Red .. Grimer has been presenting this hypothesis of gain in Pe [i.e. gravity force is not conservative] as fact for quite some time - he has been asked to provide repeatable experimental evidence of his claim both here & over at BW.com - IINM he has never 'produced the goods' - having a theory is one thing, promoting it as a fact or truth is another.

A couple of renowned commentators here have politely pointed out the contradictory evidence to the 'Grimer theory'.

Perhaps I am less quick to accept someone's musing as indisputable fact than you [my failing perhaps ?] & prefer to check facts as best I can before willingly becoming an acolyte - IIRC You-tube has some good experiments with pendulums, in such a manner as Grimer proposes, which do not show a gain in height.

Perhaps Grimer would like to provide his experimental basis for his theory so we can forever retire Gravity as a conservative force  & open the Pandoras box !

Hi Fletch,


I wondered when you'd turn up.


We had this discussion on the Brachisochrone some years ago. I seem to remember that I pointed out that any curve that departed from the cycloid form must involve higher derivative energy. At that point you went silent. 


As for Utube having the experiment I describe, I very much doubt it.
If you know of one together with the graphical proof I gave then I would love to see it.


Anyway, my argument doesn't need experimental proof any more than Euclids.


As far as providing experimental evidence is concerned that's not my job.


I was employed as a Scientific Officer when in government service, not an Experimental
Officer. I had people like you and Al to do experiments. Al had reluctantly agree to do the
Bruce experiment but I suddenly started having doubts about him and backed out.


He had got to the stage of sending me his address by email and I told him not to.

Hi Fletch,


I wondered when you'd turn up.


We had this discussion on the Brachistochrone some years ago. I seem to remember that I pointed out that any curve that departed from the cycloid form must involve higher derivative energy. At that point you went silent. 


As for Utube having the experiment I describe I very much doubt it. If you know of one together with the graphical proof I gave then I would love to see it.


Anyway, my argument doesn't need experimental proof any more than Euclids.

Ahhh yes - the brachistochrone, jack abling's wheel & omnibus's cummulative Ke.

I went silent because we had reached an impasse - conservative gravity force describes that if gravity acceleration is the only acceleration/deceleration in play on an object rolling [or swinging, or spiraling, or rotating] down a slope [straight or curved of any shape or steepness] then at ANY same loss of vertical height for direct comparison purposes, the object will have lost the same Pe as gained as Ke - IOW's the Pe lost & Ke gained is path independent.

Sorry Frank, perhaps someone else can find the You-tube experiments [very slow internet here].

All arguments need experimental proof Frank to transition to accepted facts & truth, else they remain theory's - I'd like to see your experimental evidence to compliment your theory - perhaps you could use the ball rolling down a vortex tube & measure the horizontal exit speed [well, even just the velocity in any direction will do, for a given height loss] to prove a gain in Ke above Pe lost ?

ETA: I see you added to your post - pity you backed away from TK's offer of help - you could of actually proved something ;7)

You're new here, Mark, aren't you.


You suddenly appear over the horizon suggesting to Al that he cools things down with Rosemary.


You tell me who you are, who you work for and what your connection with Al is and I might think about answering your question.
Until then I suggest you think very carefully about the pendulum proof of principle.
After all, you can't be a little bit pregnant, can you.


Your employer might want your opinion on the proof so as he knows whether or not to short his shares.

Grimer, if you have been reading my posts then you should know that I am not interested in personal battles.

You either have available examples that show or at least suggest that gravity is non-conservative, or you do not.  The idea that gravity is non-conservative is an extraordinary one.  It is made more extraordinary every day that we make careful measurements that reinforce the accepted idea that gravity is conservative.   All pendulum experiments that I know of that have actually been conducted have shown results that are consistent with a conservative gravitational field.  If you can point to a pendulum or other experiment that has actually been conducted and that you feel demonstrates or suggests that gravity is non-conservative, then please do.

Marsing are you saying that anyone has found that any of those unbalanced wheels work? 

Grimer, please stay on topic.  Do you have any examples that demonstrate or suggest that gravity is non-conservative?

...
ETA: I see you added to your post - pity you backed away from TK's offer of help - you could of actually proved something ;7)

I backed away because I remembered the WhipMag.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyw5GKmOF64


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV7CO8No-CE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJy21fXhZMQ


And I remembered who Al was working for.

Grimer, if you have examples that show or suggest that gravity is non-conservative, then great, I would love to learn about them.  If you don't, you don't.  In that case, I would encourage you to devise a falsification test for your hypothesis that gravity is non-conservative, and then execute that experiment and report on it.