Credibility

[Ed]

tr.v. mort·gaged, mort·gag·ing, mort·gag·es
2. To make subject to a claim or risk; pledge against a doubtful outcome: mortgaged their political careers by taking an unpopular stand.

If you plan to solve and present PM (or whatever you believe it to be or want to call it) then you are going to need and want some credibility.

If you don't care about anything or anyone, then fine make claims... but don't be surprised when your credibility is eroded and you wish you had some.

On the other hand, if you want someone else to build your idea, or replicate it as a final stage, you will need credibility. If you want to present your findings to a journalist and want them to take the time to focus on you, that will need credibility (unless they are doing a story on crackpots of the century or something).

Everyone has their own ideas of what the solution is and it's tricky to get them to stop what they are doing and take a look at another idea. People like Ralph, who when his own ideas are exhausted will investigate other people's ideas and attempt to build them, still have limited time and resources, so you will need to convince him to take that risk. That takes credibility.

I had some other points I wanted to make, but now I don't know how to finish my thoughts on this without sounding like a broken record, and it's probably too late for that anyway. Hopefully others will be able to help better articulate the point.

Remember, it also affects you when others make claims, so everyone here should care about this. If you don't believe it matters, then just wait until YOU want to make a claim and see how people respond. I'm not saying to stop being excited or enthusiastic, stop giving status updates, or give up when failing... I'm saying not to MAKE CLAIMS until having PHYSICAL proof. Proof on paper or in your head or in a simulation is NOT proof. So keep working, don't give up and good luck!

Let me just finish with this thought.

Banks won't give you a mortgage without collateral. If you decide to make a claim of having the solution, think about what you are trying to get now and what you will be using for collateral...

[Furcurequs]

Nice post.

No credit without credibility.

Maybe the forum needs a credibility rating system. We do have some truly incredible members.

Dwayne

[rlortie]

Ed wrote:

Everyone has their own ideas of what the solution is and it's tricky to get them to stop what they are doing and take a look at another idea. People like Ralph, who when his own ideas are exhausted will investigate other people's ideas and attempt to build them, still have limited time and resources, so you will need to convince him to take that risk. That takes credibility.

A very well put stipulation; the laying down of a "condition of agreement" based on creditability and integrity.

It is very hard if not next to impossible to find entities with the aptitude and skills willing to work on another's design. Human instinct driven by their God given abilities, will bias them toward their own designs and the idea that theirs is better than anyone one else can offer.

'Arrache' is currently without builders, they have dwindled away either through attrition or resigned with disillusion. Most returning to their own pursuits, or completely resigning from Perpetual Motion and/ or Bessler wheel.

I currently have two "Dear John" letters in draft, explaining to submitters that their idea is of no value. A duty I never look forward to and often procrastinate to no end before posting them.

I now stand alone, working on my own design kindled by an idea sent to me from 'Arrache' associate and forum member Erick Gustafson. This concept is also fueled by the recent receivables from Al Bacon, his "Synthesis" and disquisitions of one William Kenrick.

With limited time, ongoing health and finances, I fear that it would indeed take a very lot of credibility to persuade me to analyze and fabricate a design.

Please do not mis-interpret this; "Arrache' is still very active when it comes to; investors, patent assistance and promotional needs, It is "Hands on" skunk work activity that is lacking.

One must consider that there are very few builders on this forum that are willing to burden the expense and labor to build a design other than their own. It takes great credibility and demeanor to win them over. Once a cost effective runner is documented, there will be no problem in gathering a work force to augment and improve upon it.

Currently, where it does not apply to my current research, I am no longer interested in such threads as "Conservation of angular momentum" and related threads regarding leverage and or the moving of weights. One might say that I have thrown Bessler and his verbiage out the window.

My research takes me into the realm of Fluid Dynamics and Mechanics, proving that related laws were written in the confines of Newtonian laws leaving an "assumption" that they meet these requirements. Christiaan Huyghen's, Johann Bernoulli, son Danial Bernoulli, Leibniz, Leonhard Euler, William Kenrick and I think otherwise!

Ralph

[Rafael Ti]

O.K. Ed
But how do you want to verify someones credibility? I don't see any other way than to show up. You just ask people to share their plans, documentations with others (on this forum?)
What about patent issues then?
I am not jealous or greedy, but problem is that other people are... There are parties interested in gathering information about free energy and possibly tend to hold all patents on this field. See ACTA PIPA SOPA... this going to be a global stuff. I just don't want to start paying one day a "gravity tax" for using gravity generator in my house. This may happen if for example our Brazilian friends finish their machine and show it up too early.
Paul Baumann who has built Testatika said that the world is not ready yet to have an access to free energy and decided not to share with his idea.
One must be a good politician and know the right time before decide to show any working machine. However having 'physical proof' is not the end of the story. On P.E.S. website we can read about many inventors who appear to have a physical proof but we don't hear about them any more. Why? Did all of them lie? If so... what for then?

[smith66]

Ed,
I disagree with the assumptions that you have made.
If a person has something of value, then they do not need credit.
As such, for a person to state that they are credible while not being able to show they have something of value leaves something to be desired.
It seems what I have read in this thread are ego-centric ideolpgies where it is what an individual believes about themself is more valuable than what they can accomplish.
It is just such beliefs tnat lead to the housing market crash the U.S. suffered a few years ago. Many people couldn't pay their mortgages because they lived neyond their means.
Myself, when given the opportunity to buy a home I had the credit for but couldn't afford, I decided not to use my credit. And what I have is that while I enoy workinb with others, that I do have an employer and landlord. As such, as long as they are happy with me, when, how and who I work with is up to me.
After 3 credible people have stated that inventions like a gyro-scope can not work. I'm not sure, but missing something that badly should be likemissing a mortgage payment but it's not. It seems that your rating system does not encompass actually having an understanding of the subject that is beong discussed.
However, you could say that your rating system supports a Feudal system that you wish to maintain.

[Ed]

I believe you are missing the point. I am not proposing a rating system. I'm not really proposing anything, other than people think before they act and be more empathetic. They can even be more selfish if they choose, it can work both ways.

I would think making sure one's credibility was in order if one was thinking about making an announcement in the future would be common sense, but I guess not.

By the way, the mortgage stuff was my attempt at a metaphor, and not meant to start a literal discussion about mortgages.

[John Collins]

You said it better than I did, thanks Ed. It's hard to restrain your excitement when you think you know how Bessler did it, but it's no good simply posting news of your excitement.

JC

[triplock]

I personally believe that it is impossible to judge someone's credibility on this forum due to the very subject matter discussed, because how is 'credibility', on a sliding scale, judged and graded. Also, who has the right here to do that.

It would ultimately be just a subjective opinion based on somebody else's posts and claims. Also, surely true credibility can only be achieved when a working device is shown to the world, and by then, the recipient of that character assessment is hardly going to care, are they ?

Chris

[Ed]

Chris, I think you also missed my point.

I am certainly NOT advocating any kind of rating system or people proactively judging other people. All I'm suggesting is that people put some thought into their OWN credibility before trying to claim they have or know the solution. A bit of 'friendly advice' you could say.

I don't know why this seems so hard for some people to grasp. I obviously am not doing a good job explaining what I mean. I don't want to use anyone specific as an example of what I mean, so I will have to think about how to come up with a better way to describe what I'm trying to say.

I will try again later. Thanks to all for your responses so far.

[Furcurequs]

Ed,

Sorry about that.

I meant this:

"Maybe the forum needs a credibility rating system. We do have some truly incredible members. "

...as a joke, of course.

Dwayne

[Ed]

I did get it Dwayne. :-)

Actually you weren't one of the people I thought missed my point, but thanks for the clarification anyway.

[rlortie]

Chris,

What Ed is trying to explain is that your statement: "true credibility can only be achieved when a working device is shown to the world", is in error.

Credibility has nothing to do with with ones achievements, it is living up to achievements once expressed that you have it or are going to have it. Telling some one you will do something by a given time and not living up to it loses your credibility.

Constantly stating that Bessler's machine did not rely on gravity but yet not proving otherwise is another example of "loss of credibility". Nor is credibility gained when presenting a runner if you did not claim you were going to do so.


No "credibility" rating is required, it is a 'given' by each individual.
Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ED,

I will do that for you, Do not say you have a working wheel unless you have a physical working wheel, and if you want credibility do not post outside of known physics, there ED thats it!

Regards Trevor

[rlortie]

Now wait a moment Trevor Lyn Whatford,

I agree that you should not say you have a working wheel unless you have a physical working wheel, but your credibility is not in jeopardy by posting outside of known physics providing you have an explanation for your thoughts.

We are all seeking what must lay outside of known physics, as none of us has found it within the so-called box. Collaborating and throwing suggestions outside of known physics is what this is all about. You build credibility by discussing your ideas and living within the refute or rebuke it may initiate. For others a light bulb may come on.

And yes I am still procrastinating, over having to write a member a "dear John" letter.

Ralph

[Ed]

Let me try explaining what I mean using myself and Ralph.

Other than one quick private message requesting my email address, which he has yet to use btw, Ralph and I have only communicated on this forum for everyone else to see. All he knows about me is from what he has learned about me on this forum, and possibly a few hopefully neutral words from Al Bacon. ;-)

Anyway, Ralph has just stated that he is not interested in working on designs that go down a certain line of thinking (e.g. typical lever-based gravity designs), and he also is busy with his own current design.

So I say to him, "Ralph, I have concluded my research into Bessler's wheel. I believe I now have a viable working solution. I have it worked out on paper, etc. but need help in building a physical device. You're not going to believe it, but it is a lever design. Would you commit to helping me build it, without knowing all of the details?"

Now, what do you think he will say?

This is where credibility comes in. Again, I'm not saying we should have any system to rate credibility, just recognize that there IS a system already in place now. Right or wrong, people already profile others as part of human nature. Some do it for their job, but ultimately we do judge people by their actions and deeds.

So, what does Ralph think of me? Am I an asshole that he wouldn't give the time of day to? Am I someone he'd like to have a beer with and would do anything for, like an old buddy? Am I someone who has any credibility at all?

I'll let him answer that.

In the meantime, the point I keep trying to make is, if I were to have already shot off my mouth a bunch of times saying I had the solution, then not delivered it... would Ralph want to even think about taking the time to look at what I had?

Think about this before you rush off to make a claim of possessing the solution...