Here there and almost everywhere, I've read variously that GRAVITY is not energy; and, at other tymes and places, that it IS!
What, I ask, might bee the truth of the matter actually?
If it is NOT after all energy per se and, if it - gravity - may bee made to motivate a wheel comprised of dead materials so as to imitate a thing living veritably, then, admonitions pro- the proposition made by the better brains of science, may bee by it periled. (Propositionally, this seems a notion not unreasonable.)
If it IS after all energy per se, causing such action as sayed above, then the dynamical heat laws will be saved intakt but, those others of their high-posterior inquiring kind, will lose on the argument as-to gravitie's supposed conservative nature.
(OH! HOW might we labor-so, to get them off THIS sharp, nasty hook apromising? For, after all, it IS amongst our lowly bilders' dutys, is it not? Pursuant ' such a great anticipation, I practice daily me bending of the waist! Best believe-it-not!)
So . . .
"IS it or, is it NOT?"
BUT, before getting too far into the luscious tussle, if you all mite, please DO review this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
Whereat it fairly states particularly, at one/third-way down as scrolled:
"Energy is subject to the law of conservation of energy. According to this law, energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed.
Most kinds of energy (with gravitational energy being a notable exception)[10] are subject to strict local conservation laws as well. In this case, energy can only be exchanged between adjacent regions of space, and all observers agree as to the volumetric density of energy in any given space. There is also a global law of conservation of energy, stating that the total energy of the universe cannot change; this is a corollary of the local law, but not vice versa.[6][11] Conservation of energy is the mathematical consequence of translational symmetry of time (that is, the indistinguishability of time intervals taken at different time)[12] - see Noether's theorem."
(My emboldening. Also, there is to bee found sprinkled throughout various appearances of Noether - dear sweet Emmy.)
". . . gravitational energy . . ."!
To me and my simple former organ builder's poor mind, the whole of the Wikipedia thing seems mightily authoritative.
So in view of all the foregoing, as to all this seeming contrariness, WHEREAT ARE WE????
AtB(s)!
James
PS Dear Fletcher, I think you could add a lot here.
IS it or, is it NOT?
Moderator: scott
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
IS it or, is it NOT?
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
Is gravity energy ?
In as has been observed so far, NO ! - it is NOT a flow of energy.
It is defined as a force made up of the interaction of mass & an acceleration, the acceleration component being a field differential & proportional to the inverse square of the separation distance between masses.
When that gravity force is allowed to act over a distance (or displacement) between two masses we get f x d = M.A.D. which is the masses Kinetic Energy [KE], since locally the acceleration is constant.
N.B. if the two masses experiencing gravitational attraction are both able to move towards each other both masses will acquire KE as seen by an outside observer - if the observer is on one mass, the larger [say earth] then the earth will gain so little momentum & KE as to be unnoticed.
The acquiring of KE is at the expense of Potential Energy [PE] - this is energy potential by way of position relative to another mass & any gravitational attraction between them - so it is a potential to produce & release energy into another form, from displacement already given to the two masses - this separation or displacement required Work to achieve [M.A.D.] & so we can deduce that the Joules of Work done on the system will be equal to the Joules of energy we get back from a result of decreasing displacement.
N.B. Work Done Joules & KE or PE Joules are the same units & therefore interchangeable, both as measure of capacity or capability to do Work, or energy - that's why we say it takes so much energy to slow & stop an object with velocity & momentum.
We call this the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle, & so far it has never been disproved to be true, AFAIK.
To put it in perspective the concept of Energy & Work capacity exchange is a direct result of Newon's Laws, in particular, the Law that for every Action there is an equal & opposite Reaction - this implies an unbreakable symmetry of forces in every situation.
----------------------
When I come back some more discourse from a different perspective related to the possibility of Intrinsic Motion Machines, A-symmetry of forces & the 'what-then gravity' definition.
In as has been observed so far, NO ! - it is NOT a flow of energy.
It is defined as a force made up of the interaction of mass & an acceleration, the acceleration component being a field differential & proportional to the inverse square of the separation distance between masses.
When that gravity force is allowed to act over a distance (or displacement) between two masses we get f x d = M.A.D. which is the masses Kinetic Energy [KE], since locally the acceleration is constant.
N.B. if the two masses experiencing gravitational attraction are both able to move towards each other both masses will acquire KE as seen by an outside observer - if the observer is on one mass, the larger [say earth] then the earth will gain so little momentum & KE as to be unnoticed.
The acquiring of KE is at the expense of Potential Energy [PE] - this is energy potential by way of position relative to another mass & any gravitational attraction between them - so it is a potential to produce & release energy into another form, from displacement already given to the two masses - this separation or displacement required Work to achieve [M.A.D.] & so we can deduce that the Joules of Work done on the system will be equal to the Joules of energy we get back from a result of decreasing displacement.
N.B. Work Done Joules & KE or PE Joules are the same units & therefore interchangeable, both as measure of capacity or capability to do Work, or energy - that's why we say it takes so much energy to slow & stop an object with velocity & momentum.
We call this the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle, & so far it has never been disproved to be true, AFAIK.
To put it in perspective the concept of Energy & Work capacity exchange is a direct result of Newon's Laws, in particular, the Law that for every Action there is an equal & opposite Reaction - this implies an unbreakable symmetry of forces in every situation.
----------------------
When I come back some more discourse from a different perspective related to the possibility of Intrinsic Motion Machines, A-symmetry of forces & the 'what-then gravity' definition.
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
Cox used barometric pressure variations to wind a spring via a ratchet arrangement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_timepiece
Wikipidea states it is not perpetual motion because it derives its power from an outside source.
I disagree since nothing is being consumed or changed in my opinion.
Gravity is being used here via ambient air pressure and work is being done in winding the clockspring.
Hello James and Fletch.
Graham[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_timepiece
Wikipidea states it is not perpetual motion because it derives its power from an outside source.
I disagree since nothing is being consumed or changed in my opinion.
Gravity is being used here via ambient air pressure and work is being done in winding the clockspring.
Hello James and Fletch.
Graham[/b]
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
Hi to you Graham.
..................................
Continuing ...
Back to the Future: - looking at the problem of an IMM [or true PMM] from the reverse perspective - my unrefined ramblings & opinions.
What conditions would provide for the possibility of an IMM & secondly a true PPM [using gravity] ?
1. an IMM could be fabricated where energy/fuel was introduced & stored internally as PE to be released to do external work - this would be an IMM but not a true PPM.
2. a naturally occurring waxing & waning environmental change could be harnessed to cause rotational torque [force around a pivot) e.g. like Cox's barometric clock & Drebbel's barometric & temperature driven devices - this would be an IMM but I would be hard pressed to call it a true PMM, even though nothing appeared to be consumed as Graham put it - these machines rely on differentials providing a localized force asymmetry which results in work done externally [changing one form of energy (initially solar) into mechanical energy & heat], but the energy budget balances because the external energy introduced equals the localized energy of the machine including Output/Load.
For a long time I thought this was the only logical way forward, discounting a fraud option !
3. gravity is a source of energy, or a flow, that can be tapped to do external work whilst a machine replenishes its PE each cycle & self sustains itself - all empirical evidence to date discounts this as a logical option for a prime mover because gravity has always been found to be conservative.
What this means is that whilst the Laws of Leverage [i.e. the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP)] displayed & verified in all machines & mechanisms remains a 'truism' then there is no opportunity to break the Laws of Leverage, which could equally be called the 'Laws of Force Symmetry' - IOW's, all empirical devices exhibit symmetry of forces - this means that gravity can not be used as a prime mover unless a reciprocating or rotary device for example can create conditions of reoccurring A-symmetry of forces - IOW's, the Laws of Levers & WEEP are NOT always true, or for every action there is not always a equal & opposite reaction - physics heresy !
4. if an empirical device could break the laws of levers i.e. produce asymmetric forces around a pivot, with just gravity force as the prime mover, then rotational torque could manifest by either of two ways ...
A. the device augments torque on one side of the pivot.
B. the device mitigates torque on one side of the pivot.
The conclusion being that WEEP, where gravity is the prime mover, is an erroneous or incomplete concept, or principle as it is called [N.B. it is not a Law] - that it is not correct to, in every mechanical circumstance, tie work & energy forever together - in short, Newton's Laws didn't cover every empirical situation - if this were true then there ought to be evidence of the constituents for such a device to be found in nature.
It would be self evident that a device that produced asymmetric forces that allowed self sustaining motion would have a natural stability quite different form all other mechanical devices - it would have dynamic & inherent instability i.e. predisposed to continuous motion, once set in motion - normal devices have inherent stability i.e. they seek & find their position of lowest PE & cease motion, without external input.
I call it MAD-VD theory [I'll explain another time].
--------------------------------
If gravity was the prime mover & a man made contrivance allowed for asymmetric force generation that ultimately resulted in a self sustaining device that could also output Work/Load then I would initially conclude a couple of things ...
A. that the laws of levers [symmetry of forces] could be broken & wasn't a truism at all.
B. that Newton's Laws were a subset condition of a wider Law of Nature.
C. that entropy was a condition of nature but that it could be reversed/induced in local specialized situations & that mechanically manifested 'reverse entropy' allowed for Work to be done.
N.B. this means that force is the prima facie condition of the universes condition & overall entropy direction towards homogenization & disorder - IOW's, forces are the cause & find equilibrium in time & volume of space & this is the elementary mechanics of the universe that gives it direction, flow, form & function.
The Laws of Thermodynamics would need to be 'adjusted' & perhaps disassociate force & displacement from energy - that would make the theoretical physicists both MAD & WEEP trying to figure out the new paradigm ;7)
JMO's.
P.S. you might think 3 & 4 look very much the same but if gravity were energy able to be tapped then we might expect to see gravity variations near a machine, if one were to exist etc.
..................................
Continuing ...
Back to the Future: - looking at the problem of an IMM [or true PMM] from the reverse perspective - my unrefined ramblings & opinions.
What conditions would provide for the possibility of an IMM & secondly a true PPM [using gravity] ?
1. an IMM could be fabricated where energy/fuel was introduced & stored internally as PE to be released to do external work - this would be an IMM but not a true PPM.
2. a naturally occurring waxing & waning environmental change could be harnessed to cause rotational torque [force around a pivot) e.g. like Cox's barometric clock & Drebbel's barometric & temperature driven devices - this would be an IMM but I would be hard pressed to call it a true PMM, even though nothing appeared to be consumed as Graham put it - these machines rely on differentials providing a localized force asymmetry which results in work done externally [changing one form of energy (initially solar) into mechanical energy & heat], but the energy budget balances because the external energy introduced equals the localized energy of the machine including Output/Load.
For a long time I thought this was the only logical way forward, discounting a fraud option !
3. gravity is a source of energy, or a flow, that can be tapped to do external work whilst a machine replenishes its PE each cycle & self sustains itself - all empirical evidence to date discounts this as a logical option for a prime mover because gravity has always been found to be conservative.
What this means is that whilst the Laws of Leverage [i.e. the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP)] displayed & verified in all machines & mechanisms remains a 'truism' then there is no opportunity to break the Laws of Leverage, which could equally be called the 'Laws of Force Symmetry' - IOW's, all empirical devices exhibit symmetry of forces - this means that gravity can not be used as a prime mover unless a reciprocating or rotary device for example can create conditions of reoccurring A-symmetry of forces - IOW's, the Laws of Levers & WEEP are NOT always true, or for every action there is not always a equal & opposite reaction - physics heresy !
4. if an empirical device could break the laws of levers i.e. produce asymmetric forces around a pivot, with just gravity force as the prime mover, then rotational torque could manifest by either of two ways ...
A. the device augments torque on one side of the pivot.
B. the device mitigates torque on one side of the pivot.
The conclusion being that WEEP, where gravity is the prime mover, is an erroneous or incomplete concept, or principle as it is called [N.B. it is not a Law] - that it is not correct to, in every mechanical circumstance, tie work & energy forever together - in short, Newton's Laws didn't cover every empirical situation - if this were true then there ought to be evidence of the constituents for such a device to be found in nature.
It would be self evident that a device that produced asymmetric forces that allowed self sustaining motion would have a natural stability quite different form all other mechanical devices - it would have dynamic & inherent instability i.e. predisposed to continuous motion, once set in motion - normal devices have inherent stability i.e. they seek & find their position of lowest PE & cease motion, without external input.
I call it MAD-VD theory [I'll explain another time].
--------------------------------
If gravity was the prime mover & a man made contrivance allowed for asymmetric force generation that ultimately resulted in a self sustaining device that could also output Work/Load then I would initially conclude a couple of things ...
A. that the laws of levers [symmetry of forces] could be broken & wasn't a truism at all.
B. that Newton's Laws were a subset condition of a wider Law of Nature.
C. that entropy was a condition of nature but that it could be reversed/induced in local specialized situations & that mechanically manifested 'reverse entropy' allowed for Work to be done.
N.B. this means that force is the prima facie condition of the universes condition & overall entropy direction towards homogenization & disorder - IOW's, forces are the cause & find equilibrium in time & volume of space & this is the elementary mechanics of the universe that gives it direction, flow, form & function.
The Laws of Thermodynamics would need to be 'adjusted' & perhaps disassociate force & displacement from energy - that would make the theoretical physicists both MAD & WEEP trying to figure out the new paradigm ;7)
JMO's.
P.S. you might think 3 & 4 look very much the same but if gravity were energy able to be tapped then we might expect to see gravity variations near a machine, if one were to exist etc.
-
Trevor Lyn Whatford
- Devotee
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
- Location: England
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
Hi all,
This is my view on gravity!
Gravity is a element of every known atom or subatomic particles, Gravity large scale is a force derived from mass, if gravity’s potential energy is used the mass is unaltered even though it would have change force into kinetic energy. Because gravity is a element of known atoms it has been part of the universe at the start and indeed came to being with the first ever atom, this must make it a perpetual force being in existence long before man kind. It has never been a conservative force until man invented it. Why, for what purpose?
In nature it has always been a energy input, and keeps everything in its orbit and before comes to that. Any movement derived from the force of gravity must be seen as potential energy being converted into kinetic energy, given the planetary mass does not seem to be losing mass must surely mean gravity is a perpetual force first and foremost!
There is no reason why Gravity cannot be used as a energy input, it is just energy conversion, at the end of the day all of the mass will still be there to be counted thus so will the energy, over time nothing has changed all elements can be accounted for ready for the next big bang, so why all the conservative bull ship?
Every wheel I have built has never came to rest, all be it neither has the Earth! You do not have to look far for perpetual motion just widen your prospective!
Regards Trevor
This is my view on gravity!
Gravity is a element of every known atom or subatomic particles, Gravity large scale is a force derived from mass, if gravity’s potential energy is used the mass is unaltered even though it would have change force into kinetic energy. Because gravity is a element of known atoms it has been part of the universe at the start and indeed came to being with the first ever atom, this must make it a perpetual force being in existence long before man kind. It has never been a conservative force until man invented it. Why, for what purpose?
In nature it has always been a energy input, and keeps everything in its orbit and before comes to that. Any movement derived from the force of gravity must be seen as potential energy being converted into kinetic energy, given the planetary mass does not seem to be losing mass must surely mean gravity is a perpetual force first and foremost!
There is no reason why Gravity cannot be used as a energy input, it is just energy conversion, at the end of the day all of the mass will still be there to be counted thus so will the energy, over time nothing has changed all elements can be accounted for ready for the next big bang, so why all the conservative bull ship?
Every wheel I have built has never came to rest, all be it neither has the Earth! You do not have to look far for perpetual motion just widen your prospective!
Regards Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
-
Trevor Lyn Whatford
- Devotee
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
- Location: England
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
Hi Primemignonite,
Force is stored energy until it acts on a body then it is energy!
People say “Trevor you do not understand the energy laws�, when in fact I do understand them I just cannot comprehend them. Some Elements of the energy laws do not make sense to me wherein I am asked to take geometry failed experiments as proof that gravity is a conservative force, my own experiments have shown me that gravity is not a conservative force so how can I believe in something I do not see as true!
Example, how many times have you heard this, the weight on the right will equal the weights on the left, and there is more weight at the bottom, how the can that be construed as gravity is a conservative force when you have just built a balance?
People want order in there knowledge base that is why people believe in the energy laws and will fight to prove what is believed is correctness, well until you find truth you will not find order, thus all the controversy here about what is gravity.
There is one part of the energy laws that will stand correct over time and that is you cannot get energy from nothing it can only be converted, this I do believe, as it make perfect sense!
Regards Trevor
Edit, space + spelling.
Force is stored energy until it acts on a body then it is energy!
People say “Trevor you do not understand the energy laws�, when in fact I do understand them I just cannot comprehend them. Some Elements of the energy laws do not make sense to me wherein I am asked to take geometry failed experiments as proof that gravity is a conservative force, my own experiments have shown me that gravity is not a conservative force so how can I believe in something I do not see as true!
Example, how many times have you heard this, the weight on the right will equal the weights on the left, and there is more weight at the bottom, how the can that be construed as gravity is a conservative force when you have just built a balance?
People want order in there knowledge base that is why people believe in the energy laws and will fight to prove what is believed is correctness, well until you find truth you will not find order, thus all the controversy here about what is gravity.
There is one part of the energy laws that will stand correct over time and that is you cannot get energy from nothing it can only be converted, this I do believe, as it make perfect sense!
Regards Trevor
Edit, space + spelling.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Re: IS it or, is it NOT?
YES!primemignonite wrote:
"IS it or, is it NOT?"
Which reminds me of that joke about the Irish colonel addressing his troops before battle.
"Well me boys - will youse fight or will youse run?"
"WE WILL."
"Ye will what?"
"WE WILL NOT."
"God bless ye boys. I knew youse would."
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
Note: This response I've now deleted as the original had taken on a too expansive, rhetorical life of it's own. A large section of it I've moved to 'Off-Topic' under the title "A Halloween Treat;" all the rest being treated as usual.
James
James
Last edited by primemignonite on Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
gravity is a product of a space/time warp
anything with any mass slows down time
the more the mass the more time is slowed down in that mass' vicinity
therefore another object with mass goes towards it because more of its "future" lies in that direction
and there is absolutely no other "force" stopping it
so it isn't going in that direction
it's ising in that direction
and who shall let it?
to is or not to is
not question about it
anything with any mass slows down time
the more the mass the more time is slowed down in that mass' vicinity
therefore another object with mass goes towards it because more of its "future" lies in that direction
and there is absolutely no other "force" stopping it
so it isn't going in that direction
it's ising in that direction
and who shall let it?
to is or not to is
not question about it
Last edited by Dwylbtzle on Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
Fletcher,
Thanks very much for your help here.
Of course the most interesting of your list of four conditions that might ". . . provide for the possibility of an IMM & secondly a true PPM [using gravity] ?" would be the Fourth, with the Third being a close second.
In concluding sectionally, directly after 4. A & B, most fascinatingly you add:
"The conclusion being that WEEP, where gravity is the prime mover, is an erroneous or incomplete concept, or principle as it is called [N.B. it is not a Law] - that it is not correct to, in every mechanical circumstance, tie work & energy forever together - in short, Newton's Laws didn't cover every empirical situation - if this were true then there ought to be evidence of the constituents for such a device to be found in nature."
Yes!
Given a self-operating wheel, the above might well be a fitting explanation. However, at the part ". . . - if this were true then there ought to be evidence of the constituents for such a device to be found in nature." I would be inclined to interject, and to ask in all sincerity "really?"
By way of questioning, I shall endeavor to explain my own question.
Why should such a device of artifice so very peculiar, be found already made by Nature, within her?
From whence might come such an expectation?
As a very dear friend has made clear to me just recently, Perpetual Motion is everywhere to be seen in Nature, but, here we are speaking of an "artificial perpetual motion" - a kind that one could expect quite logically to never appear spontaneously, compliments of Nature's boundless, natural creativity.
I believe it a fact that the creative imaginings of Mankind consistently transcend natural existence and thereby become re-creative. Do our animal co-inhabitants exhibit such an ability, as we might possibly detect?
(Here, I shall just barely resist the temptation to use the term 'supernatural' as so many silly spines tend to go upright at it's sight. Excepting for the possibility of irrational fear, I've no idea as to why. "Was That The Human Thing To Do?")
Based upon this quite-seeming observed fact of us humans, and our varietous ways, I suggest that such a machine's appearance would constitute an unnatural event and so, on this account, it's fundamental causation of operation (to say nothing of the device itself) would most likely not be "found" in Nature!
Otherwise, I find your growing "MAD-VD" theory not only fascinating, but most natural seeming or, rather, a mind creation inevitable.
The rest of it following-on hard, is most delicious to ponder. (Of course, such involving dreams crow pies, chewed-upon hats and all manner of otherly, deserved treats, as earned over three centuries of lab-coated snobbery, derision, bigotry and general snottiness and bullying. This would be THE OTHER side of my inner Gemini speaking. To put it leastwise, the tiny fiend does not much practice kisses of consecration, and in battle, would take no prisoners - all would-be opponents ending up DOA!)
This really is short-shrift and doesn't do your contribution requisite justice, Fletcher.
For this lack I apologize and yet again, do offer my appreciation - you never disappoint.
James
Thanks very much for your help here.
Of course the most interesting of your list of four conditions that might ". . . provide for the possibility of an IMM & secondly a true PPM [using gravity] ?" would be the Fourth, with the Third being a close second.
In concluding sectionally, directly after 4. A & B, most fascinatingly you add:
"The conclusion being that WEEP, where gravity is the prime mover, is an erroneous or incomplete concept, or principle as it is called [N.B. it is not a Law] - that it is not correct to, in every mechanical circumstance, tie work & energy forever together - in short, Newton's Laws didn't cover every empirical situation - if this were true then there ought to be evidence of the constituents for such a device to be found in nature."
Yes!
Given a self-operating wheel, the above might well be a fitting explanation. However, at the part ". . . - if this were true then there ought to be evidence of the constituents for such a device to be found in nature." I would be inclined to interject, and to ask in all sincerity "really?"
By way of questioning, I shall endeavor to explain my own question.
Why should such a device of artifice so very peculiar, be found already made by Nature, within her?
From whence might come such an expectation?
As a very dear friend has made clear to me just recently, Perpetual Motion is everywhere to be seen in Nature, but, here we are speaking of an "artificial perpetual motion" - a kind that one could expect quite logically to never appear spontaneously, compliments of Nature's boundless, natural creativity.
I believe it a fact that the creative imaginings of Mankind consistently transcend natural existence and thereby become re-creative. Do our animal co-inhabitants exhibit such an ability, as we might possibly detect?
(Here, I shall just barely resist the temptation to use the term 'supernatural' as so many silly spines tend to go upright at it's sight. Excepting for the possibility of irrational fear, I've no idea as to why. "Was That The Human Thing To Do?")
Based upon this quite-seeming observed fact of us humans, and our varietous ways, I suggest that such a machine's appearance would constitute an unnatural event and so, on this account, it's fundamental causation of operation (to say nothing of the device itself) would most likely not be "found" in Nature!
Otherwise, I find your growing "MAD-VD" theory not only fascinating, but most natural seeming or, rather, a mind creation inevitable.
The rest of it following-on hard, is most delicious to ponder. (Of course, such involving dreams crow pies, chewed-upon hats and all manner of otherly, deserved treats, as earned over three centuries of lab-coated snobbery, derision, bigotry and general snottiness and bullying. This would be THE OTHER side of my inner Gemini speaking. To put it leastwise, the tiny fiend does not much practice kisses of consecration, and in battle, would take no prisoners - all would-be opponents ending up DOA!)
This really is short-shrift and doesn't do your contribution requisite justice, Fletcher.
For this lack I apologize and yet again, do offer my appreciation - you never disappoint.
James
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
question:
is magnetism "a conservative energy"?
(seeing as how you don't use up part/(ANY) of a permanent magnet's stored energy every time you use it)
utilize it a thousand times and it's still just THERE
same strength
(this is the quantum "cheat"
you don't tackle Newton head on
you get around him)
he's a macro kinda guy
and the micro forces can trump the macro
if you know how to arrange it
ask any insect you may have crawling up yer wall
no-one has yet unified the two things (to my satisfaction)
we appear to have two separate ball games going on here
at least for all practical purposes
if bessler's wheel was real i can't see how he did it JUST with gravity and tricky flippers or sliders or pendulums
but he MAY have indeed arranged something thinking outside the box
is magnetism "a conservative energy"?
(seeing as how you don't use up part/(ANY) of a permanent magnet's stored energy every time you use it)
utilize it a thousand times and it's still just THERE
same strength
(this is the quantum "cheat"
you don't tackle Newton head on
you get around him)
he's a macro kinda guy
and the micro forces can trump the macro
if you know how to arrange it
ask any insect you may have crawling up yer wall
no-one has yet unified the two things (to my satisfaction)
we appear to have two separate ball games going on here
at least for all practical purposes
if bessler's wheel was real i can't see how he did it JUST with gravity and tricky flippers or sliders or pendulums
but he MAY have indeed arranged something thinking outside the box
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
@Trevor Lyn Whatford
Trevor, you have contributed various of thoughts here but this ONE played out a particularly resonant, harmonious chord to me:
* * * * *
"People want order in there knowledge base that is why people believe in the energy laws and will fight to prove what is believed is correctness, well until you find truth you will not find order, thus all the controversy here about what is gravity."
* * * * *
Indeed so they do and, as I would expect, some even to-the-death, Trevor!
Thanks for it.
James
Trevor, you have contributed various of thoughts here but this ONE played out a particularly resonant, harmonious chord to me:
* * * * *
"People want order in there knowledge base that is why people believe in the energy laws and will fight to prove what is believed is correctness, well until you find truth you will not find order, thus all the controversy here about what is gravity."
* * * * *
Indeed so they do and, as I would expect, some even to-the-death, Trevor!
Thanks for it.
James
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
It's true that people often believe in nonsense that they don't/can't/won't understand. The energy laws are not the product of belief, they are the product of observation and experiment that can be tested. Go test them.Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:People want order in there knowledge base that is why people believe in the energy laws...
Gravity is not energy like a spring is not energy.
re: IS it or, is it NOT?
until someone does what einstein was unable to do:
unify some theory that applies to both
we seem to have two different sets of laws:
one for newtonian physics
and one for quantum mechanics
i don't know exactly how or why a phone works but i can place a call
combine the two and cheat a bit
live a little
rules were meant to be circumvented
unify some theory that applies to both
we seem to have two different sets of laws:
one for newtonian physics
and one for quantum mechanics
i don't know exactly how or why a phone works but i can place a call
combine the two and cheat a bit
live a little
rules were meant to be circumvented
Re: re: IS it or, is it NOT?
Gravity is like a lot of very long compressed vertical springs. They press down on bodies which have mass.ovyyus wrote:Gravity is not energy like a spring is not energy.Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:People want order in there knowledge base that is why people believe in the energy laws...
When a body is released its gravity spring forces the body downwards releasing some of the energy in the spring.
A spring isn't energy but a spring contains energy - and so does the gravity "spring."
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?