Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[MrVibrating]

Dwayne, fantastic, and thank you for all your effort above. It's when people actually get stuck in and try and replicate that a madcap idea like this either gets the traction or ridicule it deserves, and your initiative is an example to us all.

Unfortunately however, you've just calculated the energy evolution of an N3-compliant sequence of accelerations.

So, not quite 'the brief', but a perfectly accurate roundup nonetheless.

Just do it all again without incurring counter-momentum - just for arguments' sake if you still don't see that it's possible - and see what falls out...

You may surprise yourself..

[MrVibrating]

So anyway, you'd think there'd be a corresponding lunar cycle anomaly if the great storm of 1717, a fortnight after JB's most impressive display of OU ended, was due to earth's precious bodily fluids converging on the point of origin of a protracted vertical acceleration. Since the net force would've been mostly linear and upwards in the orbital plane, this would've shifted the track of an immediately-following lunar eclipse, relative to the preceding one.

First eclipse after was recorded by Tycho Brahe on 16th March 1718, so if we can verify details of the track via other observations, and then do the same for the preceding one, we could check for any sign of deviation from predictive models (available online)..

Lotta research involved tho, and we'd first want to calculate the likely amount of shift we'd be looking for, as a function of the net counter-momentum the demonstration produced, divided by Earth's mass. It may be that the records simply lack sufficient accuracy margins to nail an anomaly, of course, but if we know there's a good chance it's there, it's probably a good idea to have a quick look for it..

[MrVibrating]

Oscillations. Weights acting in pairs, gravitating towards the center and back out again, ALTERNATLEY switching places. Have you honestly NOT read anything he wrote? Also, If N3 reactionLESS is possible, then N3 reactionFULL oscillated between reactionLESS is also possible. And I'm not talking about EM energy fields. I'm talking about oscillating the timing in which action/reaction events occur as one or more pairs of events. Oscillations. As far as metaphors, are they any more understandable than your novel-length techno jargon? How about a simple statement in the regular understandable English in three sentences or less? Have you read the terminology you use? It makes my head spin! :D For example, what in the hell is a "unity threshold of 4 RA's"??? I could cite hundreds of examples just like this. People seem to be attracted to developing a rhetoric that no one but them understands. The translations, if there are any, get lost in the plethora of insanely long technical posts. I can do that too: The mutually interacting wave-guided accelerations, due to their eccentric, yet intrinsic cyclic properties derived from the collaboration in conjunction with the mass-momentum pairs at an inversely proportional distribution of angular accelerative potential differences across the weight-pairs, especially when you consider the WTF ramifications for N3 in a cyclic field allowing for TGIF....blah blah blah blah blah. It would be nice to just be able to follow along.

Following along = RTFT.

After typing the phrase "reactionless acceleration" four hundred times i suggested we come up with some kind of snappier neologism, so just contracted it to an anagram, which i've defined repeatedly in almost every other sentence.

Four reactionless accelerations of 96.23 Joules per 9.81 kg-m/s results in the system having precisely the same energy as if it had been accelerated to that condition by any conventional, N3-compliant means.

Less than 4 RA's is under-unity.

More than 4 is over-unity.

Except, of course, you couldn't possibly have known this, because i've only repeated it four hundred times, on almost every page back to the beginning.

You're under absolutely no obligation to follow along, in any way shape or form, but don't complain you don't understand if you choose not to.

And good luck with the magic levers, BTW. If anyone's ever going to get that to work, you're definitely way out in front there.. ;P

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating,

After having spent a fair amount of time trudging through your thick and heavily made up jargon, I actually was able to finally figure out what you were trying to do. So, please don't bother repeating yourself.

Since I do understand what you are trying to do, that is why I'm now trying to show you what you've done wrong with your math.

So, let's first consider what the conditions would have been like if you hadn't added your 96 Joules of energy to the falling system of mass...

We would have had two 1kg masses each with an initial velocity of 19.62 m/s downward that accelerate downward for 1 second in the earth's gravitational field.

We can calculate the distance they both fall:

S = Vi x t + 1/2 x g x t^2

= 19.62 m/s x 1 s + 1/2 x 9.8 m/s^2 x (1 s)^2

= 19.62 m + 4.9 m

= 24.52 m

We can calculate the total work done on them due to the force of gravity:

F x d = m x g x h = Fg x S (from above)

= 2 kg x 9.8 m/s^2 x 24.52 m

= 19.6 x 24.52 J

= 481 Joules

We can calculate their total energy after the 1 s fall:

KEinitial + F x d (from above) = 1/2 mass x Vi^2 + 482 Joules

= 0.5 x 2 kg x (19.62 m/s)^2 + 482 Joules

= 385 Joules + 482 Joules

= 867 Joules

We can calculate their final downward velocity from this:

Vf = (KEf x 2 / mass)^0.5

= (867 Joules x 2 / 2 kg )^0.5

= 29.4 m/s

...and we can, of course, calculate the downward momentum of both masses:

P = mass x velocity

= 2 kg x 29.4 m/s

= 58.8 kg x m/s

MrVibrating, does that number look familiar to you?!

It should!! ...lol

...because it is the same total momentum that you have in your example even with your added 96 Joules of energy! You have bought nothing!

So, do you need me to explain this to you?!!!

Well, let me do that anyway...

Since you added energy internally to the falling 2 mass system, the upward and downward forces sum to zero and so don't change the total system momentum in the vertical direction at all! ...lol

It's a zero sum game. ...as I've already tried to point out.

The momentum you think you bought was only borrowed from the upper mass and so whether you know what you are doing or not, it's going to get paid back in reality.

Your best bet is to just try to hang on to the energy you are inputing.

...sorry...

I'll try to post another explanation later.

Dwayne

Oh, and don't worry about calling me Wayne. Even my own dad sometimes forgot the "D" for some reason.

(Btw, if my dad were still alive, he'd be 3 days shy of 100 years old right now. I just happened to be thinking about that.)

Yeah wow you've totally got it. Spot on! Fantastic. I can see i'd have to get up very early in the morning to get one over on you, eh? You've simply cut straight to the thrust of it, with that rapier-like incisiveness, explicated the very nub of the gist of my so-called thesis and left it in ruinous tatters, like the confused and meaningless word-salad it always was. Good show, take no prisoners! Capital stuff.

No, seriously. You really, totally shot my fox there, i feel such a fool. Well and truly cooked. My.


Goose.




Formidable.



(yawn)

[MrVibrating]

It's tough being the messiah!

Just look what happened to JC.

But even JC was smart enough not to claim a symmetry break.

That would have gotten him into some real trouble!

Yeah I'm probably just a very naughty boy.

It's a head-fuck of a symmetry break tho...

..I mean, I'm fairly certain it's propelling the Earth. But that's another sink not a source?

Unless we were decelerating it, somehow, and so converting its KE to ours?

Yet the interaction only requires alignment to gravity, and then only during half a cycle. IOW it doesn't seem to correspond to Earth's orbital momentum vector, for instance, and would work anytime of day, anywhere on Earth (or in the air).

So yeah, it seems pretty clear that propelling the Earth is a direct input load - half our input energy goes into the machine's momentum, the other half inducing an equal opposite linear momentum to Earth. It's defo a pay-in deal, not a pay-out.

So bottom line seems to be that we're using "free" energy to make momentum, which we're applying to Earth and our wheel, in equal proportions, while using the portion on the wheel to generate excess KE from its diverging inertial frame..

So where's all this energy ultimately coming from? It's powering our wheel, but also propelling the Earth with equal power (again, equal amounts of input energy are being applied to both).. and it's coming from the wheel... from the unidirectional momentum gain..!?

So is it vacuum-energy after all? ....

Yes. It is "vacuum" energy. That's absolutely spot on.

Why?

Because the vacuum isn't nothing. It is, inter alia, the beta-atmosphere which holds materials together. Materials are not held together by internal tensions which imply action at a distance, an unphysical concept as Newton well realised. They are held together by a reduction of the quasi-fluid phase relative the the external pressure of the beta-atmosphere.

We get energy from the various properties of the alpha-atmosphere (the air). We can get energy from the various properties of the beta-atmosphere - the electromagnetic atmosphere, and the amount of energy we require is completely negligible compared to the amount of energy available.

Tesla realised this but his work has been buried by the powers that be.

Gravity is only the handmaiden in the process, the catalyst. It is not the source of energy.

My concern - in my full capacity as an uneducated messenger boy, you understand - is that if the beta atmosphere's holding everything together, maybe we should just leave that right the hell alone right there - it obviously ain't broken, and i don't know how or why it works; whether it's a finite energy reserve, in which case using even a teeny amount could have unforseen consequences for the stability of matter (ie. what's radioactive or not), or whether it's replenished by some even-more fundamental substrate: and even then, does it refill instantly, or is there a finite recharge rate, or an inertia or viscosity or momentum to it? Whatever it is, it's obviously doing a sterling job, the way it's holding us all together and stopping us falling through the floor and everything.. So how could we be so sure it's safe to harvest it?

Maybe the more blocks in the Jenga tower, the less advised we'd be to try pulling one out? One little Jenga block in a stack of millions, what possible harm could that do, right?

[Silvertiger]

Mr.V, you have to realize at some point that none of what you have described, both mathematically and in simulation, is not reactionless. The reaction is there. A mass hovering in one spot due to a force applied by a spring or whatever, connected to a mass being accelerated away, is nevertheless a reaction. The first part of my post was an answer to your challenge about oscillations being described by Bessler, which you did not respond to, but instead elected for some bad language. I actually do know what you meant by RA's...but do you? Furcurequs is right. Why get angry defensive about it? As far as my "magic levers," I have already tested and proven five additional hypotheses that actually do work in simulation. This means that I actually mathematically reasoned them out BEFORE attempting any simulations. If it works in the real world, then it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I am hopeful, yes, and fairly certain of future real world results within an acceptable percentage of confidence, but I am also not under any delusions.

[MrVibrating]

Furcurequs wrote:
It sounds like you've been beamed up, that you've ascended to "the realm." Say hello to Ken for us! ;P

LOL i'm not the one advocating gravity wheels.

The gradient exists simply because the input energy is less. It doesn't rise with velocity. Or rather, the velocity of the interaction never rises - the two inertias begin each acceleration phase at zero relative velocity, and inertia itself is velocity-agnostic.

So the energy source is whatever's allowing the inertial interaction to keep producing positive sums.

Which is gravity.

Yeah, hopefully someone else can get a better handle on it than me.. :/

Hopefully.

You know what i mean - i'm not trying to generate a gravitational asymmetry, or get free work from gravity in any way, which i've always considered oxymoronic (closed-loops thru static fields etc.)

Gravity merely causes the asymmetric distribution of momentum. It's not doing any net work. (Not internally, anyway.)

And obviously, we know the form of the gain is the incompatible scaling dimensions of the input and output energy fields. That's not what i mean when i ask where the energy's coming from - i'm making an assumption of ultimate conservation, and so wondering what that source or reservoir is. IOW it's plainly obvious how and why the energy is manifest and constituted, but if CoE still has the last word then we're evidently missing something.. i think Frank's right and it's some kind of vacuum energy.. but at what precise juncture is it appearing? I mean where's the hole it's leaking out of?

Because we have the right amount of KE, at all times. No excess.

It's just more than the input energy. Which is also precisely as it should be. There's nothing 'missing' from the input energy - it's performing exactly the right amount of work, in mass times displacement. And there's no excess output energy, purely a standard function of 1/2mV^2.

They're just different values, but it's OK, 'cause they're supposed to be, just as they are.

Yet as a consequence, they form a mutual source and sink. They can be equal.. but only at a precise value.. below which O < I and above which I < O.

Beyond a threshold RPM, energy flows from the velocity-dependent output energy field, to the velocity-independent input energy field.

So where's it coming from?

Crazy suggestion; negative GPE - ie. the G*m*h of the Earth accelerating upwards towards the inertially-stalled not-so-gravitating mass.

I'm proposing that we're basically pulling earth away from the lower inertia - be it angular or linear - by dragging it upwards via its mutual attraction to the upper mass..

So while we're obviously pushing the upper mass upwards against the inertia of the lower mass (angular or linear), at the same time, the whole earth is hanging off of the upper mass... following it.

Essentially, a regular GPE interaction also involves a displacement of Earth, that we can usually ignore, because we're stuck to its surface. So we only need to deal with its 'positive' component.

But here, we're momentarily eliminating that positive component - the falling mass is no longer being accelerated in its descent.

Yet we've done nothing to prevent the usual acceleration of Earth back upwards to meet that mass.

And so as we're stalling the upper mass's acceleration, we're harvesting negative GPE, gaining energy from the Earth's upwards fall? Is that it?

I don't know.

Makes no difference to whether it works or not, anyway..

[MrVibrating]

Mr.V, you have to realize at some point that none of what you have described, both mathematically and in simulation, is not reactionless.

You mean none of it is, obviously, but i think you're missing the point...

An induced momentum without a corresponding counter-momentum is a "reactionless acceleration".

Likewise, if both induced momenta are of equal magnitude but like (not opposite) signs, we also have an effective reactionless acceleration.

Another way of saying the same thing is "asymmetric inertial interaction".

An "asymmetric distribution of indued momenta, from an otherwise perfectly-elastic interaction".

You think i like typing out those long-winded expressions? CoE depends upon N3. Breaking N3 - or even just attempting it - requires addressing these issues and terms.

The method works - all of the momentum input by the interaction is of one sign only, hence a net rise has occurred.

The reaction is there. A mass hovering in one spot due to a force applied by a spring or whatever, connected to a mass being accelerated away, is nevertheless a reaction.

Well of course, and it's resulting distribution of momentum is made fully asymmetric by gravity.

Mate, try to focus on this bit - it's critical - a force is being applied between two inertias. Each is being accelerated by that force, against one another's resistance to that acceleration, right? A basic fully-elastic inertial interaction. It depends upon the reaction at both ends, right?

Normally, the distribution of mV will be equal and opposite - equal-magnitude reactions, opposite signs. Net momentum change, zero.

Because you're not supposed to be able to alter a system's net momentum from an internal expenditure of work. Yes? Newton's first law, ('N1').

But even when the upwards acceleration of the upper mass is stalled by gravity's equal opposite downwards acceleration, we're still inputting a force between two inertias. It's still an internal workload. Still an inertial interaction, on top of a gravitational one.

Yet it results in non-cancelling momenta. We get exactly the same amount of momentum, just all of one sign, instead of half of each. The reaction was there - that's absolutely crucial - but it was compensated by gravitation, accelerating down as fast as it accelerated up.

So the workload applied in-between the two masses has resulted in a "propellant-less" acceleration of the net system (ie. both 1 kg masses can end with equal momentum of equal sign).

And when we repay the GPE that was output, we still have that net rise in momentum.

Look at it this way - if we perform a symmetrical inertial interaction (per N3) under gravity, after repaying the GPE our net change in momentum is zero.

But if we perform an asymmetric inertial interaction under gravity, after repaying the GPE we still have all our input momentum. The net change in momentum was positive.

Banking this gain five times in a row is OU.

And it totally depends upon inducing counter-momentum.

It's just induced to Earth, via gravity, rather than into the non-accelerating mass, thus allowing it to be towed along by the accelerated one.

The non-accelerated mass isn't the propellant, the Earth is. The upper mass, in this case, is just a proxy for the reaction matter and its associated counter-momentum, via the intermediary of gravity.

So the net downwards momentum that we sink into a wheel has a corresponding upwards component, manifested in the Earth.

Basically, we're pushing the descending side of the wheel downwards, by pushing the Earth upwards, generating RKE from negative GPE.

That's what it looks like to me, anyhoos.

The first part of my post was an answer to your challenge about oscillations being described by Bessler, which you did not respond to, but instead elected for some bad language.

Oscillations cannot break CoE. No form of subtle harmonic entrainment or any of that sort of lark is going to introduce excess energy. Describing displacements as "oscillations" is a stretch in the first place. They're probably more usefully regarded as interactions (ie. workloads comprised of input and output F*d integrals), and reciprocation is pretty much an incidental consequence of closed-loop motion.

Obviously, energy-from-oscillations is a bit of a pseudoscience cliché, so it seems a bit naive.. like trying to make energy from perpetual overbalance, trading width-for-height etc.

I actually do know what you meant by RA's...but do you? Furcurequs is right. Why get angry defensive about it?

Well no, he hasn't got the slightest idea what i'm doing, and neither have you.

As far as my "magic levers," I have already tested and proven five additional hypotheses that actually do work in simulation. This means that I actually mathematically reasoned them out BEFORE attempting any simulations. If it works in the real world, then it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I am hopeful, yes, and fairly certain of future real world results within an acceptable percentage of confidence, but I am also not under any delusions.

Gravity and rest mass are constant, closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy. It's cavemen trying to burn rocks mate. The rocks don't burn. Energy is F*d... where would the gain come from? Sounds like alchemy. Super-secret alchemy, safely ensconced from the cold unforgiving light of reason..

[MrVibrating]

ST your basic argument seems to be misguided pedantic / semantic confusion - you're thinking that the key detail here is apparently (according to me) "reactionless acceleration", and hence if there IS a reaction, all my conclusions must be invalid or redundant.

Am i right, huh?

That's totally missing the point, bruv. I'm presenting a method for generating unidirectional momentum from within a closed system. Of course it depends upon reactions, it's book-ended by them, has to be, N3 is immutable, because mass constancy. All this is taken for granted and beyond dispute.

But when we add gravity into the mix, we can obtain this effective N3 symmetry break, from our frame of reference, relative to the ground.

We can bank it, cumulatively, such as in a vertical wheel, and if we do that five times in a row then it has 125% more RKE than we've spent between our masses, that margin rising another 25% with each successive input of single-signed momentum. The system is definitively, categorically, over-unity... this is just unassailable fact.

What a truly stationary observer sees however is the entire Earth being dragged through space in a straight line by that non-accelerating upper mass.

We're pushing the upper mass away from the lower one (and remember the lower one can be angular or linear, although if the latter, it's collided with the descending side of the wheel anyway, for the same net result).

But the Earth is chasing the upper mass, falling upwards towards it... so we're ultimately pushing the Earth + upper mass away from the lower, and ultimately, angular inertia, generating and collecting negative GPE in the process..

This is a little unintuitive, and i'm still getting my head around it myself. I may be wrong about any of these conclusions, and am open to corrections. Eager for them.

But there's a little more to this than simply trying to point-score with arcane terminologies. I'm sorry i'm not talking about overbalance or leverage or springs etc. but i'm singularly focused - as everyone knows i have been for years - on cheating CoE via an effective workaround to Newton's 3rd law - "effective" meaning it works or not, not in spite of N3 per mass constancy, but because of it.

It's just that here, it's also because of gravity, too.

[Silvertiger]

But you're only stalling the momentum by prolonging its state of rest. It will, inevitably and eventually, take place once it moves. It takes additional input energy to affect the stall. How will you reset this effect. How will you reset the spring so-to-speak? How will you get that startup energy back? Five RA's without reciprocity are meaningless, wouldn't you say?

If both I and Furcurequs have no idea what you are doing, myself having education in physics, as I cannot speak for Furcurequs, then why are you posting to begin with? There are only a few people on this forum capable of understanding what you're trying to do, including Grimer imo. If you believe that WE cannot understand it, then there is no point in posting it.

Also, if my "magic levers" as you describe them have no potential to work whatsoever, then how could I possibly get six variations to work in sim, five of them being hypothesized prior to design? Granted, they may not perform as expected in the real world once built. Nevertheless, WM2D reduces the cost of materials and labor that go into a design by solving problems without an actual build. The conditions are far more perfect in sim, but it gets us closer to the main goal when a build is attempted. You have no idea whether Bessler used a frequency, in and of itself, to get his machines going. My own designs will not work either, unless an initial input of force is given. They just sit there doing nothing.

You're just being arrogant about what you think you know, which in many people's view is not good business. Just because you haven't thought of something, doesn't mean it does not exist. Insulting the intelligence and education of others is just such a sign of self-limited thinking. I believe you are very intelligent, and therefore cannot tell you what you are a capable of understanding and not understanding. You really should consider extending others the same courtesy.

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating,

After having spent a fair amount of time trudging through your thick and heavily made up jargon, I actually was able to finally figure out what you were trying to do. So, please don't bother repeating yourself.

Since I do understand what you are trying to do, that is why I'm now trying to show you what you've done wrong with your math.

So, let's first consider what the conditions would have been like if you hadn't added your 96 Joules of energy to the falling system of mass...

We would have had two 1kg masses each with an initial velocity of 19.62 m/s downward that accelerate downward for 1 second in the earth's gravitational field.

We can calculate the distance they both fall:

S = Vi x t + 1/2 x g x t^2

= 19.62 m/s x 1 s + 1/2 x 9.8 m/s^2 x (1 s)^2

= 19.62 m + 4.9 m

= 24.52 m

We can calculate the total work done on them due to the force of gravity:

F x d = m x g x h = Fg x S (from above)

= 2 kg x 9.8 m/s^2 x 24.52 m

= 19.6 x 24.52 J

= 481 Joules

We can calculate their total energy after the 1 s fall:

KEinitial + F x d (from above) = 1/2 mass x Vi^2 + 482 Joules

= 0.5 x 2 kg x (19.62 m/s)^2 + 482 Joules

= 385 Joules + 482 Joules

= 867 Joules

We can calculate their final downward velocity from this:

Vf = (KEf x 2 / mass)^0.5

= (867 Joules x 2 / 2 kg )^0.5

= 29.4 m/s

...and we can, of course, calculate the downward momentum of both masses:

P = mass x velocity

= 2 kg x 29.4 m/s

= 58.8 kg x m/s

MrVibrating, does that number look familiar to you?!

It should!! ...lol

...because it is the same total momentum that you have in your example even with your added 96 Joules of energy! You have bought nothing!

So, do you need me to explain this to you?!!!

Well, let me do that anyway...

Since you added energy internally to the falling 2 mass system, the upward and downward forces sum to zero and so don't change the total system momentum in the vertical direction at all! ...lol

It's a zero sum game. ...as I've already tried to point out.

The momentum you think you bought was only borrowed from the upper mass and so whether you know what you are doing or not, it's going to get paid back in reality.

Your best bet is to just try to hang on to the energy you are inputing.

...sorry...

I'll try to post another explanation later.

Dwayne

Oh, and don't worry about calling me Wayne. Even my own dad sometimes forgot the "D" for some reason.

(Btw, if my dad were still alive, he'd be 3 days shy of 100 years old right now. I just happened to be thinking about that.)

OK you've obviously earned more than a tart riposte, you're making an effort and i should try and meet you halfway.

The whole concept here however is obtaining a net momentum.

That's what all the calcs are for. To track the sources, amounts and signs of momentum.

In order to 'see' the results of the inertial interaction, we need to filter out the gravitational interaction, and its associated momentum.

That's what the calcs did. I took the change in GPE, the RKE it converted to and the corresponding momentum and subtracted them, to leave only the KE and momentum applied between the two masses.

All of which is of one sign - only one of the two inertias gets accelerated, so its rise in momentum (or velocity) can be shared with its partner, bringing both to a new equilibrium momentum / velocity.

Momentum generated this way - from asymmetric inertial interactions - is special, because the process generating it is speed-invariant - it costs the same energy, doing the same workload, to generate the same rise in net momentum, whatever our current velocity.

But the energy value of that momentum is not constant, instead it squares with velocity.

If we buy five or more lots at that fixed price, that V^2 multiplier takes us over-unity.

The optimal cost of this momentum, using gravity to fully cancel counter momentum between two 1 kg inertias, is 96.23 J per 9.81 kg-m/s.

Four times 9.81 = 39.24.
Four times 96.23 = 384.92

39.24 kg-m/s divided between two 1 kg masses means both are at 19.62 meters / sec

2 * 1 kg masses at 19.62 m/s have 192.47 J each, so 384.94 J total.


So after precisely four reactionless momentum rises, the two masses have exactly the same momentum and energy they would've had, no matter how they were accelerated.

But below four, they have less RKE value than their cost of generation.

And above four, they have more value than their cost of generation.





Get it?



Mate... you haven't calculated the momenta!

That was the whole point of the hypothesis, calculations, sims and results analysis, and the context of the resulting discussion of those findings.

Is there or is there not a net momentum, after subtracting (ie. notionally repaying) the KE and momentum generated from the GPE? That's the objective of the analysis.

Not an excess of inertial work - the amount of momentum raised is initially the same, whether symmetrically-induced or not.

But if it's symmetrical, the net change is zero. Any degree of asymmetry results in a proportionately non-zero sum, and here we have a fully 100% asymmetric inertial interaction - one of the inertias is not accelerated at all, despite being used to successfully raise momentum in its partner.

So disproving me (if that's your goal, which is great BTW) requires following the sign of the momentum, specifically the momentum produced by the inertial interaction.

All that concerns you should be three issues:

- can momentum be generated this way?

- can it be accumulated?

- is its cost of generation constant, irrespective of ambient speed?

My case - OU - stands or falls on these predicates.

[WaltzCee]

Well, looks like your messiahship's been revoked.
I was so looking forward to going to your crucifixion.
I don't know what I'm going to do with all this popcorn.

I do have an idea and I think it's a good one. Put
together a white paper of this idea in a PDF and
email it to Lockhaven for review.

I just checked.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
&#8206;doesn't work any more. Never mind.

You might post the idea here:
https://www.facebook.com/stephenhawking/

[MrVibrating]

But you're only stalling the momentum by prolonging its state of rest. It will, inevitably and eventually, take place once it moves. It takes additional input energy to affect the stall. How will you reset this effect. How will you reset the spring so-to-speak? How will you get that startup energy back? Five RA's without reciprocity are meaningless, wouldn't you say?

If both I and Furcurequs have no idea what you are doing, myself having education in physics, as I cannot speak for Furcurequs, then why are you posting to begin with? There are only a few people on this forum capable of understanding what you're trying to do, including Grimer imo. If you believe that WE cannot understand it, then there is no point in posting it.

Also, if my "magic levers" as you describe them have no potential to work whatsoever, then how could I possibly get six variations to work in sim, five of them being hypothesized prior to design? Granted, they may not perform as expected in the real world once built. Nevertheless, WM2D reduces the cost of materials and labor that go into a design by solving problems without an actual build. The conditions are far more perfect in sim, but it gets us closer to the main goal when a build is attempted. You have no idea whether Bessler used a frequency, in and of itself, to get his machines going. My own designs will not work either, unless an initial input of force is given. They just sit there doing nothing.

You're just being arrogant about what you think you know, which in many people's view is not good business. Just because you haven't thought of something, doesn't mean it does not exist. Insulting the intelligence and education of others is just such a sign of self-limited thinking. I believe you are very intelligent, and therefore cannot tell you what you are a capable of understanding and not understanding. You really should consider extending others the same courtesy.

Mate, it's there. It's all there, read it or don't i care not, i've answered all of your above questions repeatedly, throughout this thread, the answers are there anytime you're interested.

It's OK tho. You don't have to feel compelled to read, or complain about not wanting to read the answers to your questions. Just ignore the thread, i'm obviously talking nonsense, don't pay any attention to any of it, you clearly know better, and i bow to your superior scholarship.

[MrVibrating]

Well, looks like your messiahship's been revoked.
I was so looking forward to going to your crucifixion.
I don't know what I'm going to do with all this popcorn.

I do have an idea and I think it's a good one. Put
together a white paper of this idea in a PDF and
email it to Lockhaven for review.

I just checked.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
&#8206;doesn't work any more. Never mind.

You might post the idea here:
https://www.facebook.com/stephenhawking/

Well with any luck i'll be designing builds off of it before too long, dunno about anyone else..

My intention here wasn't to defend the hypothesis - tho i'm happy to do so - just to continue developing it, collaboratively or whatever. I'm certain this is the only possible solution, even if no one else can see it. 'Defending' it has devolved into repeatedly explaining it to people who won't read in the first place, or try and read the thread backwards. But that's just teh webz i guess..

[Silvertiger]

Mr.V, I really do understand the concept of creating a bias - in this case, across momenta, yielding a positive value. Have I missed the gist in any way? My question is, HOW does one reciprocate the effect BEFORE an equal negative value comes to bear? I am sure that I do not understand it the way you do, since it's your baby. I actually did not start reading this thread until about a week ago. I tried in the beginning, but before I knew it there were over ten pages! You should understand things don't happen in your own timeline compared to others' before dealing out insults. I am still reading, and still haven't found the answer to this, which is directly related to recouping your startup energy. Insulting others is not the way to gain a co-op effort. Repetition, as I have learned, although frustrating, is necessary, especially on a forum. The simple act of bouncing ideas continually off of others is beneficial in and of itself in that it allows you to solve many problems on your own. This is a good thing, but it is more rewarding in a real-world conversation than on a thread.