just one weight but a system comprising of several weights where the "loss/regain of height" applies to the mean average of all the components, I would be prepared to devote some serious time and resources to proving it utterly wrong. Without busting any holes in COE.

I was going to launch into a discussion on The Limits of Predictability but the following article speaks to this much more clearly than I could ever hope to. Regardless of how we define or restrain our existence by Natural Laws the discussion of them ultimately is philosophical to a degree. I hope this article lends clarity to this discussion.

I keep it at hand and remind myself to read it at least once a week.

http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/st/mqual/ch02.htm

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Here's an old one just for you Trevor

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 1773#51773

Hi getterdone,

Thank you for the link!

The flaw in the conservation of energy laws is in the friction losses, 50% percent of which would be from the input of gravity, the force of gravity is constant force with no energy loss, so when it puts its work into a system that work is for free, so 50% of the heat gained in friction losses show that there is a 50% increase of friction energy in the system, energy has been created! some clever people realised that the flaw was showing through so there invented the, in a closed system, to mask this flaw wherein there would be no friction and all paths would be equal but they are not, there is no such thing as a closed system in the real world and all energy losses and gains should be calculated and there source located.

Next time you work out lifting weights and getting a bit warm remember that you are working against gravity and gravity is working against you, doing the same exercise in space gravity’s input is less and so is your work, less energy turned into heat, heat is energy and in the work out on earth a lot of that energy is due to the work done by gravity’s kinetic energy, thus because gravity force is a constant a percentage of energy is created.

The 50% work mentioned above is suggested by Newton and Einstein.

With thanks Trevor

Edit, add by.

[murilo]

Here is a not philosophic but very emotional thinking about what makes me nervous and upset with what we may call 'conservative gravity energy':
- its application is almost impossible because it offers no reaction... remember what said our brother Isaac Newton about action/reaction.
A kind of reaction would be great to be harvested and put to work as a counter-force in closed circuit.
In my mind, a great advantage of 'g' is that it's not 'easily' exhausted!
As someone said here in BW forum, in early 2003, the resources of geometry will send solutions for a PM or similar set... just geometry skills!8)

XXXXXXXXX-------------XXXXXXXXXX

I keep it at hand and remind myself to read it at least once a week.

http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/st/mqual/ch02.htm

justsomeone, be sure! This is a great reading!
Thanks a lot!

M
PS: attached a modest example of geometric resources and 'g'.

PS2: I guess that it was SCOTT who in 2003 said about geometry! (edition)

PS3: also bodes stuffs like 'no blocking ways' and 'no switching' conditions for 'g' managing. (edition)

[KAS]

[Kas, if that is a universally accepted definition of the conservative nature of gravity or the actual wording of some "law" ,and if it means not just one weight but a system comprising of several weights where the "loss/regain of height" applies to the mean average of all the components, I would be prepared to devote some serious time and resources to proving it utterly wrong. Without busting any holes in COE.

Can you clarify the source please ?

Nic,
The title of this thread represents a good chunky topic for debate.

and in the end, may come down to an individuals opinion.

Picking up on Trevor's "Leverage" statement, When I stated leverage makes no difference in a closed system, I meant that any number of weights (I prefer to call it mass) will make no difference as it still involves the loss in height of the (combined) mass; and that cannot be recovered without help from an outside source IMO.

I'm not against leverage.

An outside source could mean leverage against something external to the mechanism or (as I believe Bessler discovered) some form of anvil type surface suspended from the axle.

I know he stated that nothing hung from his axles but many of his statements are, well, confusing to say the least.

The conservation of gravitational energy statement was copied from a physics book I borrowed in University. I only wish I could remember its title but it influenced me enough to jot down some of its proclamations.

Kas

[Unbalanced]

murilo wrote:

In my mind, a great advantage of 'g' is that it's not 'easily' exhausted!
As someone said here in BW forum, in early 2003, the resources of geometry will send solutions for a PM or similar set... just geometry skills!8)

The nature of gravity is that it is indeed inexhaustible. That is why we call it "conservative" because it does not give of itself but that it takes itself back in equal measure, it conserves itself.

That is a very good article. It should be included in every serious researcher's toolbox and taught at every level of education. I correspond with the Author, Steve Talbott. He tells me, "within a week or two I'll be posting a new issue of NetFuture in which the theme of that earlier article is taken up again in the context of biology, and particularly molecular biology. I will speak of the difference between law and cause, and have (I hope!) become more precise in my understanding of the issues involved."

Geometry was my favorite subject. Perhaps there is hope still.

[Kirk]

Curtis wrote;

The force exerted by gravity on a mass moving in an upward direction is equal to the force exerted by gravity on the same mass moving in a downward direction.

Sorry partner but I question this statement. If the upward force is equal then you are at a standstill not unlike the magnet on the refrigerator. To raise upward you must not only equal the force of gravity but surpass it to achieve movement better known as 'WORK'

I fear that with this thought in mind it is going to blow a lot of holes in various designs by numerous members.

To test this; balance a teeter totter to dead center or COM, it will not seek horizontal but will stop/rest at any angle you set it at.

Equal forces being equal, there is no gradient differential therefore no work can be accomplished.

Ralph

exactly - Thats why position of mass machines can never work. Symmetry says the energy to position matches the energy achieved.

[jim_mich]

exactly - Thats why position of mass machines can never work. Symmetry says the energy to position matches the energy achieved.

Energy up always matches energy down.

Stated in fewer words: "Gravity is conservative."

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

For those that believe that Gravity is a Conservative Force, you are welcome to that belief, I for one do not believe it is! I see it as a steady energy input, but my designs have such a good mechanical efficiency, I personally call gravity's kinetic energy input a greater energy output in my systems than the paid for energy input! Gravity is free energy, my designs also depend on a equal downward pull on both sides of the wheel for them to work.

If mass produces a constant force and that force is potential energy and then kinetic energy when interacting with other masses and there gravity's, the sum of energy in the universe is limit less over time, energy is created now and in the future Which brings us back to the man made Conservation of Energy Laws.

Regards Trevor

[ovyyus]

For those that believe that Gravity is a Conservative Force, you are welcome to that belief, I for one do not believe it is!

Trevor, how do you reconcile your personal belief when every experimental observation shows that gravity acts conservatively?

When I drop a hammer on my toe it only hurts as high as I lift the hammer :)

[getterdone]

Doe's anyone actualy think that Newton's Laws , on gravity being a conservative force , would be thaught in school's today if Bessler would have sold his wheel?

Gravity will stay a conservative force until we prove it ain't

Nobody ever said building the ''impossible machine'' would be easy.