Hi Murilo,
I pinched this part of your last msg:
''About the force of gravitation vanishing and reappearing.
Just put value of distance 'd' as zero in the equation of Newton's Universal law of gravitation, gravity will vanish. Just separate the objects by some distance and put some value of 'd' in the equation, the the force of gravity will instantaneously arise.''
I frankly confess, so far I have been a perpetual motionist, in the words of Henry Dircks, I belong to “a more self-willed, self-satisfied, or self-deluded class of the community, making at the same time pretension to superior knowledge, it would be impossible to imagine. They hope against hope, scorning all opposition with ridiculous vehemence, although centuries have not advanced them one step in the way of progress.� So please don’t mind if I have committed a mistake in my post, especially, while alluding to Newton’s equation. It is err to human but to err and correct oneself in perpetual motion is divine.
However, we know certain things have ‘subtle’ meanings. While attempting to explain them, it is really difficult to get all people around you. Some of them would hardly agree with what you say, because you are bound to express your thoughts in a particular language, in particular words, and it is unfortunate that “words� are most poor kind of things to express the ‘reality’ precisely that you want to say. Words, definitions, symbols, equations and semantics can never be perfect; they may trigger an argument which leads us to nowhere. Better, one must try to look into the “import� or “essence� of what one says. Reductio ad absurdum approach purely based on the validity of sense perception has many limitations; I don’t want to go in details here.
Still, I would try to explain my point of view once again.
1. Gravity is a mutual phenomenon, Newton said it, and also everybody knows.
2. When you divide an object into two, and separate them by certain distance, they begin to interact, as a result of which gravity arises out of no-thing. By the term ‘no-thing’ here, I mean one that is not measurable, tangible, perceptible to our senses, I mean that gravity does not arise at the expense of any mass, other kind of thing or force which can be really perceptible and measurable, and therefore, could help any one to save the putative law of conservation of energy which was a consensus decision among the scientists who didn’t attend to the problem of perpetual motion seriously and thus, founded the law of conservation of energy on the impossibility of perpetual motion. Gravity doesn’t come at the expense of mass, but once it comes into existence, it has capability to accelerate objects perpetually. This is a puzzling observation. It puzzled Newton too. This observation is similar to professor s’ Gravesande’s observation that Bessler’s wheel augmented its speed until it achieved a steady state of rotation. His puzzlement led him to write a letter to Newton.
Universe is largely invisible and imperceptible. Scientists reckon that 90 % of the universe is invisible, but they say dark energy pervades everywhere. “No-thing’ is, therefore, beyond our sense perception, but it does not necessarily mean that no-thing doesn’t exist, because our senses often delude us. Human sense perception has a limited range, even certain animals, in their cherished own ‘reality,’ perceive certain things clearly which we humans can’t. Latest researches have shown that even woman have a better ‘peripheral vision’ than man. If professor s’ Gravesande had known this fact, he would have certainly accompanied his wife while going to have examination of Bessler’s Gravity wheel at the Castle of Weissenstein! Probably, it was her wife who might have persuaded s’ Gravsande and even helped him to arrive at a right decision, to stick to the opinion that Bessler’s wheel was genuine and that Bessler was not a fraud. Similarly, Mileva helped Einstein, who had little knowledge of mathematics, to develop his Special theory of relativity. Excuse me for a little digress here.
In the West Parmenides, one of the first Greek scientists held that motion was an illusion. If motion is illusion then perpetual motion is also illusion according to him. We have the famous motion paradoxes of Zeno the Greek philosopher (c. 490-430 B.C.) who also advanced the idea that motion was an illusion and that the “real world� was illusory and false, by giving the example of Achilles’ race, which covers a certain amount of territory. The Achilles first covers half of the territory, then half of what remains, then half again of what remains, and so on, never reaching the end of the race because he is continually “splitting the difference� between the remaining distances. This is called antimony of infinite divisibility. But Zeno fell to the same error, which is the failure to make a distinction between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. So motion has been the source of many concepts as well as man’s failures and victories. Here is another example about our poor perception and ability to know the ‘reality’. Gravity is a force in ‘our reality,’ it is so if we are conditioned to follow the tenets of classical mechanics. The ‘reality’ is different to Einstein as he does not consider gravity as a force. According to his General theory of relativity, gravity is not a force but space-time curvature only; it is mere result of distortion of space due to presence of matter. According to Einstein Special theory of relativity, Bessler’s Gravity Wheel spinning on its axis must increase its mass. I think it would be hard for anybody to perceive this phenomenon as real because it contradicts our common sense. Einstein may still be right because our sense perception is limited to detect the infinitesimal increase of mass when the gravity wheel is rotating. Upon any debate, it is no wonder; Einstein would like to maintain his position while some other man may argue that there is no reality in what Einstein says. Isn’t Einstein dealing with a phenomenal reality? Wasn't Werner Heisenberg dealing with phenomenal reality when he stated that it is impossible to measure position and velocity of the particle simultaneously? We know that zero point energy exist though we cant perceive it directly. What about the reality of virtual particles? I would like to quote what Richard Feynman, one of the best-known physicists of the twentieth century said, “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount.� Also listen to what David Rose (MIT engineering professor famous for his work in fusion, energy, and nuclear engineering) said: “Energy is an abstract concept invented by physical scientists in the nineteenth century to describe quantitatively a wide variety of natural phenomena.�
Let me return to my assertion: “Gravity vanishing and reappearing� -because of reunion and separation of mass, respectively- I would like to add. Murilo, please don’t rely on my poor mathematics if I have committed any error by exemplifying Newton’s equation. Dividing any value by zero is something ‘illegal’ or as ‘physically impossible’ as the alleged perpetual motion machine, did you mean that? I am a perpetual motionist, by definition, a perpetual motionist is basically violator of the rules and principles, one who attempts at “impossible things� as he knows that what was held ‘impossible’ in the past may become a reality later. Forgive me, better, I would restate the problem through words only as follows.
For example, consider force of gravity between moon and earth. In this case, force of gravity can be calculated by using Newton’s universal law of gravitation. Newton will agree that once moon had been the part of the earth. So at the very moment, when moon separated from earth, force of gravity instantaneously came into existence out of no-thing violating the first law of thermodynamics. When moon and earth were single entity, force of gravity did not exist between their corresponding masses as they were a single mass. I mean to say that when single mass got divided into two, gravity didn’t come at the expense of mass or any other thing.
It is contrary to common sense to speak about the motion of only one body or gravitation of one body. Here, it would be logically wrong to argue that when earth and moon were single mass, force of gravity was sum of the two masses, or the total mass of the earth before moon separated, since force of gravity is a mutual phenomenon, there is no point in talking about force of gravitation of a single object. All tension arises when something is separate from its original source. This “universal striving’ is the source of every phenomenon. Bessler referred to it.
Let me apply this reasoning to the Gravity Wheel of Orffyreus which demonstrates that “distance’ or “separation� that led to the ‘polarity’ of forces is the sole cause of rotation of Gravity Wheel.
The Wheel, with its centre in the form of axle, has unique arrangement of ‘mass’ in the form of many weights around it. If they are equidistance from the centre, the wheel will be perfectly symmetric, homogenous without any ‘polarity’ of forces. As soon as any weight moves further away from the centre, it would impart ‘asymmetry’ to the wheel which would create an instantaneous force that Bessler call by different names: excess weight, preponderance of weight etc. I only mean to say that distribution of masses around the axle is crucial in many ways to reflect a lot upon our questions. I cannot think that mechanical energy generated by Gravity wheel is at the expense of ‘mass’ or any other kind of force in the environment. Helmholtz and the whole generations of the scientist who considered Over-balancing as something impossible, in fact, accepted it as a form of perpetual motion (first kind) that violates the first law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy. Orffyreus him self frequently talked about his Gravity wheel based on the laws of mechanical perpetual motion. Professor Gravesande who thoroughly tested Bessler’s wheel certified that Bessler’s gravity was perpetual motion.
We know that a large number of scientists experimented with pendulum, systems of weights, inclined planes, projectiles, collisions of objects and arrived at the conclusion that Over-balancing wheel is perpetual motion, which is something impossible, as a result of which concepts of energy, work and power got refined in the opinion of the scientists. In my opinion, any one who does not consider Gravity wheel as a form of perpetual motion is not well acquainted with the history of mechanics and doesn’t understand well how the laws of mechanics and thermodynamics were developed on the impossibility of perpetual motion.
I apologize for the mistakes if I made any in my post. To err is human, but to err and correct oneself in perpetual motion is divine. I stumbled on perpetual motion in 70’s, got obsessed with it in 80’s, tried hard at it in 90’s and arrived at some conclusions in the first decade of this century that I want to share so that I could emancipate from perpetual motion. I have celebrated many anniversaries of my failed models. So I am a pretty old perpetual motionist, yet I am a beginner here on this forum. I expect senior members to encourage a new perpetual motionist and they should avoid taking pleasure in directly invading a new perpetual motionist with their old ammunition. Crying man ‘Aman’ already needs their help.
In the end, let me say English is not my mother language. Moreover, I studied physics and mathematics up to high school level only. On the contrary, it’s really a matter of immense pleasure to me that you and many others know physics, Maths and other sciences better than me. I only claim that I know perpetual motion to some extent. I would urge members not to ‘dissect’ anybody’s words for the mere sake of sophistry only. I am aware that at some places. I may commit errors, I would apologize for that and always welcome members to correct me, but not with a slap.
In spite of all my weaknesses, still, I think that my words and experience in perpetual motion are better than that of a scientist, they are not entirely useless like law of the conservation energy which suppresses zeal of a perpetual motionist like me, therefore, I invite members to look into the “import� of my musings.
Best Regards
Perpetual motionist
