The origin of the GRAVITATION.

[Mikhail]

I assumed you were French.

We're off topic. This does not apply to forum topics and has nothing to do with perpetual motion machines.

[Senax]

Your reply has tickled my curiosity - so I googled your handle - and what comes up, why Mikhail Gorbachev. Fascinating.

So I take you must be Russian. Interestingly enough I have a Russian daughter-in-law and six bilingual grandchildren. The eldest girl recently spend her summer holidays teaching English to the children of some head of a region near Vladivostok.

Perhaps I should explain that Frog is a irreverent name for Frenchmen who are supposed to be partial for eating frog's legs. :-)

[WaltzCee]

I assumed you were French.

We're off topic. This does not apply to forum topics and has nothing to do with perpetual motion machines.

Frank isn't here to join an ongoing topic and add much; or even start one and stick to it. Frank's on a mission from his god, himself.

About God, each must decide for himself. I'm not asking you if you believe in God. This is not a religious forum.

The facts need to be sorted out . .. .. .

one fact came to me:

How can earth's most brilliant* study creation then come to the conclusion creation is impossible?

Is 1LoT a fact?

No creation implies no creator. Well ain't that special.


*Folk like Frank.

[Mikhail]

Your reply has tickled my curiosity - so I googled your handle - and what comes up, why Mikhail Gorbachev. Fascinating.

So I take you must be Russian. Interestingly enough I have a Russian daughter-in-law and six bilingual grandchildren. The eldest girl recently spend her summer holidays teaching English to the children of some head of a region near Vladivostok.

Perhaps I should explain that Frog is a irreverent name for Frenchmen who are supposed to be partial for eating frog's legs. :-)

Calm down, I'm not Russian and not Mikhail Gorbachev.
You constantly go away from the topic of the forum. If you're bored and have no one to talk to, find another forum. I'm not going to discuss religion, or Russians, or Vladivostok.

[Senax]

I've found something else which doesn't work.
I clicked on the option to be sent an email when the next post on this thread appeared and - I didn't get one. Something else to take up with admin.

Back to gravitation. I looked up your very early posts and saw a rather smart drawing of what I presumed is your invention. Are you a qualified engineer?
I was told by my mother who's Belgian that the title, Ing. is protected on the continent, unlike in Britain for example. I was always pissed off about that. Especially since my son-in-law is an Architect which is a protected title.

Are you an Ing?

[Mikhail]

Are you an Ing?

I am a retired inventor.

[Senax]

Are you an Ing?

I am a retired inventor.

How interesting.

To create perpetual motion you have to answer a simple question: - how to expend less energy by lifting a weight, that it will produce while descending? The answer: - you have to use the forces of nature.
It's not complicated: - you have to both unite and separate / isolate two things - the work of a weight in the open air and under water.
Inside a float the falling mass is in the open air. To help us raise it to the height from which it fell and save / gain energy, we must use water (the Archimedean thrust). In one case we drop the mass in the open air (inside the float) and in the other, we raise it / bring it up with / in its float, which is under water. Here is the energy gain.
Inside the pea = 100 kg which falls / works. The float with the weight (the weight) "weighs" only 10 kg under water. Eg. :
From top to bottom --> 100 kg.
From bottom to top --> 10 kg.
To decrease the height of the float, a lever is used. To reduce the weight of the weight, we use the gas springs and the water pressure at the top, which we will need (we use) at the bottom to overcome the water pressure, which increases with depth . And by doing that we produce energy.

I'm afraid, my dear fellow, if things were that simple we would have the energy problem solved ages ago. Probably by Archimedes. :-)

What else have you "invented"?

[Mikhail]

I'm afraid, my dear fellow, if things were that simple we would have the energy problem solved ages ago. Probably by Archimedes. :-)

What else have you "invented"?

For some reason, Archimedes did not invent. You didn't invent either, although you're oh so much smarter than Archimedes.

[Senax]

....................you're oh so much smarter than Archimedes.

Absolutely 8-)

[Mikhail]

[Senax]

LOL. ..............I like it.
Now that's what I call a smilie

[SHADOW]

grenouille de bénitier
amen

[Senax]

grenouille de bénitier
amen

Indeed.
That explains the giant smilee. :-)

[WaltzCee]

To decrease the height of the float, a lever is used. To reduce the weight of the weight, we use the gas springs and the water pressure at the top, which we will need (we use) at the bottom to overcome the water pressure, which increases with depth . And by doing that we produce energy.

I see the gas shocks as a battery. They are collecting energy at some point in time using it somewhere else.

Your idea is like a rollercoaster collecting kenetic energy on the way down, then doing some sort of roll. The rollercoaster can never collect enough energy to return it to its original estate.

Unless you can make a rollercoaster head down into the deep, then pull out of that dive and launch out of the atmosphere making it to the Pleiades in a second or less the lucy furrians aren't impressed.

They need power. Raw, unmitigated power. Although they want to storm heaven and wrest all power from God Almighty, that is mathematically impossible.

God's word to humanity is peace on earth and goodwill toward man. This is not humanities fight yet were going to get drug into it by superior intellects.

Friggin' occulting geniuses. They don't like the light.

We need to get more comments posted to get Frank's selfie out of here.

The wisdom Archimedes suckled on.

The heavens declare the glory of God

[johannesbender]

Mikail , i don't think the "arithmetic" you gave is at some fault or not understandable.

My opinion leans towards that most of the time , through what i have observed ,people tend to make calculations by analyzing things statically, for example calculations taken from the device frozen at some time , i do the same most of the time , and i'm not saying that you did , but i'm giving an general opinion on something i noted most do.

In my opinion it is when something is observed/calculated/tested through its entire duration of motion that someone can make a more informed conclusion , there are always some other factors or those split seconds later during motion ,away from the static calculated time frame ,that something unexpected/uncalculated happens.

Forces change ,especially when forces try to find equilibrium ,and especially as motion continues through a gradient ,or when other forces act on them that perhaps were not expected or taken in to account,at most they do not remain static , its very difficult knowing or calculating all forces at play at every second/millisecond .

It is through observing these changes that take place that a person can see other factors that come in to play in the complete dynamics ,or observe how it is sometimes possible to reach equilibrium in between the discrete positions of static calculation.

This is just one of the reasons most people would likely suggest building .