Hello I Will Try to Help Your Gravity Problems

[Jim Williams]

Can't patent absolute zero, but those scientists who developed a machine that brought the temperature down to within billionths of a degree of absolute zero can most likely patent that.

Present the US Patent Office with a working model of a perpetual motion machine and they will welcome you with open arms, giving you your own class/subclass, (415/916) all to yourself. But without that working model, forget it, they'll reject your PMM as impossible.

[greendoor]

Saying momentum is conserved is a misappropriation of terms when compared to energy. I throw a ball up in the air. It has momentum. It has just enough to reach a ledge where it falls onto and rests. Where is the momentum now? Poof. Itsa gonna. Where is the energy? It sits as potential - stored. Momentum is gone, energy is maintained.

Michael - my understanding of a 'conserved' quantity is that it is only conserved within the context of a closed system that is not being acted on by external forces. My answer to your statement is that when you throw a ball upwards into the air, this is not a closed system, and there is a clear external force acting on the ball - the force of gravity.

In real life, there are very few (if any) closed systems, so this is pretty much an academic thought-experiment exercise for the purpose of understanding concepts. I think the only truely closed systems exist in some people minds:)

The reason I consider Momentum to be a conserved quantity is because of experiments such as Newton's Cradle. We can witness momentum being transfered between different masses, and the observed results pretty much confirm that P = MV, and apart from the small losses due to sound & heat, there is little room for doubt.

Sure - Newton's Cradle is not a closed system, and we are obviously using the acceleration of gravity as an impulse input, and then using the deceleration of gravity as an output measurement .. but I think those balance out. The main transfer of momentum is at right angles to the force of gravity, and therefore it does not affect the transformation.

The concept of 'energy' seems to be a whole Pandoras box of highly questionable ideas that seem to have achieved 'law' status without being rigorously explored. The Conservations of Energy seems to be more of a religious philosophy that has gained cult status.

AFAIK - the concept of E being proportional to 1/2MV^2 came about from experiments dropping masses into clay. If you read about it - the experimental results were not black & white, and for years they thought energy was MV^2 until somebody thought that 1/2MV^2 was more correct (talk about 'fudge factor'). I'm intrigued that in the Wiki entry for Kinetic Energy, it mentions something like "up to 1/2MV^2" - which implies there is still some room for seriously fudging experimental results to fit into this theory. As Pequaide & others have demonstrated, there are situations where the maths for energy just don't add up.

My thoughts about this is that I doubt that measuring penetration into clay is a valid measurement of 'energy'. There must be so many hidden variables ... a bit like hydrodynamics.

I'm not saying that the equation E = 1/2MV^2 is never correct for some situations. But I now believe it does not represent Energy in all situations, so can't be used like a mantra to automatically deny PM. I would suggest a more scientific approach to denying PM would be to stick your fingers in your ears and scream ""la la la la la" very loudly.

You mention that when the ball ends up on the ledge, it has Potential Energy. That is one way of looking at it, but I don't think this qualifies as proof of Energy always being conserved. My view is that PE is a useful abstraction for some things, but it is not real energy.

My view about Potential Kinetic Energy from the perpective of Height in a gravity 'field' is that it isn't really real energy - just an academic tool for talking about the real source of energy, which is gravity.

The force acting on a mass are pretty much constant, in real world applications, whether the mass is on the ground, 100 metres in the air, or 100 metres down a hole. It's that force of gravity which can - if allowed - accelerate the mass into motion. So whether the mass is 100 M up, or down, or on the ground doesn't really alter the force acting on it - so what is this magical "potential energy"? It's simply another way of talking about Available Height - so why not call it just that? Why confuse the issue with notions about some magical 'energy'?

For me - this is the heart of the gravity wheel condundrum. Can we overcome this Available Height limitation. Most people have given up - but I believe Bessler found a way, and I believe other people have also found that way. I believe I know a method which i'm working on experimental proof. If it suceeds, it will be yet another reason to doubt the classical concepts of 'energy'.

[BAR]

Hold it Bar, lets not divert this from the intended comment. You stated momentum is conserved, and energy isn’t

when in fact it is energy that is conserved. I don't need to post the long list of internet resources up do I?
Saying momentum is conserved is a misappropriation of terms when compared to energy. I throw a ball up in the air. It has momentum. It has just enough to reach a ledge where it falls onto and rests. Where is the momentum now? Poof. Itsa gonna. Where is the energy? It sits as potential - stored. Momentum is gone, energy is maintained.

I said Kinetic energy, not JUST energy. I said Kinetic energy, not JUST energy. Repeat? LOL. Often in an experment like shooting a bullet into a block to measure energy, it is easier to understand the production of heat and sound of the kinetic energy being converted to other forms, instead of simply saying they are still kinetic energy.

Hehe, very good Michael. Nice to see someone here is paying attention. :):) If I started to include the Aether and the elements of air, earth, water and fire with a further explanation of where the energy goes without no question, I would have gotten drunk and gave up. LOL. All you have to do is read my reply to Jim to see that my statement must absolutely show that I believe in the conservation of kinetic energy as well as invariant mass and momentum. Kinetic energy can not exist without rest mass energy and rest mass energy can not exist without kinetic energy.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6851#56851

I have a great respect for those how do not blindly accept everything thrown at them. ;) I have been browsing many boards in the last few months and it is really disturbing to see how few people actually have any grasp of physics. This is my first board here so I must know who people are. :)

However, I must point out that the conservative force of gravitation is the most unique and DOES violate the conservation laws. To believe in a self regenerative gravitational engine, you must believe in such a violation. In this way gravitation is not only creating a force it must be creating energy. Gravitation is "allowed" to do that, it is 4th dimensional. For example, in your ball analogy your arm applys kinetic energy and the ball over comes the uncertainty space momentum gradient of the gravitational field at it rises, deaccelerating and reaching a maximum height. Is this now potential energy or has gravitation just destroyed the kinetic energy? Then the ball reverses direction and quickly accelerates again gaining kinetic energy. Has the potential energy been transformed or has gravitation just recreated the kinetic energy? Can one be ABSOLUTELY certain what is occuring? Now you miss the ball and it hits the earth, giving up its kinetic energy again into the earth and the atmosphere. Now in the absolute sense potential is energy of position, not simply stored energy. There is a difference. The ball on the ground has in one's observation zero kinetic energy and zero potential energy (not considering quantum rest mass energy effects). Simply put, the gravitational force that holds the ball to the ground exerts infinite energy. The force is infinite in time but not magnitude. Work IS being done on the ball even though we can not see displacement. Sure one can say force in itself is not energy. The force must displace a mass over a period of time to say work is done. (I assure you that the nuclei are experiencing displacement in angular fashion). So if the ball weighs 1 kilogram what equivalent energy must a electric motor expend to apply 1 kilogram of force over time? If the motor expends energy but has no displacement applying 1 kilogram of force, then why does the motor expend energy? What possible mechanical machine could someone build to duplicate exerting only 1 kilogram of force for years, centuries, eons? If that is not a violation in the absolute sense then I do not know what is. :)

[greendoor]

Well someone will probably argue that you can compress a spring and mount it against the earth, and it would exert that force indefinately too ...

I certainly don't view gravity as being like a spring (although most trained physicists apparantly choose to think gravity is no more effective than a spring). That leads some inventors who think they've discovered a gravity wheel to think they can take it to the next level and replace gravity with a spring ... a sure sign of delusion.

I'm convinced Time is a necessary factor for exploiting gravity energy - although that's probably self evident when considering any acceleration.

I view gravity as being a virtually unlimited supply of useable force - something a spring could never be. The spring could exert the same force indefinately - provided it was Not used to accelerate a mass, and thereby lose Distance and relieve the strain. With gravity - the strain is never relieved, there is a constant external supply of strain. I'm using laymans terms and have probably upset everyone, but I know what I mean even if it's not accepted by regular science.

Another way of looking at it ... a permanant magnet can hang off a steel structure defying gravity for aeons. We could also use an electromagnet to do the same thing, at huge expense in energy costs. That's just bad management - not really any indication of real energy needs.

I like a title that Fletcher used recently: Forces - use them or lose them.

[BAR]

Well someone will probably argue that you can compress a spring and mount it against the earth, and it would exert that force indefinately too ...

I certainly don't view gravity as being like a spring (although most trained physicists apparantly choose to think gravity is no more effective than a spring). That leads some inventors who think they've discovered a gravity wheel to think they can take it to the next level and replace gravity with a spring ... a sure sign of delusion.

Thats true many try the spring analogy and it is conservative, but it is very finite in its capacity. Even the best spring in the world will show fatigue and fail. Gravitation is timeless.

[Michael]

However, I must point out that the conservative force of gravitation is the most unique and DOES violate the conservation laws. To believe in a self regenerative gravitational engine, you must believe in such a violation.

Not necessarily. There are those of us who feel that should an engine be found that runs on gravity it does so because it is clever in design, and is not running because gravity is energy or a fuel. Besides if the latter were the case the engine would work because the gravitational source was found to be alternating in its force upon the machine.

[Michael]

For example, in your ball analogy your arm applys kinetic energy and the ball over comes the uncertainty space momentum gradient of the gravitational field at it rises, deaccelerating and reaching a maximum height. Is this now potential energy or has gravitation just destroyed the kinetic energy?

Can be taken either way but ultimately as far as use goes the ball now has potential energy, and, as I stressed before, and this is very important, the potential it has is relative the the second mass/event it is being compared to. In this case the earth.

Then the ball reverses direction and quickly accelerates again gaining kinetic energy. Has the potential energy been transformed or has gravitation just recreated the kinetic energy? Can one be ABSOLUTELY certain what is occuring?

If you can show that gravity is energy and not a force then you can say that the balls original kinetic energy it had before it came to rest on the ledge was transformed and stored as potential energy in the form of an increase in the earths gravity. Can you do this? If so do you have sources to back it up?

Now you miss the ball and it hits the earth, giving up its kinetic energy again into the earth and the atmosphere. Now in the absolute sense potential is energy of position, not simply stored energy. There is a difference. The ball on the ground has in one's observation zero kinetic energy and zero potential energy (not considering quantum rest mass energy effects).

Simply put, the gravitational force that holds the ball to the ground exerts infinite energy. The force is infinite in time but not magnitude.

Can you quote your sources please. I've read as recently as 5 years ago that there was now proof gravity is not infinite in time, as in, it does not reach all corners of the universe instantaneously but it has a limit which is the same as c.

Work IS being done on the ball even though we can not see displacement.

You can state, you can surmise, that there would be some kind of work being done on the atomic or subatomic levels, but in science it takes no energy to hold something still, and to keep to the argument you are putting forth you'll have to prove that, eventually over time said object is going to decay faster that if it were not sitting still on a gravitational object.

Sure one can say force in itself is not energy. The force must displace a mass over a period of time to say work is done. (I assure you that the nuclei are experiencing displacement in angular fashion).

Displacement does not mean work, I can displace something sidways and technically no work is being done ( lets not discuss the energy needed to displace the objects current state of inertia, all that can be reabsorbed, hence why science says it takes no energy to shift something sideways, ) unless you can show energy leaving the ball because of the gravity field.

[Grimer]

I view gravity as being a virtually unlimited supply of usable force - something a spring could never be.

It could be if the spring were long enough. OK. it's a quibble but when people think of gravity as a spring presumably a very long spring is implicit.

Personally I like to think of gravity as a wind blowing vertically downwards, an idea that even the sainted Newton toyed with.

[Fletcher]

Hey greendoor - just a thought - the ballistic pendulum examples - they are used to find the bullet velocity just before impact predominantly - and they use momentum conservation translating it into gravitational Pe, which is the same as Ke at max swing height achieved - the point is that with todays ability to photograph 1000's of frames per second that velocity can be accurately measured by camera & compared to the result for cross referencing - if we could give a bullet the exact same velocity at impact that gravity would give us at any height drop distance [oh yeah, we probably can cause any velocity will translate to an equivalent height of fall vertically in a gravity field with equations] then maybe there is a close similarity to the drop mass in clay experiments - except the ballistic pendulum moves & gains height, unlike the clay on the floor - could they be comparable & a useful cross check if procedure & materials were tweaked ?

[BAR]

Can be taken either way but ultimately as far as use goes the ball now has potential energy, and, as I stressed before, and this is very important, the potential it has is relative the the second mass/event it is being compared to. In this case the earth.

Michael,
It maybe relative to earth, but where is your proof that energy really exists at that point? You can give all the links you want, but simply saying "potential energy" is not absolute proof that it is in fact kinetic energy contained and conserved at that point in the gravitational field. Momentum and inertia with no other external forces in deep space yes, stores (conserves) that kinetic energy. In the gravitational field no. Gravitation "giveith" and gravitation "taketh" away. All one has to go on is observation and assumptions. So the majority assumes it is potential energy, in the gravitational field, but are they absolutely correct in saying energy is not destroyed at that point? No one has to this day analyzed at the atomic level and said "yes we can prove energy is conserved in a gravitational field" I absolutely assure you from my findings that gravitation can create and destroy energy in 3 dimensions.

If you can show that gravity is energy and not a force then you can say that the balls original kinetic energy it had before it came to rest on the ledge was transformed and stored as potential energy in the form of an increase in the earths gravity. Can you do this? If so do you have sources to back it up?

There is never an increase of the earths gravitation from a fixed position in space to the earth's mass center in relative orbit. Gravitational intensity is static, it is not radiation. An entity of mass can change position and experience a change of the intensity, but the intensity can never change relative to the mass center distance of the gravitational source. The gravitation obeys the inverse square law. Unfortunately no other public sources exist as a reference, I am the "lone gunman" so to speak in quantum gravitation. I can show through mathematics how quantum gravitation is really energy from interaction of the uncertainty space rest mass energy of all material entitys; which gives the gravitational constant. The only way I can "prove" this is taking it's theorem further and mathematically showing how the background radiation is not from the "big bang". Instead the universal background microwave radiation is produced by virtual electrons appearing out of the uncertainty space gravitational field accelerated by their rest mass energy when they appear in 3 dimensional space. The better mathematical proofs I can "show" is how the strong nuclear force that binds nuclei can be explained by the force of gravitation. This is done by a mathematical description of how the pion is generated when a deuterium nucleus is disrupted by a destructive event. The next "proof" is how 3 components of a nucleus is disrupted and generates the muon. (Tritium or helium3). The muon is associated with the electron as a lepton by mainstream science, yet my theory says it is created by a strong nuclear event! So my proofs are not at all direct, but they must be interpreted by other known phenomena. Unfortunately my proofs are now considerd adhoc and subjective. 50 years ago or more I would not of had such a problem. :(

Can you quote your sources please. I've read as recently as 5 years ago that there was now proof gravity is not infinite in time, as in, it does not reach all corners of the universe instantaneously but it has a limit which is the same as c.

All the sources I have ever seen says gravitation can not disobey Einstein's velocity of light. However gravitation is 4 dimensional and is timeless. It must also obey the resolution of Planck's constant so it's range is limited. That is why galatic clusters can only be so big. All 3 dimensional entitys obeys Einstein's postulate, but mainstream science believes gravitation is the warping of space and is also limited by the velocity of light. Space is inmaterial, it has no structure. Phenomena that is observed can be explained without the mystical Aether. Simple logic in astrophysics will show that gravitation must be far faster than light. For example, our planet orbiting the sun. If one could assume that gravitation is like a material tether that propagates at the velocity of light holding us in mutual bond, then it's velocity is insufficient to compensate for the continuous angular differentials relative to the suns motion around the galaxy, and our orbit around the sun. Light velocity takes 500 seconds to reach our planet from the sun. In that time the motion of the earth's orbit is some 30 km/sec, so how does gravitation "know" where our planet is for 15,000 kilometers? Gravitation at the velocity of light can not have stable orbits. Look at astronomy software that predicts planetary motions. Gravitation is never considered to have a delay in the calculations. Launching robots to other planets nevers considers gravitation having the velocity of light. The physics considers the force is available instantously.

Displacement does not mean work, I can displace something sidways and technically no work is being done ( lets not discuss the energy needed to displace the objects current state of inertia, all that can be reabsorbed, hence why science says it takes no energy to shift something sideways, ) unless you can show energy leaving the ball because of the gravity field.

Yes an entity with static momentum can have continuous displacement. Work is necessary to cause that event, but is no longer required to maintain displacement with no external force (inertia). Any creation of movement and displacement requires energy to do so plain and simple. So you are talking about magic now? :):)

[Michael]

Bar, I appreciate your interest and contribution to this site. I'm a little tired right now, I just got off work, so I want to reread your post after some sleep. From what I glanced at I think we're at a moment of displacement in our conversation though. I just want to cover this for now.

There is never an increase of the earths gravitation from a fixed position in space to the earth's mass center in relative orbit. Gravitational intensity is static, it is not radiation.

Your point was, I believe, how can one be sure whether the balls initial kinetic energy, which we typically view as being transformed and stored as potential when it landed up on the ledge, is really that, or, as an alternative, what if its not that but rather what if the balls kinetic energy gets absorbed by the gravitational field, and that's why the ball stops. And further, what if the gravitational field gives that energy back to the ball in it's decent. That's what your statement implied to me. Let's start here first. Is this what you meant? I am asking that you be simple and to the point in your answer. Thankyou.

[BAR]

Your point was, I believe, how can one be sure whether the balls initial kinetic energy, which we typically view as being transformed and stored as potential when it landed up on the ledge, is really that, or, as an alternative, what if its not that but rather what if the balls kinetic energy gets absorbed by the gravitational field, and that's why the ball stops. And further, what if the gravitational field gives that energy back to the ball in it's decent. That's what your statement implied to me. Let's start here first. Is this what you meant?

Yes. Gravity gives and takes away energy. Creates and destroys.

[Michael]

So if gravity takes the energy away where does it put it?

[AB Hammer]

Michael

Well here is a hypothesis. How about keeping our earths core hot.

[Michael]

Following the line of this conversation ab if that were true then as more and more space debris fell to the earth the earth would get colder and colder, and as mass left the earth the earth would get hoter and hoter.