Ralph wrote: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.
Constantly saying that Bessler's machine was a gravity wheel (which is scientifically impossible) while not proving it is another example of "loss of credibility".
Maybe because I've taken some time out away from the forum that my viewpoint has become more pragmatic . At the very least things have become a lot more clear cut, or black and white as some might say.
In the context of just this forum, and the individuals' postings made, I stand by my statement that credibility doesn't come into it because, until a solution is displayed, there is a parity amongst us all. The believability of someone doesn't come into it as we are all just theorising after all , whether that be on a keyboard, notepad or in a workshop actually building.
By definition, due to the skunk works nature of things, there are no linear thought process, which are invariably coming from non-linear personalities. Therefore you will get both peaks and troughs in all senses.
A part of that trait which we all have is the ability to deceive; not others but yourselves. This in its self makes it much more difficult to self-check to maintain that credibility .
Chris, you are right that initially everyone is (or should be) the same.
If one has never made any claims and really does have the solution, then one would not have a problem... but as, Ralph pointed out, even having the solution, credibility issues can still be a problem.
Think how well received you would be if you want to go down the Bessler path and display what you've invented without showing how it works, in this day and age. How long do you think the credibility meter will stay in the black?
Jim and Ralph have pointed out another aspect of credibility... that it is in the eye of the beholder. So before you make a claim, think about how it will be received by your target audience and what you intend to gain from announcing it to them.
rlortie wrote: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
Hi Ralph, Ralph I do not know what the letter you are sending to another member has got to do with me?
Here is a example! A pull is work done, what is wrong with that statement! is it a credible statement? because here it is not!!!
With respect, Trevor
Last edited by Trevor Lyn Whatford on Sat May 18, 2013 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
ED wrote: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?
I'm not Ralph, but I would ask to see your paper design before lifting a tool. Horse trading your credibility as an alternative to disclosure would raise the first red flag :D
It seems pointless asking my cat to stop being a cat because I want a dog.
These are mostly rhetorical statements in order to get people thinking... instead of rushing off to make claims.
This doesn't apply to the person who actually does have something, they have earned the right to deliver it however they wish... though, from the other side of the looking glass, we can't tell they have something. So you know, that person might want to think about how they proceed as well...
I felt assured that my little passim would not go unnoticed making my point! And yes, my own credibility falls within this same realm.
The point being that neither one of us is showing credibility. Coming forward with objective proof backing our substantiations, removing them from the "unfounded" list. And that my friend is what puts both our credibility and reputation on the line.
If we maintain our debate over gravity verses Cf or some other unknown force you rely on, one of us is obligated to either bring it forth or cease mentioning it.
Ed, what you're saying is that anyone making a claim may or may not have something and we can never be certain based solely on what they say. Therefore, everyone gets the response they deserve. It's a beautiful system.
For those who repeatedly make false claims, the story of The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf gives us some sort of real world heads-up :D
Hi Ralph, Ralph I do not know what the letter you are sending to another member has got to do with me?
Not a Damn thing! I get tired of writing people that their design will not work, and sometimes look for a little empathy for me and the recipient
Here is a example! A pull is work done, what is wrong with that statement! is it a credible statement? because here it is not!!!
To answer that in "Skunk Tank" fashion, first one must "subsume" the statement, placing it in a broader or more comprehensive category. Obviously to pull something to a point of moving mass meets the descriptive criteria of 'work'. On the other hand a 'pull" to hold something is not considered work, such as pulling on a door that will not open, or a magnet pulling on the side of your refrigerator.
I am left to assume that your definition of "Pull" has to do with your debate over gravity and orbital bodies. It is my unworthy opinion that if an orbital body changes the position of the central axis of the mass it is orbiting then work has been accomplished.
My conclusion obviously will not comply with the text books, But then I did not write them nor do dwell into them unless it is to find something in my favor.
if someone has a wolf, and you think it is a cat do not be surprised if it bites you on the ass lol! best to ask the questions to make sure it is only a cat!!!
Do not build your selves up until every last wolf is dead, you may not be as all knowing as you think you are!
Regards, Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
ED wrote: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?
I'm not Ralph, but I would ask to see your paper design before lifting a tool. Horse trading your credibility as an alternative to disclosure would raise the first red flag :D
You are correct Bill! I will not nor have I ever done any actions resembling any form of disclosure. If you wish to do business with me, be prepared to put your trust, faith and design in my hands. What I do is totally based on my integrity mirrored by reputation and confidentiality.
I have never had a dissatisfied client nor have I ever heard any negative response regarding the privacy of dealing with me or 'Arrache'
And Bill, I am not a cat lover, If you prefer a dog, I can show you how the angular momentum of a ball peen hammer can do work to negate your problem! :-)
ovyyus wrote:Ed, being told fire is hot never stops everyone sticking their finger in it :D
In law enforcement and you wish to get someones finger prints without their knowledge, all you have to do is hang up a sign "Wet Paint", you will get all the fingerprints you ever desired.
