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

[ovyyus]

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.

Playing games? I think not. I selectively edited the dross from around the core of your issue with the standard definition of gravity acting as a conservative force. It's not my fault that your personal belief to the contrary remains unsupported and that you might feel it mocks your beliefs for me to ask for a proof of principle. Offering up celestial momentum as proof of some gravity powered principle shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. That's not to insult you and I don't want you to be distracted by being angry with me. It probably won't kill you to believe in less and to learn more about the standard model of physics. It also probably won't mean the death of your personal creativity and it might just lead to the opposite. To label something wrong without first understanding it is inexcusable, all the more so in this day of ready access to the knowledge of the ages. Fair well.

[ovyyus]

I enjoy debating with you and always hope to keep it on a friendly bases and worthiness.

Ralph, some might see a challenge to their personal belief as an attack upon their person, even when that was never the intent. Separating ones self from ones belief is challenging, as it should be.

[rlortie]

... you know the rest of that saying.
"You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."

I make friends and enemies, I am not a "yes" man willing to accept social or consensus beliefs over something that has not been proven, other than to say "it has never been done".

My Christian beliefs play no role here and are set aside, if not I would probably use a parable "out of the mouths of babes" This is not only a parable that the Lord will be using a generation of youth to usher in His kingdom, but they will be the sons and daughters of a prophetic fathers and intercessors who carry the burden of the idea that something is impossible, only because it has not been done. They will not be separated (Naysayers), but move together in the kingdom.

Necessity is the mother of invention, all that man requires will be provided as long as he seeks it.

I do not consider myself as to being a "biased person" nor do I hold any predilection for ideas and rebuttal that come my way. I like to keep my debates earthbound and leave what happens outside earths gravity to those who enjoy such conversation.

If this lays heavy on some creating a personal grudge or dislike, all I can say is Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)

I am a true blood "perpetualist" and for those of my kind I only hope they keep trudging along. The more debate that compiles, the bigger the foot print you will leave behind once discovered.

I have broad shoulders and can withstand a lot of abuse. I do wish however that those willing to debate with me would at least have the courtesy of responding on the topic as written and not some off-the-wall misleading or misunderstanding. I make no attempt to misconstrue your input, all I ask for is the same.

Ralph

[primemignonite]

[The following is not directed toward any one individual.]

Maxims of Law . . .

Perspicua vera non sunt probanda. - "Obvious truths need not be proved." Co. Litt. 16

and further, more explicitly

In rebus manifestis errat qui auctoritates legum allegat; quia perspicua vera non sunt probanda. - "He errs who alleges the authorities of law in things manifest; because obvious truths need not be proved." 5 Co. 67

I have noted variously here-and-there, that the rhetorical trick of making opponents engaged in discussions re-prove what needs not be, is rather common, as used wittingly or not.

For one at least, I believe that honest persons engaged in honest discussion might better (for various of reasons all good) avoid such use, rather than employ it.

James

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Ovvyus,
I will leave you with this absolute fact, perpetual motion caused by the input of the force of gravity has been in existence for billions of years!!!
We are only arguing if it has (as I believe ) a energy input, “Gravity is not a conservative Force�.
Or ( as you believe ) that it has no energy input, and “Gravity is a conservative Force�.
Its not fair well, as I will be back just as soon as I have finished some long over due empirical testing on gravity driven wheels.
Good luck in your search for a closed system 8 )
Believe it or not, with respect Trevor

Edit, added, Caused by the input of the force of gravity

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

While you are about it why not try the maths on the self opening air filled reservoirs in my above post, say it is on a wheel 4m OD with the 20 reservoirs transverse mounted at the outer rim that hold 5 litres of air each when open, that is about 0.4 of a bar water pressure differential , + 0.2 bar greater air pressure to self open the reservoirs , so it will take 0.7 bar to close the reservoirs one at a time, now see how much torque force is gained by the 10 open reservoirs, and how much torque is required to close one reservoir! The above will drive a generator which will drive a small compressor, pneumatic pistons close and latch the reservoirs, and to help the efficiency when the pistons air is dumped it fills open cups at the bottom of the wheel, also the reservoirs are shaped like hydrofoils and are moveable!
With much respect Trevor

Edit, I also have a mechanical option, the open reservoirs are the source of the leverage in both designs, one side full, and the other empty so to speak!
Edit, the mechanical option has a number of frame fixed wheels that compress the reservoirs closed at the top of the main wheel, thus all that one sided leverage to compress one reservoir about 10cm !

Hi all,
This design is better than I thought, because the reservoir are transverse mounted means they can be longer and slimmer, thus very little compression movement, thus levers can be added to the reservoirs to engage the frame mounted top reservoir closing wheel, there is also room to add more reservoirs, so 4 meter OD wheel can accommodate 50 reservoirs, 25 full, 24 empty, and one closing.

What this means is now the design has the leverage torque of 25 air filled reservoirs x the 4 to 1 of the reservoir closing levers leverage = the value of a torque force of a 100 full reservoirs to close just one reservoir! The reservoir closing levers would also be hydro foil in shape, and the leverage ratios can be played with. Hope you find this as interesting as I do.

With regards Trevor

[rlortie]

primemignonite,

Maxims of Law . . .

"Obvious truths need not be proved. By the same token, in-obvious truths needs to be proved or dispelled.

And further, more explicitly,"He errs who alleges the authorities of law in things manifest; because obvious truths need not be proved".

Admit this took a little to read between the lines, but "to error on alleged manifest: as obvious truths are not proven" is a statement that I will buy into.

I have noted variously here-and-there, that the rhetorical trick of making opponents engaged in discussions re-prove what needs not be, is rather common, as used wittingly or not.

For one at least, I believe that honest persons engaged in honest discussion might better (for various of reasons all good) avoid such use, rather than employ it.

I am to much of a Denny Dimwit to wonder if any of this applies to my actions or is directed in my way.

To Trevor; All I can say is: Bill means well and he is not the disbeliever you perceive. He is, and long time has been, the watchdog of this forum. Do not take his inevitable criticism personally. Do as I do and consider it only as enticement to forward your pursuit into that which man claims is impossible because it has never been done.

Which to me is a little confusing, those who wish to perpetuate the search for Bessler's secret are the same people telling you it is impossible!

I will conclude my presence here on this thread, returning it to its parent thread and topic; "Big Troubles Brewing For the Theorists"

I have had my say, found an enemy and vented my frustration. All that is left is to count the votes, and I shall show up elsewhere.

Ralph "Perpetualist" Pe.....

[Grimer]

...
Which to me is a little confusing, those who wish to perpetuate the search for Bessler's secret are the same people telling you it is impossible!
...

I agree. I've always found that rather odd.

If I believed in conspiracy theories I'd think those people were put here deliberately to spread FUD.

[ovyyus]

Not odd at all. Unless of course you're a conspiracy theory buff.

Some people assume that the idea of gravity or inertia PM necessarily relates to the secret of Bessler's wheel.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Ralph,

Of course I do not take it personally, given how many people believe that Gravity is a conservative force I would have no one to talk to lol! I am OK with the rest of Physics but it is just the conservative force thing that I take issue with, it is difficult for my logical mind to believe, I did think though, given that it is a Bessler Wheel forum, he might cut me some slack on the conservative force thing.
Bessler could of energized the universe, instead we have a Conservative Force.
With respect Trevor

[primemignonite]

"I am to much of a Denny Dimwit to wonder if any of this applies to my actions or is directed in my way. " - Ralph

Not directed in anyone's direction, Ralph. (In this, please do believe me?)

Law maxims get this writer to thinking hard about rules of clean argumentation, and conversely the low trickery of debate too often used knowingly or not by some.

In honest discussions aiming for uncovering of vital truths (actual realities), rhetoric and debate tactics have no place. (Here I resist the usual temptation to state "in my opinion." For my own purposes I accept this as being necessary absolutely, to discovery generally.)

In going over lists of them (hundreds), it becomes crystal clear to the reviewer from whence the writers of our own magnificent rights bill (the first ten articles in-addendum) took their lead. For instance, in one it lays out the principle for why a man is not to be compelled to give witness against himself.

In Statute Law World ('the Emperor's word is the law') this no longer applies; contract being now the law for the most part and thus, as a result, the emperor's (here in the U.S., the State) near summary condemnation by accusation and then trial, is applied. (In 1938 here, Federal Common Law was subsumed into that of the statutory then codified.)

The old British and then American common law rule-of-thumb "let the punishment fit the crime" is now a dead dodo - if a statute says that jay-walking is a crime punishable BY DEATH, then that is the law and so, it is to be applied.

By this one extreme example's means (which, within such a corrupted environment of law and it's often violent enforcement by means of laying-on of multiplicative charges, technically is possible) it can be seen that this is a potential, veritable Rule of Hell itself.

Any nation that has had to go this low in order to keep order for the common good (ostensibly this), has yielded-up all to whore Necessity.

(Coincidentally, apropos this very thing, there is also one that instructs that - where Necessity is found to rule - there IS NO LAW existing. Or, as put in other words, the rule of Necessity is itself outlawry.)

From that point on (past some reasonableness) general societal destruction (slow disintegration) is sure to follow. This is exactly what we live today and most tragically, do accept as being right and inevitable.

It is neither.

Such a grossly decrepit condition, once taken-hold uniformly, will not allow of-nor-for it's correction by any means peaceable. (That of the mere-apparent, yes; actually substantive, no.)

Within power structures, very many that are complicit in multiple, compounded felonies, treason's and calumnies hide behind ruling Necessity's skirts shouting "national security" and, will most powerfully resist being unseated to be brought to The Bar Of Justice, and shall so-do unto death. (Best believe it.)

Bessler's wheels and the true principles that underlay them, are the far more pleasant things for the contemplating here, so, back to it I go . . .

Sorry about the little effusive spate above, Ralph. :-)

The floor is yours.

James

[Grimer]

You must be a lawyer.

[primemignonite]

"You must be a lawyer." - Grimer

No such luck.

In order to be a good theorist in the area of conspiracies, one has to learn at least a bit of what underlays the vile creeps' constructs of power, and how they maintain it all. (At this point think "DARK CITY" for the just-right mind's image.)

So, within that narrow and roiling purview, I am but a studious amateur only.

I've no interest whatever in civil procedure. Philosophy, history and under-laying principles, yes. Their details do count.

As for what might be learnt by paying them some little attention at least, would be this small example - - -

The very great majority of Americans - "citizens" - do not know that our time as a nation lawfully did not begin with U.S. Constitution, but rather did with "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" which created our Nation first as a matter of law, and thus gave us our whole, full name as a Confederacy styled "The United States of America."

(This is referred-to presently by what used to be called "the General Government" as "the Old Confederacy", this so as to contra-distinguish it from that one of much later secession.)

(See Article I of The Articles.)

Only ". . . to form a more* perfect Union . . ." was there later created "this Constitution for the United States of America." - the final phrase of the last sentence of it's Preamble.

Most tragically, the decrepit and overrun thing has now proven itself to have been wholly inadequate to the purpose for which it was originally created, ostensibly, this being in-the-main the sure binding down of rascallry in high places. To this asserted worthy end as well as numerous of others, IT HAS FAILED!

*There is no such a thing possible!

Like 'pregnant', the condition of perfection either is, or, it is not. The lawful creature's authors knew of this, so why then did they dare put it thus???

Why was it that they admitted that the Confederacy was perfect, and then having done so, added to it to make it "more" so?

It was not possible to more-perfect then, just as the result has proven itself to be now. Obviously, it was a thing calculated to 'go rogue' eventually and, I believe the little grammatical perversion as was planted, was meant to be discovered and objected-to one day.

On all points of their foretellings and warnings most dire, the Anti-Federalists were correct!

The long knives of insinuated, gross criminality now emerge from their sheaths, and not so silently.

There is much else errant that's fascinating, as has always been the case.

James M.

[WaltzCee]

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.

Playing games? I think not. I selectively edited the dross from around the core of your issue with the standard definition of gravity acting as a conservative force. It's not my fault that your personal belief to the contrary remains unsupported and that you might feel it mocks your beliefs for me to ask for a proof of principle. Offering up celestial momentum as proof of some gravity powered principle shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. That's not to insult you and I don't want you to be distracted by being angry with me. It probably won't kill you to believe in less and to learn more about the standard model of physics. It also probably won't mean the death of your personal creativity and it might just lead to the opposite. To label something wrong without first understanding it is inexcusable, all the more so in this day of ready access to the knowledge of the ages. Fair well.

hummm. fair mediocre.

[ovyyus]

Says someone who is mystified by an overbalanced gravity wheel scam :D