Computer Simulation...

[John doe]

As for building: I'm still at the drawing board trying to come up with something versatile enough. Simulation is so much easier.

How versatile does it have to be ? Wheel turns left or right or both 3 options.
There is not a lot of versatility there. May I ask if your planning on following a route similar to bessler or are you looking into other avenues?
You seem to be a step ahead of me makes me wonder if I'm running into a blind dead end. Not very worried but a tinge of doubt. I keep weighting for someone to come up with a similar answer but so far no dice. So I keep hoping that it's an avenue no one has thoroughly explored or exploited I should say. Oh we'll tomorrow is a new day.

Basically nothing to report, but if you really want to know...
A standard wheel is not much of a problem. I have some obsolete spinning-wheel from my wife, I can attache some mechanism onto it and see what happens.
But I want to try something else and with only handtools (which were sufficient for my previous trials up until now), it's going to be a challenge but I think doable (which I happen to like). Otherwise I need to invest in some powertools first, which I hope to avoid - as this PMM research is just a relaxing hobby. The "versatility" is about the way mechanisms can be attached and rearranged without screwing up the wheel too much while remaining rigid enough; just enough for real-life simulation and handling small weights in the range of tens of grams.
When nothing comes out of this, I think I'm done with the PMM research and find myself another nut to crack. That's why I take my time, because I know I'll get back to this research anyway.

You seem to be a step ahead of me makes me wonder if I'm running into a blind dead end.

I didn't know we were competing - besides the obvious challenge of finding PMM. So what's your "blind dead end"?

We are not competing.
I don't know that's why it's called a blind dead end. You don't see it comming.

[ME]

What I am saying that if someone would go in and look at ALL the formulas that use Newtonian mechanics and reinterpret them using what Einstein said you would have your answer! AND thus a road map to PMM!

Do you have such an Einstein-example which is applicable to a couple of square meters around sea-level?

[John doe]

Doing research on line as this is above my taught mathamatic ability.
Trying to decipher bs on this level is very difficult for me. Kind of like swimming in molasses. Also deciphering there bulldhit at this level is extremely difficult as names and concepts take on different meanings.

My guess is that it is in the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass in General relativity.

So it occurred to me that if mass increases as acceleration increases in general relstivity then that Breaks conservation of energy. Do I win ? Ohboyohboyohboy hope so!

[ME]

Doing research on line as this is above my taught mathamatical ability.
Trying to decipher bs on this level is very difficult for me. Kind of like swimming in molasses. Also deciphering there bullshit at this level is extremely difficult as names and concepts take on different meanings.

So basically what you said was meaningless:

What I am saying that if someone would go in and look at ALL the formulas that use Newtonian mechanics and reinterpret them using what Einstein said you would have your answer! AND thus a road map to PMM!

[John doe]

1) no what I said is that it will take me longer to prove it to you than show it to you.
2) also it is above my spelling ability ovvyously...
3) oviusly yur OcD be shown. ( it was amazingly hard to write that with autocorrect on) hoop u hav funn!

[John doe]

Think of it another way the someone jumps off a 50' cliff.
According to Newton the beginning result and the end result are the same.
Now if according to Einstein e=mc^2. Now take a photo of the guy just before he hits. The energy of this closed system is tremendous. E increases mass increases and speed increases tremendously. Where did this energy come from? It was stored energy as he walked up the mountain released in an extremely short time.
Example 2. A man standing. On the ground another man digs a 50 foot pit. Mana jumps in and same result. But how did the energy get into this system? He did nothing to acquire said energy so how did he get said energy?

[Furcurequs]

(snip)

So you have to find an interaction unexplained by conventional science to find PM...

I don't disagree with that, but I would suggest that such an interaction could possibly be unexplained simply because it is a type of interaction that has just not yet been considered rather than that the accepted scientific laws currently on the books are incorrect or wouldn't apply.

In other words, the empirical laws in the books might actually allow for such a thing already and the scientists and others could just be ignorant of that.

This could mean they already have the keys to the kingdom but just don't know how to use them to enter in themselves and would attempt to bar others from entering in due to their own ignorance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

Dwayne .. I tend to agree with Tarsier on this one.

Fletcher, I did of course say that I didn't disagree with Tarsier. So, maybe I didn't express myself well?

Until we've actually seen an "interaction" that would allow for PM, we won't really know whether physics laws as currently accepted would be able to describe it.

It seems to me, however, that if you personally use commercial simulation software which employs mathematical calculations based upon currently accepted laws of physics to test ideas, you yourself are already allowing for the very possibility that I was suggesting.

The reason being that the current laws of physics are coherent (form a whole and are logical and consistent). They also exhibit symmetry as expounded by Noether's Theorm.

I don't disagree with that, either.

...erm, I mean I agree with that, too. ;)

This means that as a house is built from blocks from the ground up, one layer on top of another, so is physics and the formulas used to express those relationships.

To play on your building metaphor a bit, I don't really see "physics" as a house but rather as a building supply store. I, then, as an engineer have to choose from the available blocks and other building materials what it is l need to work with to achieve my desired goals. Is physics missing some key stone or key components that we need? ...or are all the needed pieces there already and we just don't know which to use and how to assemble them yet?

Of course, though, if a child grabs a few of those blocks and drags them over to his sandbox and pretends he's building a castle, I suspect it won't be a castle fit for you or me. There won't even be room enough for the couch from which I'm currently pontificating, for instance. ...lol

I would suggest, then, that we need to try to have the creativity of a child but also the knowledge of an architect, a structural engineer and a master builder... ...to name but a few perhaps applicable titles.

One of the basic tenets is the Work Energy Equivalence Principle. It says that KE is the currency for Work (capacity to do Work ( f x d )). It also says that GPE and KE, as far as masses in a gravity field are concerned, are interchangeable in that as one loses GPE it gains an equal amount of KE. It also says that this linear exchange in energy form is completely independent of path taken, as we all know from pendulum drop tests and masses on wheels turning losing height and gaining velocity.

Therefore, IMO, if a wheel with some black box mechanics (unknown) thru the manipulation of mass placement within a wheel, is able to give the wheel as a whole additional impetus/impulse such that it gathers Angular Momentum and KE over time with no additional input of external energy into the system, then this breaks the coherency and symmetry axioms.

That means if a mechanical black box principle exists to achieve a self sustaining wheel that can also do external Work then one of the foundations of the house is inconsistent for ALL mechanical situations and this makes the whole foundation suspect.

For a wheel to exist such as above then the laws of physics expressed in mechanical and mathematical terms must be faulty, and so we can not hide a wheel such as this inside the current paradigm no matter how unique the mechanism.

I guess my argument is that the fundamental building blocks may already be there in the physics laws that are already accepted but that there may be ways to assemble those blocks that mainstream scientists haven't been creative enough to consider.

I also should maybe restate some of my opinions that I've expressed in other threads in the past to help elaborate on my thinking.

If someone were to come up with a working device involving gravity, I suspect that DUE to the currently known and accepted laws of physics all of the energy would be accounted for if we used a rigorous physics/mathematical analysis. I don't AT ALL believe that a working device would magically create energy from nothing.

In other words, I believe a working gravity powered motor would fit the definition of a PMM only because attempts at such a thing are currently considered to be attempts at PM. I don't believe such a device would actually fit a definition of PM that involved the creation of energy from nothing.

I also don't believe a working device would tap in to some sort of magical space energy, "zero point energy," "energy from the vacuum," "energy from the ether," or be from harnessing "dark matter" or "dark energy." I consider talk of such things to be pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and/or science fiction, to be honest.

Though, of course, there is a valid definition of zero point energy and though "dark matter" and "dark energy" may be valid as temporary place holders for our ignorance as to why astronomical observations don't agree with cosmological calculations, I don't believe these offer us much hope as to being any sort of local energy source.

The laws of physics are typically defined under very specific conditions and are taught in a very piecemeal fashion. If we use them in engineering calculations, however, we may have to decide how they apply under different conditions and when multiple laws have to be taken into account at the same time, also.

In that I would try to patent my own speculative device design ideas if they were to work, I have tried not to discuss them in this forum except to mention them in a very general way. It would not be to my benefit to lead others to my ideas before I'm ready to share them.

In fairness to others, though, who could possibly get to where I am on their own, I also try not to lead people away from my ideas, either.

You know, I could be ridiculing and riding the case of someone "else" working on HIS "motion machine" so as to occupy his time and mislead others in the forum as I put the finishing touches on my own "motion machine," for a gravity wheel is impossible! ...lol

Sadly, though, I'm too honest for that, and so my ideas really do involve gravity and I really was pointing out that other person's errors with his basic physics and math. You know, "trolling" him. ...lol

There are times that I am actually tempted to volunteer certain information about some basic physics principles that might be relevant to the pursuit and that others maybe haven't considered, but I typically choose to err on the side of caution.

If you lived nearby, you'd probably be fully aware of my ideas, for I'm not beyond sharing my ideas with others - maybe even to the point of annoying others with them (lol) - but I don't think it would be wise to share anything online under the circumstances.

[John doe]

I completely agree

[ME]

Think of it another way the someone jumps off a 50' cliff.
According to Newton the beginning result and the end result are the same.
Now if according to Einstein e=mc^2. Now take a photo of the guy just before he hits. The energy of this closed system is tremendous. E increases mass increases and speed increases tremendously. Where did this energy come from? It was stored energy as he walked up the mountain released in an extremely short time.
Example 2. A man standing. On the ground another man digs a 50 foot pit. Mana jumps in and same result. But how did the energy get into this system? He did nothing to acquire said energy so how did he get said energy?

Example 1: Perhaps when that someone completely obliterated and all we saw was a flash of light. Which will not happen.
Example 2: ....(sigh)... Please reconsider Newton before you hurt yourself.

[Art]

" but I don't think it would be wise to share anything online under the circumstances."

Thats ok Dwayne , I'll send you my private mailing address by mail if you could give me yours so as I can do that ! . I promise to let you know before I drop in - if I happen to be in the neighbourhood to deliver a reply .

I'll be the one dressed in black ! :)

[John doe]

Think of it another way the someone jumps off a 50' cliff.
According to Newton the beginning result and the end result are the same.
Now if according to Einstein e=mc^2. Now take a photo of the guy just before he hits. The energy of this closed system is tremendous. E increases mass increases and speed increases tremendously. Where did this energy come from? It was stored energy as he walked up the mountain released in an extremely short time.
Example 2. A man standing. On the ground another man digs a 50 foot pit. Mana jumps in and same result. But how did the energy get into this system? He did nothing to acquire said energy so how did he get said energy?

Example 1: Perhaps when that someone completely obliterated and all we saw was a flash of light. Which will not happen.
Example 2: ....(sigh)... Please reconsider Newton before you hurt yourself.

You didn't answer my question in example 2 how did the energy get into the closed system ?

[ME]

I don't know how that energy got there, such question is alike asking for the origin of gravity.

As Isaac Newton showed: there's a Potential Energy difference between different distances from a mass. So you can dig, but you'll just open up a new difference which was already there.
As those distances are often relatively small we can just simply things with E[PE]=mgh, I think it's at about 100 m (300 ft) difference one could (*) consider using Newton's extended version.
As long as you don't fly around at enormous speeds or cover huge distances I don't see any reason to call Einstein.

*) Add:
I somewhat quickly checked: (should be 10's of kilometers)

[John doe]

No it's an easy and repeatsble experiment that cannot be explained by Newtonian physics. You don't have to speculate about something that is not repeatable.

[Tarsier79]

The system you speak of is not closed. Mass never increases with velocity. Your comparison is not relevant. I see no mystery about falling into a hole.

However, if the middle of the earth was hollow, would you float in the centre,or would you be attracted to one side or the other. Would you feel weightless, or would gravity crush you? Either way, scientific proof exists to explain that gravity would still be conservative, as would motion, and we will have wasted our time here, or found a way to use our expertise.

[John doe]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 532y74yNTw