preoccupied wrote:Bessler literally didn't say he had a "perpetual motion wheel". If he had said that it would have literally meant "motion" because people in English and German back even 100 years ago spoke more literally than we do today. Words literally meant what were said instead of the greatly mixed meanings we now have. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. For example, Bessler said his "weights gained force from their motion", or similar. From this, we could say his wheels were "force" wheels.
But all forces cancel each other, his weights only gained force from an equal loss, so that is poor argument for what his wheels accomplished.
For that argument to hold, we would need example from nature where forces do not cancel, to my knowledge there are none.
In modern terminology, we would say mass gains energy from motion.
So his wheels would be called "perpetual energy" wheels.
But mass doesn't create more energy from motion, that is the catch. Energy gained from that motion came from energy conversion at earlier point in time. People seem to overlook this part. Which came first, motion or energy conversion? Conversion. His wheel, last one in sealed room, was drawing energy from environment or it was very elaborate ruse, which I have good idea about. Short lifts were not good tests, in my opinion. They could have been accomplished with spring loaded weights and clever gearing.
Everyone is allowing the writings to do what Bessler intended!
I am not wrong when I say that people hundreds of years ago didn't know how to communicate without saying something precisely. Being ambiguous and yet entirely accurate in context is modern invention and does not exist in the past in communication anywhere at any time.
I think the observation in nature that you seek to explain how weights can gain motion from their own swinging happens more than any other possible action in nature because I see it and it is called all of the gravity in the universe. If my hypothesis is correct then when "anything" shifts its masses direction with greater force, also then shifts space itself, which then creates "gravity" and "anti gravity". The anti gravity is hard to notice because it is given the shift in position but the gravity is easy to notice because it does not effect the mass that is moving but other mass around it. If my hypothesis is correct then Bessler would have literally meant motion when he said motion and I think that is likely because people spoke very literally in the past without any knowledge that they could speak falsely and "be understood in the correct context (a modern invention)".
I think the gravity would be redirected by the swastika design for my hypothesis and slow down the planet. So the energy in the planets rotation would be drained faster by the gravity energy device wheel. But while gravity is being stolen from the planet a proportional amount of gravity would be being created on the left and right of the swastika where you could probably measure how much gravity is being stolen from the planet based on how much attraction towards the swastika there is when you drop an object in a vacuum next to it. If the force is detectable it should be stopped immediately because it would compound and eventually stop the planet much faster than expected, I think.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
There is only a couple of places he does talk about his wheel in this chapter. One is here:
I've nothing to hide, for all the inmost parts, and the
perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement,
as I've been saying since 1712.
Perpetual-motion Structures? I would be interested If Stewart has this translated already and could put it on his forum. I know he is a busy man, so no pressure or feel compelled to do so. But perpetual-motion structures could be linked to “The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else.�. Which might imply the weights themselves supply the energy. What would cause a weight to rotate or move?
Gravity could cause the weights to "shift position" or "Move" by gravity pulling a weight down faster than the wheel is turning. Literally any method could shift the weights. I imagined a rod attached to a belt that moved rods on opposite sides of the belt in opposite directions. I only want to add that in my design that I think that the rod would have to grip a gear so that the shoulder of the arm of the lever gets the force that it is supposed to. In my design the lever doesn't take on the motion without external force but the axle of the lever does and that means the tip of the swastika structure that the lever is sitting on would take the motion without external force or anti gravity I mean. The swastika has its shape because I need a lever on the axle.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I am not wrong when I say that people hundreds of years ago didn't know how to communicate without saying something precisely. Being ambiguous and yet entirely accurate in context is modern invention and does not exist in the past in communication anywhere at any time.
Really???? Can you provide reference proof please, man has been lying and decieving forever. Hopefully there was no letter with the Trogan horse.
Ambiguous statements mean something in context in Normal Conversation because of modern interpretations. It is not only modern, it is also almost entirely western world created. A good example is the Russian Federation whose people speak more literally and are not as influenced by western culture. They still speak as they did in the distant past when people didn't lie in every sentence if they knew the person would understand in context. Russia is not the western world or Europe and the USA. They have a unique history and entity entirely. Especially evident, in how they do not lie at any given time and still be understood in the context of a sentence. Johann Bessler was talking before our modern bunk language style existed and when he said Motion he meant MOTION. If he said perpetual Motion, he was not referring to gravity, if the translation is correct because they were really super literal in the past. Everything literally meant what was said. If you would like to speculate that Bessler was lying to deceive the people who he talked to and the people who would know about it in the future then you are talking a different argument and I would like to know more about it.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
dunes wrote:He never says it was rotated by motion! He just called it a perpetual motion wheel. That doesn't mean it was rotated by motion. It just means it could remain in motion forever. Ahem.
dunes wrote: "He never says it was rotated by motion! He just called it a perpetual motion wheel. That doesn't mean it was rotated by motion. It just means it could remain in motion forever. Ahem."
No you are wrong! People spoke much more literally in the past! He used the word motion he literally meant that it was rotated by motions and not gravity. Bessler didn't understand that it "could" mean that it would remain in motion forever. He literally did not say that specifically so it is impossible for him to understand why you think it could mean that. He says what he Literally means because that is language before western bunk interpretations of communication. Westerners interpret what is likely rather than what is literally said!! That is not how Johann Bessler likely communicated. It only makes sense to you that it would remain in motion forever but it would not make sense to Bessler and it would be dry comedy listening to older generation talking to newer generation because of such assumptions that are made with language. Unless Johann was F'n mental or drunk he would have literally said what he very specifically meant with no room for assumed meanings that have extended relationships with any available popular understanding of collection of terminologies such as you assume when you say with what seems to be complete faith that he meant that it would be defined as continuing to turn. It is not likely based on how people actually communicated back in the day because they were really super literal about what they said. It's not weird, Modern day people are weird, western communication style is weird, literally saying what you literally mean is actually much better. Because "Puns" have been overly popularized and people being given the run around with language difficulties and stuff people tend to assume what is likely from communication but before people were being literary asses to each other they spoke very literally... I'm sorry. I mean, maybe you're right. I have a headache.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
Ed wrote:Interesting. Seems only the bearded son of Jim would get away with spamming his own motion wheel ideas into Jim's thread about Bessler text, without getting a "bashing".
Right now what really matters to Jim is is kicking the bullies asses. Otherwise he would be all over my perpetual motion machine for discussion, just as he would have been interested in talking about BEFORE clod camper began harassing him. I don't blame him. You are all cascading in on each other's attitudes and the bias against Jim_Mich is strong enough that any backbone Jim_Mich expresses for himself is taken as misbehavior when in actuality it probably deserves respect. It's hard to see though, you know? The attacks on Jim_Mich are deeply intellectual such that words that comfort you psychologically are being used along with words that are specifically degrading to Jim_Mich. The bullying not only wants to bash Jim_Mich, it (the bullying) wants you to enjoy and believe it's true as well.
I am not being bashed off of his thread because I am on topic. This is not Murilo avalanche drive here. I am talking about a design in reference to the details in the translated German text. My input is not flooding the thread with posts. Bessler Wheel forum doesn't even get enough contributors to have such a problem. Anybody on the forum could basically just post their idea in every single post whenever it is relevant and there would still be ample space to shift through it all without much effort. (We are not a forum with huge contributing populace). I could basically post in any relevant thread with my motion hypothesizes design and should be welcome, IMO.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
Ambiguous statements mean something in context in Normal Conversation because of modern interpretations. It is not only modern, it is also almost entirely western world created. A good example is the Russian Federation whose people speak more literally and are not as influenced by western culture. They still speak as they did in the distant past when people didn't lie in every sentence if they knew the person would understand in context. Russia is not the western world or Europe and the USA. They have a unique history and entity entirely. Especially evident, in how they do not lie at any given time and still be understood in the context of a sentence.
Preoccupied: I will let you in on a little something; I am married to a specialized doctor from Russia and have been there many times myself. So I asked her about this and she wouldn’t stop laughing. She knows three languages and she is least fluent in English, so I asked her in various ways to make sure she understood. She says Russians play with words and are as deceptive and ambiguous as the west. According to her it is a little easier in English due to the huge amount of words but human nature is the same. From my own experiences I can tell you Russians lie just as much as everybody else.
Especially evident, in how they do not lie at any given time and still be understood in the context of a sentence.
As far as understanding, I have trouble with trying to figure out the past, future, now tenses. She had lots of trouble learning them also and I am still a wee baffled, but then again my Russian is beyond poor and in the plain bad territory.
I think you understand daxwc but I still disagree with you. You are presenting this is a positive trait in human nature when I'm clearly trying to say that the western influence on language is not positive at all. We basically say statements that are literally false but it's considered self explanatory. It's not self explanatory! Word play is not what western language is doing, because the style is disingenuous.
When Johann Bessler described things in the old German language he was speaking in literal terms in every thing he meant to say. When western influence dominates current communication we look for what's likely meant but that is never the intention of language, because language is meant to precisely communicate what is meant to be said.
For example, I could say "see you later" and never intend to see them at any other time in the day or maybe never again but I'm American and I systematically lie with every common slang that I use and I think it's brilliant but I am being a dumb ass. When I read Johann Bessler say Perpetual motion I do not see him saying "a wheel that perpetuates its motion" because he would have only called it perpetual then (I think) because he would have been speaking more literal than present languages. Western influenced language is the most non-literal ambiguous communication that has ever existed. For example I could say "you're hot" and Johann Bessler would have literally thought that I meant the temperature, and he might have offered a tall cold glass of water to help. I'm not trying to be funny here. I really think that the communication was dry enough to be super literal back in the day. Myself, I have difficulty navigating non literal communication because when I got hit on the head one of the times (one of many concussions) I used a dictionary to relearn the words and there was nothing in there to help me with common language slang (this was about year 2002). I would get in a communication block because I would take what people were saying literally and they would play with me and make fun of me for correcting them and them correcting me for correcting them. I wasn't the one who was lying, they are systematically lying to each other!!
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
Preoccupied, every living language flows and changes through time and that is why Latin was resurrected for scientific purposes. Bessler wrote in Latin, yet he still plays games within the language.
daxwc, well I guess people play. However the structure of old german was not deceitful. Modern language is so deceitful that you would think that Bessler would mean a machine whose motion perpetuates when he says perpetual motion. When people are talking normal without playfulness no languages except western ones are directly deceitful to the vocabulary (I think). Anyways, I really think that if Bessler said the words meaning motion that he literally meant motion specifically and not a transition of meaning to something less literal like a machine that perpetuates its motion. Old german was probably really super literal meanings in regular talk from then. Regular talk in western language is directly deceitful up front in normal talk.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
