Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"

[ovyyus]

I do not believe that just anything is possible, I do however believe that man has not proved beyond doubt; what he claims to be impossible is not possible.

Hang on a minute..., you don't believe just anything is possible unless man first says its impossible. What's the catch? :D

[rlortie]

Bill,

Hang on a minute..., you don't believe just anything is possible unless man first says its impossible. What's the catch? :D

To my thinking you are twisting my words: Confusion to be unclear in mind or purpose. There is no catch.

I do not believe just anything is possible. (period)

Man can imagine something and maybe some day it will become a reality, but there are obvious limitations.

Man claims, based on theory and assumptions some things are impossible. That does not imply that I have to except the belief that it is either possible or impossible based solely on theory.

All I ask is for an open mind, ability to assimilate theories and assumptions that are not validated. Looking for the UN-obvious, exploiting Occam's razor:

"The application of the principle that often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be "nuanced" a subtle or slight degree of difference."

I hope this answers your question. If not keep them coming, I find them useful and mind invigorating. Maybe build a better mouse trap! :-)

Ralph

[ovyyus]

That does not imply that I have to except the belief that it is either possible or impossible based solely on theory.

Ralph, how is that applicable when, in the case of gravity acting as a conservative force, we aren't talking about something based solely on theory? It is a fact, not theory or assumption, that all experiments to date show gravity to act as a conservative force. Whether you accept or believe or understand the data is another matter.

[rlortie]

It is a fact, not theory or assumption, that all experiments to date show gravity to act as a conservative force.

OK! so it is a fact that all experiments to date have shown gravity to act as a conservative force! To this statement I do not debate nor misunderstand. I agree!

What you are proving or stating is that "all experiments to date" have shown gravity to act as a conservative force. I accept this as fact, but what has an unknown number of factual experiments have to do with the yet untried ones. Or more simply put as "Occam's razor" the right one.

"To date" does not imply what may happen tomorrow or does it objectively prove that gravity is conservative in the accepted sense.

Bill, if you go on a kangaroo hunt and do not see any kangaroos, does that imply that they no longer exist?

I am ready for the next bout! :-)

Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

...but like religion it all comes down to personal belief!

That is only true when proof of principle is never provided!

The scientific method tests ideas to destruction, belief be damned. The religious method is the opposite. Opposites often attract :D

They have not test all options as most are not known yet, they may have tested with maths modelling based on what is known not to work, but the designs are becoming more ingenuous by those who still believe.

Just out of interest I would love to see the destruction test of Bessler’s wheel so we know how it worked! Sorry was you about to say how Newton rushed to test his wheel and find out more about it!

Get real! I think you will find that most design do not even get built, if you believe it to be impossible why would you test it? no it comes back to belief!
It would be a good Idea for real scientific research into the free energy subject, where free energy concepts where tested to destruction though, so it was not left to people like me doing real work on them self funded.

If you think that Perpetual motion type machines are empirical tested then you are more deluded than me! Edit, past and present.
Regards Trevor

[jim_mich]

OK. let me get this straight.

All experiments to date show that when you stick your bare finger into water, then pull it out again, your finger will be wet with water, and thus water is wet.

So, according to Ralph, "to date" does not imply what may happen tomorrow or does it objectively prove that water is wet in the accepted sense.

Ralph, did I get it right? Water is not always wet! Somewhere there might be some dry water, if only we keep looking and looking?

Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.

Of course some people never learn. They think that if they keep sticking their finger into water eventually they will pull out a dry finger and exclaim, What a smart fellow I am!

Or if they keep building gravity wheels, someday one will work.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Ovvyus,
I would dearly love to have a rational debate to put across my reasoning, but It is the same as religion wherein peoples beliefs get in the way, I will put it to you how I think it works, but please do not think I have taken over the asylum again.
1. There seem to me that there is a very large contradiction! If Gravity is a Conservative force, the planets movement would have been in a state of perpetual motion for billions of years without a energy input, however I comprehend what is being said and understand the view point but find I cannot subscribe to it.
2. If perpetual motion is possible anywhere with or without a energy input, then it cannot be impossible on Earth, using the same Gravity, So do not mock anybody for having a go, they are not ignorant for taking the path of knowledge as that’s where it leads, I have learnt so much with experimenting that I feel I am getting close to the truth, and the end result will be a successful increase of knowledge.
3. Perhaps we ask to many questions and the answer to intelligence is just to get on with it and enjoy the wonder of it all and its mystery and leave it there!

Regards Trevor

Edit, to define Perhaps, Perhaps 1 it may be; possibly!

[murilo]

Thats funny, I thought it was a good analogy.

Airing greviences specifically about a private forum in public? ...

Don't take it personally, I dislike 99% of people in varying degrees. Any comments I make are probably more aimed at what I consider to be the ignorance that is vomited across multiple threads.

As you have made me realise (and for this I thank you,) my dislike specifically for you, you will no longer have to worry about any "derogatory remarks", as I will assign you to the likes of Murilo, Christo etc, and click that magical button.

I guess reality is only what you perceive it to be. Good luck with your fluid wheel. May gravity turn your wheel forever;)

WOW!!!
Great!
Our precious, smart and wise 'colleague' took his mask and show to us, without shame, the secrets of his happiness!
Trevor... and now? What are you going to do?
Be advised that, once more, you are not a 'dead horse'!
Congrats!
M

[ovyyus]

I would dearly love to have a rational debate to put across my reasoning, but It is the same as religion wherein peoples beliefs get in the way...

Trevor, you can't have a rational debate precisely because you can't set your personal belief's aside.

1. Contradiction results from lack of understanding. Understanding is up to you.

2. Redundant, see above. I'm not mocking you when I ask for proof of principle.

3. Now you say the answer is to not ask too many questions? Sorry, we're clearly not on the same page here, or maybe not even in the same library.

Given the above it seems conversation is hopeless, at least for the time being.

[ovyyus]

Bill, if you go on a kangaroo hunt and do not see any kangaroos, does that imply that they no longer exist?

Ralph, that depends. If no one has ever actually seen a real kangaroo then one might be tempted to conclude that they might not actually exist, hunt or not.

On the other hand if their existence was already proven then it might just be a poor hunt.

Of course there will always be those who hold up what they believe to be kangaroo poo as absolute proof of the existence of a kangaroo. Perhaps because they just want to hunt a kangaroo.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

OK. let me get this straight.

All experiments to date show that when you stick your bare finger into water, then pull it out again, your finger will be wet with water, and thus water is wet.

So, according to Ralph, "to date" does not imply what may happen tomorrow or does it objectively prove that water is wet in the accepted sense.

Ralph, did I get it right? Water is not always wet! Somewhere there might be some dry water, if only we keep looking and looking?

Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.

Of course some people never learn. They think that if they keep sticking their finger into water eventually they will pull out a dry finger and exclaim, What a smart fellow I am!

Or if they keep building gravity wheels, someday one will work.

Hi Jim-Mich,
If you keep repeating the same experiments then you would expect the same results, I choose to learn from many different experiments, and find out exactly where and how the forces work, and what to rule out and exactly where there is a advantage and where there is a disadvantage, if you cannot increase the systems efficiency then you would not stand a chance, if you have a limited input then you need to use it very wisely! I have built many failures but most have given me a increase of knowledge of the subject matter, and now my designs are improving with each experiment, I only now experiment on totally new concepts.

Hi Jim-Mich, Ovvyus,

So what would you have me do, not follow up on a design and spend the rest of my life not knowing with no increase of knowledge. It come back to personal belief, you do not believe that gravity can become a usable output and I believe it can, both option are experiment based, you gave up on it rightly or wrongly, I am still looking rightly or wrongly, I do not know why you are so negative, its not like I am asking you to build them for me, what is wrong with someone doing what they believe in ?


Regards Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

I would dearly love to have a rational debate to put across my reasoning, but It is the same as religion wherein peoples beliefs get in the way...

Trevor, you can't have a rational debate precisely because you can't set your personal belief's aside.

1. Contradiction results from lack of understanding. Understanding is up to you.

2. Redundant, see above. I'm not mocking you when I ask for proof of principle.

3. Now you say the answer is to not ask too many questions? Sorry, we're clearly not on the same page here, or maybe not even in the same library.

Given the above it seems conversation is hopeless, at least for the time being.

Edit, posted before completed!

[rlortie]

jim_mich,

Jim your now playing Bill's role by misconstruing my past expressions. Please be so kind to refresh your memory before responding to wet fingers.

All experiments to date has nothing to do with a bare finger in water and pulling out a wet one. That figure of speech or proverb was meant for the fact that there was no hole left in the water after the finger removal.

So, according to Ralph, "to date" does not imply what may happen tomorrow or does it objectively prove that water is wet in the accepted sense.

True, I can not foretell the future nor do I know what may happen tomorrow. It has nothing to do with water and whether it is wet, I acknowledge that water is said to be wet. Dry water is a concentrate, just add water and stir!

No you did not get it right! water to my knowledge is always wet and I have never implied any difference. If you should find some dry water please advise.

quote="Bessler"]Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.[/quote]

Of course some people never learn. They think that if they keep sticking their finger into water eventually they will pull out a dry finger and exclaim, What a smart fellow I am!

Sorry old chap! but I expect the finger to be wet, and I am well aware of the old Bessler proverb, I am not only aware but take it seriously as I have damn well had the time to expound upon it. I do not understand your reasoning for bringing it up as I am not working with weights. I could indeed stand to have a workout with weights.

Or if they keep building gravity wheels, someday one will work.

Gravity, motion, centrifugal, centripetal. kinetic, or by any other name you wish to call it, it will smell as sweet!

Jim & Bill, Please understand that I enjoy and look forward to your input on a friendly basis and do not wish this to turn into personal criticism. It is (at this time) the fact that I am attempting to work in a cold shop using out of round pipe attempting to fabricate cylinders.

I take frequent breaks and look forward to a chance to stimulate the brain and give reason for my persistence to overcome my present obstacles.

Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Ovvyus,

It is clear we will nether see eye to eye, so lets leave it there, I do not like selective editing, you most be playing games, to me it is a serious subject so it time to bail out.

Regards Trevor

[rlortie]

Bill wrote:

On the other hand if their existence was already proven then it might just be a poor hunt.

Point taken in the broadest sense of the meaning! Existence needs proving. So the hunt continues, not for the excepted laws of gravity but proof of its assumption being false.

I recently received a letter believing that I was responsible for coining the term "perpetualist"... I admit to being one, but the honors of the term are not mine to receive.

Bill I have been aware or had your acquaintance for many years now. Exactly how many years escapes me. I do know that you were working on your MT drawings and it was many years before I become aware of BesslerWheel.com

I have always held you in esteem and with the greatest respect. I enjoy debating with you and always hope to keep it on a friendly bases and worthiness.

I am sorry that you and Trevor are having difficulties in seeing it my way. Debate is good for the soul.

Ralph