IS it or, is it NOT?

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

Re: re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

ovyyus wrote:
Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:People want order in there knowledge base that is why people believe in the energy laws...
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.

Gravity is not energy like a spring is not energy.
Hi Ovyyus,
I have tested many, so please supply me with a good example that is easy to test, so I can test it my self and report my findings, to date I have not seen a experiment that proved that gravity is a conservative force to its defined meaning, I have only seen experiments that fail due to the weight positions and other factors!
Regards Trevor

Edits, below + ( and other factors.)
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!

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!

Force is stored energy until it acts on a body then it is energy!
I only believe what I believe to be True, I believe so do you! You believe I am misguided with delusions and that is my opinion of you, so at least we have some common ground. lol
Last edited by Trevor Lyn Whatford on Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by daxwc »

Fletcher:
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.
Isn’t life itself a case entropy is flawed?
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

If gravity was energy (not potential energy in an open system, but a fuel in a closed system), then someone, somewhere, would have a gravity powered engine.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Daxwc,

No it is proof it is correct! Energy converted to heat wherein the cold of space restores the balance, this is my assumption.

Regards Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

eccentrically1 wrote:If gravity was energy (not potential energy in an open system, but a fuel in a closed system), then someone, somewhere, would have a gravity powered engine.
Hi Eccentrically,

A pull is kinetic energy so you are riding one!

I am not so sure you could get a real world closed system?

Perhaps J.Bessler did have a gravity powered engine?

Regards Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by daxwc »

Trevor, I meant with respect to the arrow of time and which everything slowly goes into disorder; seems to me life seems to organize information and matter.
What goes around, comes around.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Daxwc,

We are all victims of our own reality, right or wrong we have to form a opinion to keep things in our own prospective, in short we will find our own order, or go crazy in trying!

This is why it is to easy to follow the majority ( well that amount of people cannot be wrong ) than to think for our self. I wish I could follow the majority, then I would relax more, the trouble is now I have done to many experiments to believe.

So it looks like I am on the crazy side to most people but to me all I have to do is get the majority with me, and thus work to this ends, one crazy person does not stand out in a crowd of crazy people, lol.
Regards Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by daxwc »

I think what might get misrepresented is the order that information brings and the massive energy needed to make information. For an example think of a computer and its information, to get to that point in the arrow of time is just not the putting of information on the computer but actually it starts at the start of life itself and evolution. More computers, life and information will lead to a higher state of information in the future and a higher order to offset the disorder of entropy that we easily recognize.

Some might think it is a silly argument, but life and evolution maybe balance of entropy; it is all lies in the value of information from DNA to higher forms.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

I think it's an excellent argument.

For every increase in entropy there is a corresponding increase in ectropy. Tropy is conserved just like positive and negative angular momentum.

Tropy is conserved

(you heard it here first)
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

No Grimer. Ectropy is inverse entropy. You cannot increase BOTH entropy and ectropy.


Image
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

Post by Furcurequs »

eccentrically1 wrote:If gravity was energy (not potential energy in an open system, but a fuel in a closed system), then someone, somewhere, would have a gravity powered engine.
I've never really liked this sort of argument - which seems to be akin to "If something were possible, then it would have already been done."

...unless, of course, you meant "would eventually have" in the above quote.

I tend to believe that mankind is still living in a veritable dark ages and truly has a long ways to go in both growth and in understanding of things.

(...and may God help us all if the people currently running things in this world represent the epitome of human potential.)

Now, though, in regards to the argument about gravity itself, from my own direction of exploration I would have to say that even if gravity could be used to help propel an energy producing device, there would likely also be resultant forces on the earth. ...or in other words, the energy obtained could probably be accounted for by a very slight change in the earth's motion - so a working device likely couldn't be considered a closed system.

Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

Gravity does propel energy "transforming" devices, and there are resultant forces on earth. But no energy is obtained. It's simply transformed from one form to other forms, including heat, but not produced.
User avatar
cloud camper
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am

re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by cloud camper »

The matter is far from settled.

If you believe the luminous ether theory as espoused by Tesla, gravity IS the expression of transfer of energy towards and through physical objects.

Has anyone thought of what source of energy is used to keep elementary particles spinning? Are they just unacknowledged perpetual motion devices that spin endlessly of their own accord?

Without a continuous influx of energy these particles would slow to a stop similar to all other macroscopic processes. According to Tesla, gravity IS the source of this energy.

Modern physics even today has an intractable problem with their own concept of the missing ether.

By Einsteins theory of relativity, we have the absolute requirement of no ether field in which to define the curvature of space. With the presence of an ether field, Einstein's theory falls apart according to his own admission.

Then by the principles of quantum mechanics we have the absolute requirement for an ether field to exist.

This is due to the fact that quantum mechanics defines all matter to be composed of a combined wave/particle duality. A missing ether field is fine for particles but for a wave, there is no known physical model for it's existence without a physical medium (ether) in which to propagate.

Einstein himself hated quantum mechanics as he knew it meant the invalidation of his ideas. He died still trying to come up with his own description of elementary processes that did not require a wave/particle duality.

Both theories of special relativity and quantum mechanics are accepted as fact but yet are totally incompatible with each other for this and other reasons. Why should we then believe either one of these theories is correct?

So nothing is settled, everything is in flux. My money is on NT.
Last edited by cloud camper on Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by Furcurequs »

Hey eccentrically1,

Just to clarify, when I speak of my own explorations I'm referring to some of my own ideas and device designs that are likely in some ways unlike anything you've yet seen - for I've not seen these ideas incorporated in any publicly available design that I've yet seen - and I've now seen quite a lot of them, I suppose.

I agree with you in regards to any sort of conventional device, of course. (...and I would probably be in agreement with you concerning any past failed perpetual motion attempt, too, even.)

...but...

While granted I've not yet confirmed that my own device designs will operate as I think they might (since I'm still building things), I'm just saying that if they were to work, and outwardly appeared to be true perpetual motion devices, the energy "made available" by the devices could likely be accounted for by an almost imperceptible change in earth motion due to the earth's relatively massive inertia - if this couldn't be mitigated somehow.

Since the output energy would be kinetic, instead of "transforming" energy I would probably say it was just "redirecting" some available energy.

Sorry I'm not yet ready to reveal the specifics of my ideas. Maybe I'm being selfish, but I want to see with my own eyes - yea or nay - whether my ideas will actually work before I share them.

I'm not proposing any new laws of science, btw. If my devices work they would rely upon the validity of the laws of motion as I was taught them.

They would just be applied to a unique arrangement of (relatively) moving things - properly constrained in their motions to obtain the desired effect.

Maybe I've seen some things that others haven't. Maybe I'm just confused. Even I'm not totally sure which of those it is yet, so you are certainly welcome to believe what you will about me.

I plan on doing the proper tests, though, to determine which it is. If I prove to be correct, I'll then fully strut my stuff. ...lol

...and if I ultimately prove to have been confused, I'll own up to that like a man - an embarrassed, confused and upset man. :(

...lol

Take care.

Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: IS it or, is it NOT?

Post by eccentrically1 »

cloud wrote:If you believe the luminous ether theory as espoused by Tesla, gravity IS the expression of transfer of energy towards and through physical objects.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/ether.htm

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Devel ... _Radiation
Post Reply