More Physics Lectures/Videos!

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by ovyyus »

Fletcher wrote:I know what you mean Ralph .. unfortunately Scott's website here has taught me far more about 'human nature' (the nature of humans) than physics.
Mystery is the great leveller. It makes fools of us all :D
Fcdriver
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:07 am
Location: gloucester, va
Contact:

Re: re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by Fcdriver »

ME wrote:Sorry FC, to begin I would like to say that nobody needs that unrelated nonsense about flight, light bulbs, and what certain academics are not doing.
It's like comparing early explorers who made maps with map makers, and blaming map makers for not exploring the world themselves... I figure we could both continue with that analogy, but let's not.

So let's continue, perhaps we can understand what you're saying...


* Use a Roberval balance to project leverage to another distance:
Yes, sounds good.

* A lever is but one tooth on a gear, or a gear is a series of levers:
Yes, agreed.

* It is not the same old same old series of crank motion:
Let's take your word for it, so I'll not try to figure out what crank motion you meant here which doesn't seem to work anyway.

* but a different combination of very simple motions:
Many figured that would be the case...

* If you look at Besslers clues, and read them from another perspective
What was the 'normal perspective' ?

* 1/5th of a circle is 72:
yes, but why should 1/5th be preferred over 1/4th or 1/6th ?

* Then look at a harmonic motion layout what do you see?:
For a default simple harmonic motion I may see a sine and cosine function, 90 degrees apart.

* About 72 degrees is all of a motion, that is accelerating the rest are NOT!
I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here.

* Why have motion that is not productive?
Sounds reasonable for a perpetual motion.

* Get away from a crank motion of 180 down and another 180 degrees up, it will not work!
That's what most of us figured already....
The non-working factor is usually about the amount of Potential Energy (height) being equal.
The 180 degrees up/down is a just a depiction of simply going up and down on a perfectly circular path, the outcome shouldn't change that Potential Energy when the amount of degrees and radii change.

*If a weight force is moving down with the wheel movement, how many degrees do you have to for lift?
I have no clue.
You seem to have a some sort of mental picture about "degrees" and "harmonic motion" you use as reference...
I don't have that reference.

Trying: Logically when you claim 72 degrees have some 'accelerating motion' then this obviously should balance against another 72 degrees?

This reply makes sense?
Once you have a wheel moving, many things will become clear,
When you are trying to better time falling forces or weights, that have to catch up to a moving wheel.

How does a free falling weight catch up to a moving wheel?
If a weight accelerates the wheel, why isn't the second weight falling weightless.
This means as a weight falls it has to always be moving the wheel.
This means at its lowest point, the acceleration has to be pushing the wheel at it the least, and faster at the top.

The biggest problem to deal with is once a weight accelerates the wheel, what does the second weight give to the rotation of the wheel?
Forget your lust for the rich man's gold
All that you need is in your soul
And you can do this, oh baby, if you try
All that I want for you my son is to be satisfied
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

Re: re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by Furcurequs »

Fletcher wrote:It's pretty easy Dwayne .. there is a line of basic honesty in the sand.

You walk up to it from one side when you say you have a great idea but it is untested vis a vis a prototype has not been completed (experiments still continuing). Everybody understands and respects that position, even if the idea is not shared.

A short step later and you have crossed over it to the other side when you say you have a working prototype (i.e. something that works).

It's just a small insignificant step but some can't seem to resist taking it (the human nature part i.e. the drivers of need for status or self interest).

Now that's all very good and fine IF you actually have a working prototype of a working PMM. There will of course be derision and a call for some sort of evidence of claim. If you choose to not attempt to validate your claim then that is your business but you should expect fall-out.

I have seen just about every combination of the above and many variations.

What I have never seen is a claim of success that is then promptly backed up with validation, ever.
I think that's a pretty good way of putting it.

Those of us with our own ideas, of course, do have to spend a lot of time near that line of honesty, that line in the sand, and that can be a very uncomfortable thing.

For us to be able to set up testable hypotheses, we to a large degree do have to treat our ideas as if they are actually valid. To properly design and build an adequate experimental test device, we also have to treat those ideas as if they are actually valid. To come up with good explanations for the principles involved so that we might eventually explain them to others, we again have to think of those ideas as being valid. ..and, of course, most of us would actually like to BELIEVE that our ideas are valid, too.

Added to this, then, is also the social stigma that some others would place upon us in that they would consider us ignorant or stupid or crazy for even going near such a line in the sand to begin with. Don't we know better than that?! Who do we think we are? Einsteins?!

So, we may also feel a strong desire to quickly get to the other side of that line so that we can defend ourselves from ridicule!

...lol

...but, of course, our ideas are still but provisional, they are tentative, they are untested - which means that the only proper way to cross that line is to indeed have the results of a valid and successful test.

If I were openly sharing my ideas, rather than planning and preparing to test them myself, I might then present them to others as if they were valid so as to get others interested enough and questioning enough to maybe do those validation tests for me, but it would certainly be crossing the line for me to publicly speak of my ideas as if they were valid without actually sharing the gory details so that others could see for themselves exactly what it is that I'm exploring.

If I wanted others to do my experiments for me, I would have to try to drag them over to my line - but without giving them adequate details, that would be pointless and maybe be just an ego thing.

Now, why do some cross their own lines without the proper experimental evidence?

I guess some just can't handle living with the uncertainty of not really knowing and so truly delude themselves. Others may deliberately lie for the ego-boosting attention perhaps. In that experimental test results can be uncertain, some may simply be mistaken about what they've seen and not really see their own errors.

If, of course, any potential energy gain in an experiment is in the range of measurement error, better tests would need to be devised if possible. If energy gains are there but are still less than the energy losses in the system, even though they could be measurable, the results would be much less convincing than having an actual self sustaining device.

Anyway, we've all seen the behavior and some here may still be doing it, so I guess we just have to deal with it. After seeing so many failed claims now, though, I will admit that I feel much less anxiety about the possibility of others beating me to it, so to speak, if I actually am on to anything.

It is kind of amusing that when someone new pops in with a fresh claim, that so many others have to suddenly reassert publicly that they've had the answer themselves for quite some time, as we'll all see once they actually get it built. ...lol

I mentioned the Higgs stuff for a reason. I personally am still highly skeptical of the notion of the Higgs field. It just doesn't seem to fit in with all the other stuff in physics in my view. I think we may be seeing in the mainstream the same sort of line crossing that we have to deal with in this pursuit.

All that money, all that time, all that effort, all those careers on the line, all that wishful thinking... ...but is what has now been claimed really evidence that the Higgs hypothesis is correct? I'm personally not so sure.

Oh, well...

I'll continue to have questions until the day I don't, I guess.

Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7456
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by agor95 »

I think we all feel we have to be positive.

No one goes to work to do a bad job; one hopes.

Inertia can be social as well as being a physics term.

I see three types: Scientific Inertia, General Population Inertia.
Also dare I say Social Inertia here with this frustrating quest.

Your contribution is appreciated

Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by eccentrically1 »

furcurequs wrote: I personally am still highly skeptical of the notion of the Higgs field. It just doesn't seem to fit in with all the other stuff in physics in my view. I think we may be seeing in the mainstream the same sort of line crossing that we have to deal with in this pursuit.
How can mainstream physics be crossing the line of honesty when they openly share their ideas?


https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... necessary/
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7456
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by agor95 »

Simple observation

The Higgs field is part of the 'Standard Model'.

It is a model; so it does not cross the line.

If the general population think it exist then well they have crossed the line
in their perception.

Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

Re: re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by Furcurequs »

eccentrically1 wrote:
furcurequs wrote: I personally am still highly skeptical of the notion of the Higgs field. It just doesn't seem to fit in with all the other stuff in physics in my view. I think we may be seeing in the mainstream the same sort of line crossing that we have to deal with in this pursuit.
How can mainstream physics be crossing the line of honesty when they openly share their ideas?


https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... necessary/
I gave the answer to that question already: through possible dishonesty with themselves - self delusion - due to things like wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

Let's pick a couple of examples from the "free energy" community.

The late John Bedini openly shared his ideas and he seemingly even had something of a cult following of people who believed his ideas. That doesn't mean that those ideas were correct, but neither does it mean that he was intentionally lying to people, either.

Likewise, Joseph Newman made his ideas public, people could read all about them in his self published book, and lots of people seemingly believed his claims, too. That doesn't mean that his claims were true nor does it mean that he was intentionally lying to people, either.

So, again, quite obviously I'm including people deluding themselves as a crossing of that line of honesty, also.

Thanks for the link. I've been looking for some actual math so that I could see where the Higgs people came up with some of their notions.

I'll have to try to understand their way of thinking before I can offer up specific criticisms, but I think it would be fair to say that I may have a different understanding of the very concept of "mass" itself - though mine too seems to fit with the accepted relativistic equations. I need to flesh out my ideas some more, though.

If my hypotheses are correct, then results of my experiments may ultimate be more impressive than a bump on a graph. Of course, we mad scientists have to work alone and in partial secrecy.

I guess I'm working more toward a unification of previously accepted "fields" than adding more to the hodge-podge of modern physics by throwing in new ones that would only work with some so-called "particles."

Don't get after me. I'm still working for food - and not for supercollider wages!
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7456
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by agor95 »

May I ask

If a person deludes themselves and puts forward a hypotheses then
have they crossed the line?

Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by eccentrically1 »

furcurequs wrote:I gave the answer to that question already: through possible dishonesty with themselves - self delusion - due to things like wishful thinking and confirmation bias.
I don't see that when experimental results or equations are published for replication or review in order to avoid that very thing.

In the free energy example, they were just wrong. They probably thought they were right, and published their stuff. The Higgs proponents could be wrong, but they probably think they are right.
If they hadn't published, then I would say they were deluded.

You're welcome, he has a great site. I understand the explanations, the math I leave to others.
Last edited by eccentrically1 on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by rlortie »

agor95

hypotheses; A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. In science, a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon. A hypothesis is tested by drawing conclusions from it; if observation and experimentation show a conclusion to be false, the hypothesis must be false.

A person need not be considered deluded putting forward a hypotheses, it is presenting an idea, IMO they have not crossed the line.

Ideas are born here for fellow members to test and carry forward by adding or making the idea more explicit. It is also the fundamental kindling for collaboration.

Ralph
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by ME »

agor95 wrote:May I ask

If a person deludes themselves and puts forward a hypotheses then have they crossed the line?
A good and proper delusion should be indistinguishable from reality.
So when honesty is not impaired then this deluded hypothesis is put out in good faith and no lines have to be crossed.
But one could cross that line even with true facts when being forced upon someone who's clearly deluded. The main factor here which ultimately leads to some kind of disaster is the "forced"-part. Now things are more about the sense of morality and the source of any mishap usually "pride" which could take very creative forms.
And "pride" eventually points towards some inner "mystery" of some fool even though he was handling true facts in seemingly good faith.

And then "mystery" is like being mesmerized by the shape of that sign when squinting towards the other park bench in the hope it gives up its hidden meaning. Perhaps hypothesizing that bench is likely to be less sticky, and the current one the best and stickiest bench - and who actually know why that is?
I don't believe mystery makes us a fool, but only reminds us that we were for each moment it distracted our attention.

Now, where was I...

oh, agreed with Ralph.

The best thing in verifying an hypothesis on reality is allowing the other to freely experience and/or verify your perception of truth, having the benefit that ones own delusion has a chance of getting busted.. or not. Without preconceptions it should be OK whatever the outcome.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

An interesting thread.

I went walkabout from mainstream physics a long long time ago, as anyone who has ever read any of my published (or unpublished for that matter) papers will realise. So for me the Higgs boson stuff is as laughable a notion as the idea that things are held together from within and not from without.

No doubt this is why only one member of this forum appreciates the significance of the third derivative.

"Blessed are those who believe and have not seen" an actual working device. :-)
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: More Physics Lectures/Videos!

Post by Grimer »

My post on the Extraordinary Mass and ordinary mass thread sums up my attitude to the Higgs Boson.

Grimer wrote:I think the problem is that physics took a wrong turn and went up a blind alley. It will need to retrace its steps.

Simone Weil, had the situation bang to rights when in her essay, "La Science et nous" she wrote,

"What is disastrous is not the rejection of classical science but the way it has been rejected. It is wrongly believed it could progress indefinitely and it ran into a dead end about the year 1900; but scientists failed to stop at the same time in order to contemplate and reflect upon the barrier, they did not try to describe it and define it and, having taken it into account, to draw some general conclusion from it; instead they rushed violently past it, leaving classical science behind them.

And why should we be surprised at this? For are they not paid to forge continually ahead? Nobody advances in his career, or reputation, or gets a Nobel prize, by standing still. To cease voluntarily from forging ahead, any brilliantly gifted scientist would need to be a saint or a hero, and why should he be a saint or a hero? With rare exceptions there are none to be found among the members of other professions.

So the scientists forged ahead without revising anything, because any revision would have seemed a retrogression; they merely made an addition."
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Post Reply