zit eest immpossibles

[Georg Künstler]

I agree with the opinion of Grim,
and with real scientist. I must be allowed to change "laws". To extend them, or to limit them with restrictions if we see that the "laws" definetely do not cover our problem.

Two persons are running side by side with speed x. How much energy can one transform to the other ? Nothing !! because they have the same speed in the same direction. They have kinetic energy but it is useless.

But now we slowdown one person, or accelerate one person with any disturbance force(trouble force) what will happen now ? We are now able to transform energy from one person to the other.

And now we do it clever, we use the trouble force in that way, that we
immediatly stop one person, and give the force to the second person.

But that means an acceleration not from zero, no, an acceleration starting from speed x. So energy is more than doubled because we have in the energy formular x*x.

[AlanR]

Hi Georg,

I agree also that "laws" must never be regarded as absolute just as Nature will never be fully understood. Laws restrict advances, as we modify our mindset to comply with the establishment.

But i am confused with your example, apologies for perhaps not understanding, but i offer my thoughts below

It is energy that is transferred (by whatever means) - not acceleration or speed. If each runner has X Joules of kinetic energy and one transfers all to the other, one will have 0 Joules and the other 2X Joules. Since KE = half m v squared, v will be root 2 (1.414) times greater. You cant add speeds together and then use the KE formula to say your energy has squared!

But that means an acceleration not from zero, no, an acceleration starting from speed x. So energy is more than doubled because we have in the energy formular x*x.

I must have missed something - Energy is the "base" property here - all others (velocity, acceleration, mass, etc) can be traded against each other infinitely for a constant KE figure.

This "trouble force" is confusing me. But any force of relevance must also form part of the equations, unless there is a principle unseen (by me)


Regards, Alan R.

[John Lindsay]

Well I've now swung the other way. I definately need a revelation. As far as I can see the only way to get free energy is to;

1. Have a reactionless system. (Please nobody send me the pages of the ones on the net as they are false and don't apply here.)
2. Have a mass able to exert it's full measure at two seperate places at once.

Both of these are of course impossible, and although I've known this for quite a while, still I tried and tried.

Bets regards,

Michael

Another way is to "overwhelm" the weight you are trying to "reposition" with a gravitationally induced leverage, as Bessler said - 'as long as the weights remain in their postion', etc. Logically speaking there can be no other way to do it. People have been just "moving things around" without any results for centuries. I do not think dropping, impacting, wiggling, spinning, shaking or bouncing is going to cut it. All that stuff adds up to zero. John

[Michael]

Angle, you wrote;
>could be converted to another form of energy with over 100% efficiency.....somehow the universe is in jeopardy!...


No, I believe it is your own arrogence that makes you feel you understand the statement and all things in it.

Explanation: ALL things ARE, because of two principles. All things exist because of
1. Difference. Difference = Time-difference from moment to moment.
Space-difference from here to there.
Difference = all motion, all energy.

2. Difference always seeks balance. Equalibrium, static, rest. When this is done, there is never a loss of the constituent parts of "difference", but they become assembled in a form that equalizes them. No longer does greater (potential) have a form that makes it "greater" than the lesser, but it is equally distributed throughout the lesser. This is entropy. THIS angle, is the accounting system of the universe.

Michael

[Michael]

Grim you wrote;
>and that there may be ways around them with the right set of circumstances.

This is what I have been hoping for.

Michael

By the way nice to see you are still around.

[statement]

Just speaking from experience Mike. It truly has been my experience in dealing with "lettered men" that, on the whole, they truly feel that way. They transfer their own pedantic fears and project them onto the fabric of the universe, where their "luminosity reflections" are multiplied. It is not the universe that is in jeopardy, just tired, weak, paradigms. If that comes across as arrogance, so be it. You may have something, though. The topic of humility, like arrogance, is a purely subjective study for some and I, like many, have fallen into pride regarding my humility at times. I find that I can be too guarded much of the time and I have an illustration borne out of experience to tell: Two men being too guarded in their conversation can be like placing one mirror in front of the other and looking deeply down the enigmatic false corridor that is created. Only when one or both turn away from it is the backside seen and our shallowness revealed for what it truly is............ Either that or there really is something to that new movie: Timeline and I have been missing an opportunity here. Such an experience might cut one to the marrow of the soul or at least to page 311 of Oxford's Completed works of Shakespeare, which, I freely admit I have never read. In one man's universe, it is possible to fall from the heights of humility to the depths of arrogance, another would count it well to fall from the heights of arrogance to the depths of humility. My personal endeavour to keep flipping the hourglass to avoid watching the sand run out and thus face my fear of success is at an end. I am as arrogant and humble as I can imagine and feel ready to face the rest of my own personal journey and strive to keep a preponderance of balance between the two. The ship of my soul has run aground on the Isle of destiny. I have always managed to sabotage the imminent success destined for me in fear of who I really am. This forum has really been cathartic for me in that I can see that I really have nothing to fear. Man's math can only calculate him out of a finite number of messes he has gotten himself into.....go figure.


Whew, another milestone rant for me......what praytell is next for those hapless enough to care what I have to say?



stay tuned............

[Arnold S.]

Zis guy wit da long statements reminds me uv da terminator I kilt in the molten metal... all hiz aliases came out and hiz head spun around, it wuz really scary but he had to go; then he melted and waz gone. I um shure it vilt be peaceful again soon.

[Das Triumphant]

Arnold Schwarzenegger? He is a great guy. I know Arnold and you, sir are NO Arnold Schwarzenegger.



Sincerely,

President of Cyberdyne systems

[Jonathan]

AlanR: I don't think there is any reasoning with Georg, either he doesn't understand math or physics, or it is the translation butchering his statements. Guess which I think it is.
John Lindsay: How else do you do it then? Are you holding out on us with a new form of motion?

[MrTim]

Just speaking from experience......(et al)............what praytell is next for those hapless enough to care what I have to say?
stay tuned............

Personally, I prefer the Chuck Lorre vanity cards. I hope you aren't stealing from them.....! ;-)

[chuck who?]

vanity, sure. We humans do some pretty vain things.....sometimes. I'm just glad you cared enough to notice. speaking of vanity, tell that rascal Ovyyus he had better get crackin on the results of his latest epiphany cause if'n I aint mistaken, Oz has a first to file patent system. That is, assuming he is vain enough to attempt to patent such a contraption. tell him, no worries and glad I could help. ;^)

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
with your school knowlage, you can't solve that problem !!

[Jonathan]

True, but I have made no claims to know better than Newton either. I want to stress that I still haven't made up my mind about you, because it is so hard to tell through translation. I said somewhere, I don't remember where, that if it weren't for the translation you'd either be obviously brilliant or obviously crazy. If only there was such thing as a statement that (even through translation) is easy to evaluate and very indicative of your character. Alas...

[Georg Künstler]

They are people like you, who block new ideas, concepts and views of things. As longer wrong ideas hold on, as more difficult it is to change it.
Newtons's has hold on for 300 years. It will be a hard work for new scientists to change it, extend it, or show the limitation.

I don't know why we should do any research, when the result is clear in advance, as you think. Then new things will not be discovered. As someone said in 1900 century, all what can be invented is invented.

Why do we need quantum physic, or Einstein... when we had had Newton ?

Never had heard in school anything about Bessler. Why ?
Because all thought he was crazy or paranoid. I prefere his idea and working was brilliant.

What i am missing is your model you buildt with COG technic.

[grim]

Hi John

What you describe is the ultimate solution- weights held at a constant angle to cause gravitational leverage and maintain that position thru 360 degrees of main wheel rotation. I've tracked the edges of these old lead weights with a marker, and the problem lies in the fact that a circle is tracked around each individual weight, and it is not possible to wedge weights inside a circle without using a hard stop to lever against, and that switches sides of the weight during rotation and is self-defeating.

Am working on a very simple design my machinist friend and I came up with the other week, and it may be worth a try as very little labor is involved. It's basically a centroid versus centroid principle.

Been busy with work for weeks (feast or famine!) and just basically hasd a minute to get back to all this.

Best Regards to you and yours


grim