Thank you for the subtle Glastonbury flavouring Agor.....I really could tell some tale of my 22yrs here in relation to this Quest if only I could dare to actually believe it myself. It would certainly be deemed off-topic here...& rightly so I s'pose.
That said, I had to Quest...& I believe that to be topical in the extreme.
I'm not a crank, I still have a common-sense, a logic, that insists that all of this must amount to no more than an over imaginative mind with very little to occupy itself with over many a year now.
However...I began with two images, both a mystery to all alive and I looked...and wondered...over & over for almost two decades. That, I trust you can imagine, is quite some quest to put a mind to...and it has led to this, something disgracefully simple in comparison to the effort applied, yet apparently illusive enough to require said effort.
A perfect candidate then, I would argue, for something of Nature in plain sight but hidden.
Of course, I may very well have only succeeded in taking the longest possible road to nowhere, to now sit blowing bubbles out of my back passage but...
I just may have reaped a just reward from contemplating something, for years, that required years of contemplation.
It's of considerable relief to me Agor that you appear to have a good grasp here....Because I'm feeling unwell enough in general to not trust in my survival...& be this a grain of sand or a seed to grow, I really just want to plant my two decades worth of it anywhere more favourable than just me.
I have no knowledge of Protons, Higgs, or the like...if you say so is about all I can say, sadly.
What I must say is this tho'...
Please look at Fig 1...& try to trust me when I say that you could spend many a year unlocking the implications within. Exactly like my original two images...the lock is there to be picked & the acquired/required imagination to pick it will unlock a cosmic gate/switch... a connection so unimaginably clever.
If you've a mind for it then start by seeing not one but two reversed double helixes on each axis....take note of the composition of each strand...12 in total!
Note how each strand is shared out between the dimensions....see how they turn in one dimension whilst spiralling in another....strands in one dimension, struts/spokes in another.
If in Fig 1 the red/blue strands turn in the same direction then they move towards/away from you....turning against each other results in no such movement...only the twisting/turning motion already addressed.
See how this plays out with the other double helix on that axis....see how it plays out in all three dimensions.
A lot to imagine...and just the start.
I can't do it. I'm attempting to & I might be somewhat more proficient at it....but Lord, I'm only a decaying, developing, ape.
What's needed of course is a shit hot CAD presentation.
With intense frustration I still await the attention of a close neighbour, Head of the CAD Dept at the Science Faculty/Bristol Uni.....I know he would be kind enough to want to help out, not so sure that he would be interested enough to want to work on making any presentation shit hot tho'.........be a wonder to just see the basic Motion, a twisting/turning tetra...but a whole host of added features would allow for much deeper insight.
Seems this drivel, simple as it is, requires a bloody lifetime of mental application or the full assistance of NASA to undress it!
That said...I just went off for a Youtube introduction to the Higgs thingy..lots of pro graphics, lots of words, even a few that I recognised....
Be Well/Gill
Friction or Fiction?
Moderator: scott
re: Friction or Fiction?
- Attachments
-
- FIG 1
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
re: Friction or Fiction?
One last attempt to pass on an observation, perhaps hitherto unobserved...
Take a regular Tetrahedron....six edges, for faces, four vertices & seven axes.
The seven axes are split into four medians (one through each vertice & face centre) & three bimedians (one through each edge midpoint & opposite edge midpoint)
Each bimedian, created by two opposite edges, therefore has the remaining four edges set around it....arranged as the two strands of a double helix in one direction around & two strands of a double helix in the reverse turn around.
Choose any edge & opposite edge...any two strands of a double helix....and turn them against each other equally & simultaniously.
That's one edge at right angles to its opposite, using that opposite as an axle...whilst the opposite does likewise to the first.
As already stated...there is no `actual` turn around each other. ...you're just `twisting whilst turning` the whole tetrahedron.
In performing this very simple action.....the exact twisting/turning of a tetrahedron on its centre that must result from the above action...then the following conditions exist.
Each bimedian has two double helixes, as already stated, now in motion along it, strand against strand. The three bimedians are themselves constantly moving through the three dimensions as the helixes do so.
The four medians do not move at all.....these see the base & vertice that form them constantly toggle position back & forth between each other, along their median.
No desire to re-argue any case for this other than to point out that we're seeking a MOTION that perpetuates. There are only four motions, five if you include all irregular.....& NONE can ever give rise to the apparent impossibility we seek.
The above is a MOTION...& it is NONE of the aforementioned.
If anything then it is the Motion befitting all of Creation..a motion of utter simplicity from which results three dimensionally balanced motions of complexity & beauty.
That it might be replicated here on Earth to demonstrate the perpetuality inherant within it...that would be a mere party piece as such.
That party piece, as already explained, is achieved by implimenting any one of the four static medians as an axle, placing two Sabu discs on that axle, base of a tetrahedron in one disc, vertice of it in the other....& capturing the toggling that exists between base and vertice on that/any median, when the tetrahedron is moving in accordance to the simple, principle motion, outlined.
Take a regular Tetrahedron....six edges, for faces, four vertices & seven axes.
The seven axes are split into four medians (one through each vertice & face centre) & three bimedians (one through each edge midpoint & opposite edge midpoint)
Each bimedian, created by two opposite edges, therefore has the remaining four edges set around it....arranged as the two strands of a double helix in one direction around & two strands of a double helix in the reverse turn around.
Choose any edge & opposite edge...any two strands of a double helix....and turn them against each other equally & simultaniously.
That's one edge at right angles to its opposite, using that opposite as an axle...whilst the opposite does likewise to the first.
As already stated...there is no `actual` turn around each other. ...you're just `twisting whilst turning` the whole tetrahedron.
In performing this very simple action.....the exact twisting/turning of a tetrahedron on its centre that must result from the above action...then the following conditions exist.
Each bimedian has two double helixes, as already stated, now in motion along it, strand against strand. The three bimedians are themselves constantly moving through the three dimensions as the helixes do so.
The four medians do not move at all.....these see the base & vertice that form them constantly toggle position back & forth between each other, along their median.
No desire to re-argue any case for this other than to point out that we're seeking a MOTION that perpetuates. There are only four motions, five if you include all irregular.....& NONE can ever give rise to the apparent impossibility we seek.
The above is a MOTION...& it is NONE of the aforementioned.
If anything then it is the Motion befitting all of Creation..a motion of utter simplicity from which results three dimensionally balanced motions of complexity & beauty.
That it might be replicated here on Earth to demonstrate the perpetuality inherant within it...that would be a mere party piece as such.
That party piece, as already explained, is achieved by implimenting any one of the four static medians as an axle, placing two Sabu discs on that axle, base of a tetrahedron in one disc, vertice of it in the other....& capturing the toggling that exists between base and vertice on that/any median, when the tetrahedron is moving in accordance to the simple, principle motion, outlined.
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
re: Friction or Fiction?
The geometric interaction of the form and it's complimentary disc holders concept has been posted.
The art and esoteric symbolism appreciated.
I think what is missing is a justification to how this fits with a Bessler's Wheel purpose of this forum.
This like many artfully crafted devices are good to study. However this has the same properties,topological speaking, as a flywheel.
We are seeking a process that causes the device to accelerate.
To justify the flywheel statement; Convert the shape to a sphere between to plates.
From a kinetics standpoint how does the two shapes differ and does that improve our understanding to progress the Bessler Wheel Quest?
The art and esoteric symbolism appreciated.
I think what is missing is a justification to how this fits with a Bessler's Wheel purpose of this forum.
This like many artfully crafted devices are good to study. However this has the same properties,topological speaking, as a flywheel.
We are seeking a process that causes the device to accelerate.
To justify the flywheel statement; Convert the shape to a sphere between to plates.
From a kinetics standpoint how does the two shapes differ and does that improve our understanding to progress the Bessler Wheel Quest?
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
re: Friction or Fiction?
Thank you Agor...
Justification first if I may....Bessler tells us that his wheel, that thing that we all know of only too well, is being driven by a process within. A motion that is moving in accordance to some Principle of Perpetual Motion, deriving its power to drive said wheel by way of some form of excess weight that results from said motion set about an axle.
Justification, to my mind at least, that we errrr...seek a motion...one that, when set about an axle, perpetuates, by some means of excess weight? I can offer no apology for apparently being the only `fool` here to actually see sense in looking for what we're so blantantly told to look for.
If I recall correctly then the purpose, of this forum is to discuss & investigate the mystery of Bessler's Wheel.... 99.9% of all input here offers contempt to the all important `mystery`.....
Bessler took a wheel & imagined a means (mystery) to power it from within....99.9% take the exact same wheel & right there the connection with Bessler's Wheel ends, by seeing justification in tinkering about a rim like the millions of others pre/post Bessler, all way too short of his imagination to be able to do anything else, never mind actually discover anything else.
"Mystery? Nah, can't `imagine` any justification for that kinda nonsense but I can discuss & investigate a wheel, a wheel that's been discussed/investigated to obvious exhaustion...Jesus yeah, could fill a whole damn forum with matters of no possible consequence...stuff I know 'cos it's already known don't you know!"
And it will continue to be the 99.9% no doubt...but for me it'll always appear a 99.9% insult to Bessler, the neccessary Quest he completed & simple, basic, common-sense.
Flywheel?....I imagine so. I recall nothing of the physics regarding most things, flywheels included...but for sure I'm not suggesting an unbalanced axle. But it's no ordinary flywheel if it is....this flywheel is, as already argued previously, a mass, weight, whatever, of unit 4, in motion around an axle, that repeatedly presents itself as a balanced unit 3 to that axle.
`We are seeking a process that causes the device to accelerate` If you say so..then process given perhaps?. If it's unjust then please explain why, as I personally have no idea as to what results when a spinning flywheel has an analog, constantly fluctuating, mass?
Justification first if I may....Bessler tells us that his wheel, that thing that we all know of only too well, is being driven by a process within. A motion that is moving in accordance to some Principle of Perpetual Motion, deriving its power to drive said wheel by way of some form of excess weight that results from said motion set about an axle.
Justification, to my mind at least, that we errrr...seek a motion...one that, when set about an axle, perpetuates, by some means of excess weight? I can offer no apology for apparently being the only `fool` here to actually see sense in looking for what we're so blantantly told to look for.
If I recall correctly then the purpose, of this forum is to discuss & investigate the mystery of Bessler's Wheel.... 99.9% of all input here offers contempt to the all important `mystery`.....
Bessler took a wheel & imagined a means (mystery) to power it from within....99.9% take the exact same wheel & right there the connection with Bessler's Wheel ends, by seeing justification in tinkering about a rim like the millions of others pre/post Bessler, all way too short of his imagination to be able to do anything else, never mind actually discover anything else.
"Mystery? Nah, can't `imagine` any justification for that kinda nonsense but I can discuss & investigate a wheel, a wheel that's been discussed/investigated to obvious exhaustion...Jesus yeah, could fill a whole damn forum with matters of no possible consequence...stuff I know 'cos it's already known don't you know!"
And it will continue to be the 99.9% no doubt...but for me it'll always appear a 99.9% insult to Bessler, the neccessary Quest he completed & simple, basic, common-sense.
Flywheel?....I imagine so. I recall nothing of the physics regarding most things, flywheels included...but for sure I'm not suggesting an unbalanced axle. But it's no ordinary flywheel if it is....this flywheel is, as already argued previously, a mass, weight, whatever, of unit 4, in motion around an axle, that repeatedly presents itself as a balanced unit 3 to that axle.
`We are seeking a process that causes the device to accelerate` If you say so..then process given perhaps?. If it's unjust then please explain why, as I personally have no idea as to what results when a spinning flywheel has an analog, constantly fluctuating, mass?
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
-
gravityman52
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:49 am
re: Friction or Fiction?
Same mass....... different moment arm
a Romantic seeking to find the link to powering the planet
Re: re: Friction or Fiction?
Well said and is a clear summary of Bessler's declaration.Gill Simo wrote: ... if I may....Bessler tells us that his wheel, that thing that we all know of only too well, is being driven by a process within. A motion that is moving in accordance to some Principle of Perpetual Motion, deriving its power to drive said wheel by way of some form of excess weight that results from said motion set about an axle.
You are not alone. I feel when we look at this directly then we are not fooling ourselves or others. We are looking for 'excess weight' to do work in a wheel. That is a target we have and like any sport it's all about who gets close to the target. We develop new skills and growth is not a foolish occupation.Gill Simo wrote: ... to my mind at least, that we errrr...seek a motion...one that, when set about an axle, perpetuates, by some means of excess weight? I can offer no apology for apparently being the only `fool` here to actually see sense in looking for what we're so blatantly told to look for.
We are all trying and some more trying than others.Gill Simo wrote: If I recall correctly then the purpose, of this forum is to discuss & investigate the mystery of Bessler's Wheel.... 99.9% of all input here offers contempt to the all important `mystery`.....
I understand that some members start by building devices based on the recorded observations.Gill Simo wrote: Bessler took a wheel & imagined a means (mystery) to power it from within....99.9% take the exact same wheel & right there the connection with Bessler's Wheel ends, by seeing justification in tinkering about a rim like the millions of others pre/post Bessler, all way too short of his imagination to be able to do anything else, never mind actually discover anything else.
This is a form of aid to help to get into the mind of Bessler and imagine how the dynamics within could have played out. Thus going from the physical to the inner dynamic principles.
I also appreciate your study of an inner dynamics too track down the mystery.
Then from there guild members up to the physical device.
I can see that a person could split the Quest into complex distracting implementation problems.Gill Simo wrote: "Mystery? Nah, can't `imagine` any justification for that kinda nonsense but I can discuss & investigate a wheel, a wheel that's been discussed/investigated to obvious exhaustion...Jesus yeah, could fill a whole damn forum with matters of no possible consequence...stuff I know 'cos it's already known don't you know!"
And it will continue to be the 99.9% no doubt...but for me it'll always appear a 99.9% insult to Bessler, the necessary Quest he completed & simple, basic, common-sense.
On the other logical or lateral reasoning of the Quest.
In my previous post I was thinking that we could start with a sphere and two flat plates then morph the sphere into a tetrahedron then the flat plates need too morph so a complementary distance is kept.Gill Simo wrote: Flywheel?....I imagine so. I recall nothing of the physics regarding most things, flywheels included...but for sure I'm not suggesting an unbalanced axle. But it's no ordinary flywheel if it is....this flywheel is, as already argued previously, a mass, weight, whatever, of unit 4, in motion around an axle, that repeatedly presents itself as a balanced unit 3 to that axle.
`We are seeking a process that causes the device to accelerate` If you say so..then process given perhaps?. If it's unjust then please explain why, as I personally have no idea as to what results when a spinning flywheel has an analogue, constantly fluctuating, mass?
Again a hard fixed structure could rotate in the way you have defined.
I then moved on to the idea that the rotating tetrahedron within the correctly formed complementary discs could wobble the central axis.
This in turn changes the vertices momentum of the tetrahedron.
That in turn causes a flexing of it’s shape then that can be used to do work.
However presenting this with an illustration is no easy task. Let alone building a device.
All the best
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
re: Friction or Fiction?
Thank you Agor....
Around a year back now I mentioned that I'd discovered that a close neighbour was the Senior Lecturer in Engineering/Computer Science at Bristol Uni here in the UK...a fella who previously developed graphics software for NASA no less.
It's taken all this time of patiently waiting with no desire to hassle to finally get to meet up with him.
Not wishing to take up too much of his time I quickly explained in 10mins....tetra, twisting/turning, result of turning any one edge against its opposite edge & visa versa....seemed to have no problems understanding my request, no problems about meeting it....
So, sometime soon I'll hopefully have my spiralling tetra to study & manipulate at will, in 3D...no more imagining 'til I'm physically sick from it then, I pray!
I've knocked up a few, very rough, animations over the years. Each & every one confirmed what I was imagining at that time but at the same time kinda with a twist unimagined that offered up more questions than it gave answers....this, when I finally get to see it, will likely be the same....ever deeper, never an end in sight!
Still, I'm apprehensively exited so to say.....CAD dipstick that I am, I will apparently receive a file and a link to free `basic` software on which to run it....Lord!...I'll be able to view this motion from any angle, in 3D...be able to highlight any point/s (eg; the four vertices) and view the resultant motion/patterns....highlight the motion/patterns at the very centre!....give praise to `basic`!!
Whilst waiting...and it may be a while yet...how would I get what I'm seeing & wishing you to see, to you?
In my ignorance no doubt, I assume I'll have several files saved, each presenting the one motion from a different perspective...in some graphics format..so?
What, if anything, can I do please, short of placing a video on Youtube & offering a link?
Have a devine 2020 y'all.
Gill
Around a year back now I mentioned that I'd discovered that a close neighbour was the Senior Lecturer in Engineering/Computer Science at Bristol Uni here in the UK...a fella who previously developed graphics software for NASA no less.
It's taken all this time of patiently waiting with no desire to hassle to finally get to meet up with him.
Not wishing to take up too much of his time I quickly explained in 10mins....tetra, twisting/turning, result of turning any one edge against its opposite edge & visa versa....seemed to have no problems understanding my request, no problems about meeting it....
So, sometime soon I'll hopefully have my spiralling tetra to study & manipulate at will, in 3D...no more imagining 'til I'm physically sick from it then, I pray!
I've knocked up a few, very rough, animations over the years. Each & every one confirmed what I was imagining at that time but at the same time kinda with a twist unimagined that offered up more questions than it gave answers....this, when I finally get to see it, will likely be the same....ever deeper, never an end in sight!
Still, I'm apprehensively exited so to say.....CAD dipstick that I am, I will apparently receive a file and a link to free `basic` software on which to run it....Lord!...I'll be able to view this motion from any angle, in 3D...be able to highlight any point/s (eg; the four vertices) and view the resultant motion/patterns....highlight the motion/patterns at the very centre!....give praise to `basic`!!
Whilst waiting...and it may be a while yet...how would I get what I'm seeing & wishing you to see, to you?
In my ignorance no doubt, I assume I'll have several files saved, each presenting the one motion from a different perspective...in some graphics format..so?
What, if anything, can I do please, short of placing a video on Youtube & offering a link?
Have a devine 2020 y'all.
Gill
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
re: Friction or Fiction?
I have not used this myself. However https://www.dropbox.com/ gives you 2 GB in the free version.
The idea is you can load the files and share them.
Regards
The idea is you can load the files and share them.
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
-
Silvertiger
- Devotee
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
- Location: Henderson, KY
Intermediate Axis Theorem perhaps, since it is an irregular shape?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU
re: Friction or Fiction?
Thank you Agor...hopefully i'll get the opportunity/need to check that out in the near future.
Likewise Silvertiger...I'd previously watched this plus other oddities like the fella spiralling a heavy weight up/over/around his head.
Whilst they intrigue me & suggest some link perhaps to the motion I'm glued to, I'd have no notion whatsover as to how that might be & no knowledge whatsoever with which to find out.
All those different forces, different terms....all way over my head by a country mile.
In the very unlikely event that this motion I seek has any great significance then I'm afraid it'd have to be a case of `Here's the motion, end of....others feel free to go away and define it in terms of the Physics at play should you feel the need`
I certainly wouldn't....I consider my almost complete & utter ignorance as bar far my biggest asset the older I get...in general & most certainly in this particular pursuit of an obvious, known, impossibility.
Anything less & I'd be forced to know one thing for sure...that I'm a Crank.
That, by my definition, being anyone else here who can't grasp that the signature below is of more significance & assistance to our goal than all the others words collectively held in the archives....infinitely more when all the other words add up to zero significance & assistance to our goal.
Likewise Silvertiger...I'd previously watched this plus other oddities like the fella spiralling a heavy weight up/over/around his head.
Whilst they intrigue me & suggest some link perhaps to the motion I'm glued to, I'd have no notion whatsover as to how that might be & no knowledge whatsoever with which to find out.
All those different forces, different terms....all way over my head by a country mile.
In the very unlikely event that this motion I seek has any great significance then I'm afraid it'd have to be a case of `Here's the motion, end of....others feel free to go away and define it in terms of the Physics at play should you feel the need`
I certainly wouldn't....I consider my almost complete & utter ignorance as bar far my biggest asset the older I get...in general & most certainly in this particular pursuit of an obvious, known, impossibility.
Anything less & I'd be forced to know one thing for sure...that I'm a Crank.
That, by my definition, being anyone else here who can't grasp that the signature below is of more significance & assistance to our goal than all the others words collectively held in the archives....infinitely more when all the other words add up to zero significance & assistance to our goal.
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
re: Friction or Fiction?
Gill
For some reason your statement "Everything you assume to know is simply the result of your ignorance" is not showing at the end of your posts?
For some reason your statement "Everything you assume to know is simply the result of your ignorance" is not showing at the end of your posts?
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed