Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-Set!!!

[primemignonite]

On my previous subterra thread "A New Website Highlighting The Einsteinian/Besslerian Conflict" at Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012, highly regarded contributor/member Fletcher added the following to the discussion on-going there:

"6. Gravity is conservative then & now [current understanding] - if a Motion Wheel is ever produced that MUST use gravity as a critical component, then science has a great problem explaining why it is self sustaining & gravity can still be conservative - it would need a major rethink & rewrite of many scientific laws - this would have to be done faced with empirical evidence."

This one was the last of six points he proposed, that might be arrived-at logically by deduction.

Following hard on the heels of it, be offered us directly, further clarification/expansion:

"I should explain why if gravity were an essential component it would cause all sorts of problems to scientific laws wrt conservative gravity.

Conservative gravity is part of the Conservation of Energy laws & laws of thermodynamics.

A Motion Wheel that MUST use gravity as a constituent to work would throw into chaos the entire explanation of Conservation of Energy.

* * * * *"

In these Fletcher seems most resolute regarding the nature and extent of what the appearance of a gravity-only-operated, self-turning wheel, would mean to theoretical physics and, in-general, to the whole existing world of science. The last line is most powerful and is unequivocal absolutely, as to the likely result.

With that now set as background, just today (Saturday, 15 September 2012) over on "Bessler's Wheel and the Orffyreus Code" http://www.johncollinsnews.blogspot.com a new thread entitled "A Confusion of Clues." appeared.

As are all of that Editor's frequently appearing topics, this one as well is no exception to being thought provoking and, in this case, extremely.

The extreme thought absolutely provoked within this reader (but now no longer a contributor) was so-done by what follows (as extracted from the Editor's comment found in "Comments"):

"John Collins 15 September 2012 13:17

* * * * *
No I don't think that the wheel was doing something that conventional physics doesn't accurately describe, it had, and has, to perform within the current understanding of physics. However I believe I know how it works and why and it conforms perfectly to accepted physical laws, but there is a way of achieving rotation with gravity alone and within those laws.
* * * * *

JC"

Both these assertions come from what are essentially experts in this ever-continuing rage of P-M frizz, and appertain the identical subject, this being WHAT the ruling lords of Physics might do when such a wheel appears: COLLAPSE IN A HEAP or, go on as if NOTHING HAD HAPPENED!

Obviously, the two distinguished opinions are AT ODDS to one another, to put the case leastwise?

As a study, I find this opposing dissonance fascinating (in acoustics this would provide us a "resultant"); the outcome (one way or the other; it could not possibly be both), being absolutely vital for a correct anticipating.

By this I mean, we might best have a pre-thought-out, pat position regarding it, or considerable chaos could rule. Is I understand it, the World of Science is very well solidified on it - that is, the main-stream part - and KNOWS whereat they stand, and, so as well should we.

I believe it crucial that we come to accept the one or the other position re this subject, as both are (right or wrong) professed so nicely by the disparate parties.

So, in view of all the foregoing HOW, I ask, might they be reconciled or if not, which then is most likely to prevail into reality?

I am sure that the more thoughtful and interested of the BWF members will have an idea, or two.

Accepting this as true, then might we all be so favored as to hear some?"

CHEERS! and as ever,

All the Best(s)

James

[ovyyus]

Fletcher's conclusion is drawn from the empirical. John's conclusion is drawn from the hypothetical. Apples and oranges.

[Grimer]

Energy is only conserved in a closed system, i.e. one which any cannot get in or out but only be induce from one collection of derivatives to another.

[primemignonite]

So, ovyyus, are we to expect - given the actual materialization of the desired thing itself - that both will be found true, your apples v. oranges part not withstanding?

And Grimer, because a wheel is not closed enough, or at all to gravity, could we then expect main-stream physics (that beloved "Smart-Set") to say to us on account 'YES, a wheel driven by gravity IS likely'?

I sense that there are deficiencies with both your inputs, but thanks very much for them just the same.

Any others, especially those of the two principles of this evolving contention?

J.

[jim_mich]

You cannot have it both ways.

I don't think that the wheel was doing something that conventional physics doesn't accurately describe, it had, and has, to perform within the current understanding of physics.

but there is a way of achieving rotation with gravity alone

Perpetual rotation requires perpetual usable force to overcome friction and to provide any additional output force. Gravity gives and then takes back equally. So the give and take might augment the motions of weights, but such equal give and take cannot supply excess force. If gravity supplied more force in one situation than in another situation then it would no longer be conservative. If there is a gravity only method of PM then it would be at odds to the current understanding of physics.

Edit:
An engine of any type requires some form of unequal force. Gravity is an equal force. We simply need to move a weight with more force in one direction and with less force in the reverse direction. Normally equal force is required to move a weight forward and back or in and out. But a PM wheel is not a normal environment. It is a rotating environment. Centrifugal force is an variable force that depends upon mass, velocity, and radial curve. CF can pump the motions of weights in and out on a rotating wheel. The pumping can accelerate the wheel, just like a child pumps a swing.

[Perpetual Motionist]

Hi all!

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 please 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.�

In their book entitled “Some Unrecognized Laws Of Nature, An Inquiry Into The Causes Of Physical Phenomena, With Special Reference To Gravitation� joint authors Ignatius Singer and Lewis Henry Berens have exposed the false character of the concept of the “energy� along with its subsidiary doctrine “the Principle of Conservation of Energy.� They have reserved two exclusive chapters for the refutation of each of them.

They state:

“The theory of ' energy ' has not been deduced from facts, and our knowledge of it is not due to physical causes at all. The origin of ' energy ' is to be traced in the evolution of the human mind only, and not in physical phenomena. It is a theory by which an attempt has been made to account for physical phenomena in accordance with the dualistic conception and not a deduction made from physical facts. For since ghosts and spirits had to be abandoned, and the ' forces ‘(vires) have been found to be untenable, this dualism had once more to assume a new guise and reappear under a new alias; hence it is known to modern philosophers in its latest dress as ' energy.' The change is not a great one: it is simply the substitution of a Greek word for its Latin equivalent.

Unfortunately, as already pointed out, this dualistic conception of nature is a great obstacle in our road; hence the necessity for this long digression. But in order to combat the doctrine of ' energy ' as currently taught, and to expose all the many fallacies of physical science which spring from this most fertile source of error, this discussion is unavoidable. While leading physicists still entertain such ideas as ' dead matter ' tossed about by an ' active something ' two hypotheses which have come down to us from the early dawn of human consciousness and have been accepted without question a clear understanding of the simplest facts is impossible. To show that this necessity for a separate entity is due to the (often unconscious) dualistic conception of the universe….�

The truth is that the whole conception of ‘matter’ and 'force' is false. Both are hypotheses whereby to account in a crude way for the phenomena of external nature. We have dealt already with one of these conceptions that of ' force ' or ‘energy ' and we shall now deal with the conception of 'matter,' and show it also to be a mere hypothesis.

“Dr. Johnson, when discussing Bishop Berkeley's theory of the non-existence of 'matter,' kicked against a stone, saying, “I refute it thus.'….�

“…As we have said before, it is immaterial whether such theories are true or not, provided they serve the purpose of discourse and do not conflict with known facts. This limit, however, has been overstepped; and to-day 'energy' is put forth as the cardinal pillar of modern scientific thought. But, instead of assisting in the study of nature, it positively obscures most obvious facts, and makes explanation impossible, where otherwise as will hereafter be shown most vexed problems could yield a most simple and satisfactory explanation.

After having denied even the very ‘existence’ of energy in Chapter VII “Matter And Energy� as quoted above, Ignatius Singer and Lewis Henry Berens consider it a waste of time to deliberate further on energy’s subsidiary doctrine the “Principle of Conservation of Energy�, however, yet by reserving a separate chapter i.e. Chapter VIII entitled as “The Conservation Of Energy�, authors devote good time and can’t resist to go a good length to criticize the false character of Principle of conservation of energy. They argue in a logical manner, they illustrate some good examples by conducting some easy experiments that disprove law of conservation of energy. I shall quote some paragraphs from the chapter that provides us an interesting and thoughtful discussion.



Extracts from Chapter VII “Matter And Energy�

Ignatius Singer and Lewis Henry Berens state:

“After having denied—if not actually disproved— the existence of “energy " as a separate entity, it may seem a waste of space and time to discuss any of its subsidiary doctrines. It is very much like a certain historian who, after having stated that there were no snakes in Ireland, is said to have assured his readers that those that were there were not poisonous. The doctrine of the "conservation of energy," however, demands our attention on account of the facts which underlie it, and which are generally appealed to as conclusive evidence of the theory itself. Now, as we are not denying the facts, but merely the theory which is supposed to account for them, and which theory (by the convenient reversal of the argument) is supposed to be established by the very facts to account for which it has been framed, it seems to us expedient to show that the facts can be well explained (and even better explained) without such theory, and that the theory itself is not borne out by the facts, as is generally supposed; that, in truth, the theory has not been deduced from any facts at all, but followed as a mental necessity from prior assumptions. We shall show, first, that the facts relied on to prove the doctrine of the " conservation of energy ** lend no support to the hypothetical entity of " energy '*; secondly, that the facts can be explained without recourse to any such hypothesis; thirdly, that the existence of such an entity is but an illogical inference from the facts which have led to the doctrine of conservation, and not an inevitable conclusion; and, fourthly, that in so far as the doctrine affirms a fixed quantity of ** energy " in the universe (using for the once this term in true sense of " power of doing work," independently of the manner in which this power is conceived) we have no evidence whatever to support such an idea.�

“…In this sense and to this extent can we accept the doctrine of the conservation of energy as a convenient, and perhaps also as a useful, phrase. But further than this we cannot go. We cannot accept such a conclusion, inference, deduction, theory, doctrine, or whatever else we may please to call it, as an induction where-from to make unlimited deductions…�

“…When we say, therefore, that '* energy" is in every case an effect rather than a cause we have in our mind the supposed entity called ** energy," which is merely a theoretical deduction from the phenomena, not to be confounded with the idea of available source of power. Water does not fall from a higher to a lower level because it is pushed by “energy�; but is capable of performing work because it is falling. Nor does its velocity depend '*on the quantity of energy by which it is moved," but rather the available power will depend on its velocity. In short, the ** force," " energy," or " power of doing work " is in each case on this side of the phenomenon, so to speak, and not behind it…�


“Under the former view� energy/* in the sense of the " power of doing work,** may be conceived of alike as being destroyed, created, or regenerated—^according as the matter in the universe is conceived of as in universal equilibrium or as having its equilibrium disturbed. When an equilibrium is disturbed, energy, in the sense of an available source of power, is created; when an equilibrium is restored, " energy ** is destroyed, consumed, lost, or dissipated. If in restoring such disturbed equilibrium another equilibrium is disturbed in consequence, we have a transmission or transformation of "energy," as the case may be—and then we shall have also " conservation of energy,*…�

Reference: Some unrecognized laws of nature; an inquiry into the causes of physical phenomena, with special reference to gravitation (1897)

Author: Singer, Ignatius; Berens, Lewis Henry, joint author
Subject: Gravitation; Force and energy
Publisher: London, J. Murray

http://archive.org/details/someunrecognized00singrich

So it appears that Energy is nothing! However, to meet our certain purpose, we often create something out of nothing as it is ours very own Nature! Energy can always be made to balance by the introduction of outside factors, such as the earth's rotation or some unknown source resorting to abstract concept of “potential� that has been inherited from Greek philosophers. If we could eliminate fictitious concept of 'potential energy', we would have only the ‘kinetic energy’- Ah ! Pure perpetual motion! !, Lo ! then, we can represent gravity as a 'creative principle of nature' as being self accelerated to the objects, it is really a counterpart of perpetual motion, I believe.

It hardly needs to be mentioned that subjective character of law of conservation of energy has been decried by a large number of philosophers of science. Dr. Jaki has gone great length to establish that the principle has its Roots in Religion, Oriental philosophy, Doctrine of emanation and absorption of soul.

Though, scientist has revolutionized the human existence, unconscious fear in the mind about the death and ‘invisible force’ still exists as he is not completely free from his past and prejudice. Like an ordinary man, he wishes everything to perpetuate, be his laws of science and theories, customs or culture, gods and Angeles, be his beloved kings, or kiths and kins or his master. He is never free from acknowledging their influence in his scientific works as if existing forever. He personifies the past and his unconscious is full of thought that they are eternal beyond any destruction. Man’s wish to preserve ‘force’ is visible in all branches of our knowledge -religion, philosophy and science. Fear psychosis which prevailed over a span of many thousand years with its grip over man’s consciousness can still be traced in his unconscious mind. Bertrand Russel and Poincare have also shown that the principle of conservation of energy contains subjective element of 'permanence', it has no rational basis.

So again I would quote

“After having denied—if not actually disproved— the existence of “energy " as a separate entity, it may seem a waste of space and time to discuss any of its subsidiary doctrines. It is very much like a certain historian who, after having stated that there were no snakes in Ireland, is said to have assured his readers that those that were there were not poisonous.

It is useless to pretend that we know energy, its laws and behavior- about a thing/abstract and erroneous concept which is really nothing.

Best regards

P-M

[primemignonite]

Just excellent! Matters are heating up.

To one of the two principals, respondent jim_mich asserts with impressive conviction "You cannot have it both ways."

(This declaration is simply past marvelous - JUST what I was looking for!)

And, as a bonus, further-on offers the tasty treat "If gravity supplied more force in one situation than in another situation then it would no longer be conservative. If there is a gravity only method of PM then it would be at odds to the current understanding of physics."

And so does seem to concur with Fletcher's position, and thus augurs positively-for the delightful promise of "Big Troubles Brewing . . ." upon sight and examination of the Elusive Creature itself. ("It's ALIVE! ALIVE!" - Baron Frankenstein in an orgasmic fit of triumph.)

Thank you, jim_mich.

J.

[Grimer]

...
Edit:
An engine of any type requires some form of unequal force. Gravity is an equal force. We simply need to move a weight with more force in one direction and with less force in the reverse direction. Normally equal force is required to move a weight forward and back or in and out. But a PM wheel is not a normal environment. It is a rotating environment. Centrifugal force is an variable force that depends upon mass, velocity, and radial curve. CF can pump the motions of weights in and out on a rotating wheel. The pumping can accelerate the wheel, just like a child pumps a swing.

......... +1

[Fletcher]

James ..

I was of course, in the original thread, talking of a gravity ONLY engine causing establishment chaos because so much of Newton physics is predicated on gravity being a conservative FORCE, whilst at the same time NOT being energy - yet it is part of the CoE doctrine [law] because no one has successfully shown an instance in mechanics & machines where once gravity force has given a mass KE [motion] it can, under no other influence, regain its original PE [positional height] AND have excess KE [motion], to prove empirically otherwise - and we know that KE does Work which is energy transformation so conservative gravity, as we understand it, dovetails right in - yet gravity is a force derived from the interaction of a mass & a field, however it got there, & not energy, all the same.

Thank you P-M for that contribution about the scientific foundations & derivation of energy.

I was not aware that there was any sort of institutional groundswell rising, or perhaps a ripple, to seriously question the little premiss that grew up to be a Law, so it was a delight to read of it & their reasoning.

I for one view the mechanics of the world & universe as just such a balancing of natural forces towards a state of equilibrium of those forces - and when those forces are not in equilibrium [however they got to be like that] things are literally forced to move about & re-jostle for position - the next conundrum for me being the Work Energy Equivalence Principle & why it was NOT a Law, yet it is so readily accepted as being inviolate & part & parcel of Conservation Laws - I do it myself all the time.

The upshot is that if gravity is in fact just a force & not energy, as some here seem to believe, and, the Work Energy Equivalence Principle is not an enshrined Law [& it isn't AFAIK], then some latitude exists in my mind that the Conservation of Energy Law might not be the book-end show stopper I once thought it must be.

FWIW - for me I could only have arrived here, at this apparent paradox of belief I find myself in today, by having first understood as best I could, the foundations laid down by the many.

[justsomeone]

A windmill can turn with an equal force on both sides of the center. I believe a gravity wheel will also work with an equal force on both sides of the axle. I don't believe you will change the force of gravity on one side of the wheel unless you solve the Coral Castle mystery.

[ovyyus]

So, ovyyus, are we to expect - given the actual materialization of the desired thing itself - that both will be found true, your apples v. oranges part not withstanding?

When James Cox materialized his self winding clock in the mid 1700's he, like Bessler 50 years earlier, claimed his invention was a true perpetual motion. His 18th Century point of view allowed it. Did Cox have it both ways?

[eccentrically1]

A windmill can turn with an equal force on both sides of the center. I believe a gravity wheel will also work with an equal force on both sides of the axle. I don't believe you will change the force of gravity on one side of the wheel unless you solve the Coral Castle mystery.

Uh oh, I sense an argument about aerodynamics.

[getterdone]

I have to agree with JC on this one. I dont think that any width for height trade off is going to prove to be successfoul, it wasn't for me. But by using the axle to take weight off the negative side, it is possible to have one side heavier than the other side, with all levers and weights being the exact same distance from the axle.

So yes, gravity is conservative, , but does it matter?

[rlortie]

A windmill can turn without equal (wind) force on both sides of center.

I speak of the one blade propeller recently discussed here in 'Off Topic'. a counter balanced single blade propeller of equal balancing weight on both sides of axis. They weigh the same, but the aerodynamic force is only utilized,implied on the single blade.

Single blade RC helicopter videos on You tube appear to prove as airworthy as machines with two or three blades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9juUWL5iU

Note the following question and answer;
Could you make the counterweight lighter by moving it farther away from the center? Maybe this could work with the MSR. Maybe it would save even more energy?

Answer: "The further you move it away, the heavier it will get".

I have a problem excepting this answer, true one would expect more strain on the vertical axis via Cf, but aerodynamically, I would think it would add inertia and Ke to the working blade.

Ralph

[primemignonite]

Fletcher!

Thanks much for adding to the discussion.

Even more, you firmed-up things for us by adding "I was of course, in the original thread, talking of a gravity ONLY engine causing establishment chaos . . . "

I understood that; I assume that most others did as well.

Yes, the task of the unequal parting of the gravitational force by mechanism alone, is most elusive of doing. (I am here stressing the obvious for added, unnecessary emphasis.)

Thanks also, Fletcher, for helping us some with making more than there might be otherwise, regarding Perpetual Motionist's fine, voluminous contribution. I must admit that I am often pleasantly bewildered by them, and cannot make of the fine imparting all that I really should, this limitation being mine exclusively.

Your parting advisement was especially interesting to me:

"FWIW - for me I could only have arrived here, at this apparent paradox of belief I find myself in today, by having first understood as best I could, the foundations laid down by the many."

". . . this apparent paradox of belief . . ."

Indeed, it seems that!

Atb(s)!

James