Roxaway59 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 3:40 pm
Just one further point on this.
Someone could make the argument that because WM2D has been around for a long time that this should have increased the probability of Besslers wheel being rediscovered. Therefore this is further evidence that there's nothing to find.
If however the program is in some way rigged then the exact opposite argument could be made with it reducing the probability due to people making less real builds.
Graham
Wm2d isn't programmed to prevent a workaround for perpetual motion. That implies that the programmers know the solution to PM and purposely programmed it out.
The other reason is a concern that possibly some of the maths is not entirely correct.
The program would be useless if the math was wrong.
Fletcher wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 1:17 am
fwiw I've asked the question many times with no real answer from any programmers etc ..
Is it 'top-down or bottom-up' calculating ? i.e. if top-down will be constrained by conservation Laws and not able to show OU ..
Imo it is bottom-up and will be able to show a physics workaround to OU - for a couple of reasons ..
We build from simple objects and components, and usually the complexity grows as we add more - the program keeps track/place and dynamism of all physics aspects for each object independently and combines them etc ..
I can fake OU by adding a fake force, or have objects change mass "mid-flight" etc, in a sim as I've done many times and show OU - therefore it is not top-down constrained imo ..
** All we have to do is find that one mechanical workaround that allows objects to rise upwards gaining PE at no extra energy cost lol - and the WM program at least should allow it, I hope ..
Since you can get it to show OU, it would be bottom up in the sense that it allows fake force and mass changes (mechanical workarounds for objects to create energy). But that doesn't mean anyone will find magic forces or such in the real world.. There might be a legitimate reason it allows that, idk. On the other hand, it treats a solid disk as a point mass for calculations, and you have to add mass at some location to simulate the angular momentum, etc. There must be a legitimate reason for that too, idk.
Robinhood46 wrote:
I agree with you on that Fletcher.
When we find a workaround in the real world, i think the sim will acknowledge the workaround, for the same reason as in the real world. We aren't mistaken about the laws, just the application of them, and the simulations have no reason to not show OU, because they will be respecting every aspect of physics they are programmed to respect. Nothing will change for them, they will simply show us where we were wrong in our assumption that PM was impossible.
Very well said RH, and spot on imo - but it may be that we can first find the workaround in sim-world, then translate that to real-world proof second .. or at least the physics principle predicting an OU output potential, even if we can't simulate the entire physical wheel for whatever reason ..
Imo - while the PM Principle will be well hidden ( B. "deeply hidden" ) in Classical Physics, it is far more earth bound and mundane than we usually contemplate and give credit for ..
Last edited by Fletcher on Tue Mar 12, 2024 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hi Robinhood46, Do conspiracies take place? Yes they do.
I think a quick search on the heavily controlled Google will quickly show that to be true. There are numerous conspiracies that have been proven and have been recognized officially and some have not, even though there is stacks of evidence.
I learnt a long time ago that conspiracies are not for everyone because they are upsetting and they can play with a persons mind.
All I am saying is I hope we can rely on WM2D
Graham
Wm2d isn't programmed to prevent a workaround for perpetual motion. That implies that the programmers know the solution to PM and purposely programmed it out.
Yes they would already have to know in order to do that. I don’t rule out the possibility that it has already been discovered in the past and kept suppressed.
Graham
Roxaway59 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:22 pm
Hi Robinhood46, Do conspiracies take place? Yes they do.
All I am saying is I hope we can rely on WM2D
Graham
Robinhood46 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 6:48 pm
The conspiracy argument can't be validated or disproved .......... irrespective of whether they turn out to be true or not.
......
My money is on yes, yes simulators will be able to simulate PM.
Roxaway59 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:57 pm
eccentrically1
Wm2d isn't programmed to prevent a workaround for perpetual motion. That implies that the programmers know the solution to PM and purposely programmed it out.
Yes they would already have to know in order to do that. I don’t rule out the possibility that it has already been discovered in the past and kept suppressed.
Graham
Really? You think the programmers of wm2d suppressed the rediscovery of pm?
eccentrically1 I don't know if that is the case but there are a number of things that make me suspicious of simulators and computer modelling in general. I know that certain people are using them fraudulently but that isn't really a discussion for this forum.
Graham
Last edited by Roxaway59 on Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It’s not the case, rest assured. We know what it takes for pm, and it’s not hiding somewhere.
There’s always been and always will be people that use the latest technology for fraudulent purposes. I imagine sim software isn’t an exception, but it’s probably insignificant compared to other types of fraud. I agree it’s not a relevant discussion for this forum.
Robinhood46 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 6:48 pm
I think it all boils down to, what exactly is the factor that makes it PM.
This will determine if the simulations can or can't simulate it, and It could go both ways.
To clarify simulators generally use the KE-PE=0 lagrangian equality or the KE+PE=system energy Hamiltonian equality.
Next they use partial differentials and integrate these to create an approximation.
The equalities are the short cuts I referred to and the approximation that cause an increase in system energy is the error.
A simulation can have both without contradiction.
I agree simulation software will be improved when PM is present in the world again.
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
A long time ago I had a notion about how to make a gravity wheel. I could make drawings and do some basic experiments but putting a real wheel together that could operate the way I wanted it to was not possible for me at that time and even now it would be difficult for me. I was able to a certain degree to simulate it in WM2D but the best it could do was gradually slow down. I want to show the idea here again just to get an idea of what others think about it.
Graham
The main idea was to have one side behaving different to the other side but to conserve energy doing it. Later on I used cogs but realised what was needed was a gradual increase an decrease in speed. In the WM2D I used guides for the weights so that when the weights moved closer to the centre a guide would keep it there until near 12 o'clock.
Graham
Most of the weights were unnecessary and only there for the purpose of testing. All I needed was one weight per wheel. I was trying to exploit the fact that one wheel was turning faster than the other and also to see if I could exploit the differing forces on the weights in the different quadrants marked A, B, C and D.
I came across this when I was going through some files and I thought someone might find it interesting.
Graham
