The Bessler Curse

[rlortie]

If gravity in not an external force, then we have a lot of hydro-electric plants that have not recieved the word. Who will start speading the bad new to them.

Ralph

[AgingYoung]

Michael,


Ken,

Again, there is a clarity issue here. How do you define the word "paired". Are you talking about two weights on diametrically opposite sides of a gravity wheel? Or, are you referring to two weights in close proximity to each other on the same side of the wheel? Also, are the two weights in one of your "pairs" of equal or different mass?

Stop groping for clues; I'm not saying at this time. You haven't mentioned too many possibilities. See what you can see. Ultimately I want to explore the idea of a single weight boot strapping itself back to the top but at the moment I'm just trying to get any sort of thing to turn.

A gravity "field" is only a mathematical abstraction...it has no energy of its own that can be tapped.

Actually a gravity field is more than an abstraction. Gravity holds things to the earth and causes heavenly bodies to rotate and to orbit. Something is powering that. My hunch is that the expansion of the universe is part of the answer.

There is a bit of an analogy that can be made between a water wheel and a gravity powered wheel. You can see the stream that powers a water wheel but you can't use the energy that the water wheel makes to put the water back up stream where it came from. With a gravity wheel you can't put the 'stream' of gravity back where it came from for the most part because you can't even see the stream. There's no denying that something (we call it the invisible force of gravity) is causing that motion. I know that some have made this analogy but that's my take on it. What has to happen in a wheel that will turn is that you need to use less energy to get the mass back to the top of the wheel than it will produce falling back down. Spiros mentioned the idea of forcing it closer to the axle on the way up. Having the center of gravity further from the axle on the way down is approaching the problem backward in my opinion. Getting the weight to fall isn't where the problem is at. Getting back to the top is the real problem.

Gene

[Michael]

I stand corrected Ken, well at least partially. There is still no actual testimony of anyone feeling the inside of his wheel, and I think that would have been important enough to include in a statement.

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph wrote:

And why not, if they could grope the axle then they did not find anything to prevent them from doing so. If they could stick their arm in and touch the axle what is to prevent a weight from following the same path.

An arm is not a weight! IF weights were moving through or even near the axle, then those weights would have needed to have some sort of guiding mechanism directing them that would have been noticed by anybody attempting to touch the axle itself. Also, since the one-directional wheels were overbalanced, even when stationary, I would expect that, when a wheel was stopped so that a person could touch its axle, then one or more of the weights would be felt near the axle. There is no record of anybody claiming to have felt those weights inside of the wheel and I'm 100% sure that Bessler would not have allowed any such an intimate manual examination of the wheel's interior is he did use such a mechanism and it could be felt.


John writes:

It seems clear to me that if we can accept that Bessler was genuine and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics cannot be violated, then you have to accept that gravity provided the energy.

I do not accept that. I think that a gravity field only forces objects to transform a minute portion of their rest masses into kinetic energy which then shows up as an increase in the velocity of the unsupported object as it "falls" in the gravity field. There is no evidence that energy can be extracted from a gravity field in the absence of a mass located in that gravity field. Yet, there is evidence that objects lose a portion of their rest masses when energy is extracted from them and that they gain rest mass when energy is added to them. In each case it is the object that loses or gains the energy and not a planet's gravity field.


ken

[AgingYoung]

Things were moving kind of quick and I missed this Michael:

Your trapped in a room. There are two doors in the room on each side-opposite of each other. One door leads to your freedom, the other door leads to instant death. You don't know which door is which. There is a guard at each door. The guards know which door leads to freedom, and which door leads to death. The problem is, one of the guards when asked a question will always tell the truth, and the other guard will always lie. You don't know which guard is which, or what guard is at what door. The goal is to get to your freedom. You can ask one question and one question only, to only one of the guards. What do you ask?

This is a different sort of riddle in that there's nothing misleading in the riddle to throw you off. You can't solve the riddle without getting two answers. The two answers are obtained by asking either one of the guards, 'What do you say he will say is the door to freedom.' As you go out the other door you might turn around and ask, 'who's the liar?' You'll never know (who the liar is).

[winkle]

i would ask what is the correct time

mabe

is it day or night

mabe

am i in this room

mabe

point to the celing and ask if that is down

mabe

are my brown eyes blue

mabe

these are not likely to be the questions you are looking for but there are many questions that would get you out of the room through the door to freedom

[bluesgtr44]

John...is this in your book?

and I have formulated a long argument which demonstrates analogously how gravity does not always act as a conservative force.

Steve

[Michael]

I invite anyone to try and answer that riddle.
Gene there is a correct answer to be had by asking one and only one question to one guard. No trick. This is a riddle that doesn't give people a false start, but some riddles do that. I wasn't posting this to try to make that point. I just think this is a good riddle.

[AgingYoung]

Michael,

'What do you say he will say is the door to freedom?'

When you get the answers to that question you go out the other door. The one answer is 'what do you say' and the second answer is 'he will say'. You are kind of asking two questions in one.

Steve,
John has some good information at his site and that link describes one of the most sensible explanations I've ever heard.

John,
You're a crank's crank! Too cool.

Gene

[SeaWasp]

Gene.. I didn't bit that hard! Oh.. by the way.. That Bears skin colur is "black".. :-p

[AgingYoung]

Spiros,
Nope, the bear isn't black. I guess there are only so many colors for bears. The only choices left are brown or white. It's getting too obvious at this point. I don't think there are any Kodiak (brown) bears at the north pole.



Gene

[bluesgtr44]

Gene, thanks...didn't know his sight was back up...good stuff.

[SeaWasp]

Gene.. You didn't read my answer properly.. LOL! I said the Bears "SKIN" colour is black! Go check it out!

[bluesgtr44]

Here's one...how can you tell the difference between carnivorous animals and non-carnivorous animals? (not 100%, but pretty close)


Steve

[AgingYoung]

Spiros,
It could be that the white fur on a polar bear is attached to a black hide. :)
I just checked it out but unless you shave the bear it will be white. It's nose is black too. The largest polar bear they know of weighed about a ton and was 12 feet long. I'd have to knock it out before I shaved it.

Steve,
Uncle, I don't know. If they defend themselves with their teeth they probably are carnivorous.

Gene