Grimer wrote:Can we do this? Can we simulate going up what happens going down. Can we fall upwards at an acceleration of 32ft per second?
Is a pendulum not an example of a mass ascending with (very nearly) the same aquired energy - a deceleration that (very nearly) exactly matches the acceleration of free fall ... ?
No rockets required. No evidence of over unity.
That's absolutely right. The pendulum case is symmetrical.
Free fall with impact is not symmetrical to rising at a constant velocity.
The whole point of the rocket was to show what was needed to make things symmetrical. Lord give me patience.
If they are symmetrical there is no free energy since energy lost equals energy gained.
Ooops - just noticed you are talking about splatting the guy on the ceiling, the same as he would splat on the floor. So you want double the force of gravity: 1G to overcome the force of gravity, + 1G to accelerate upwards at the same rate as gravity accelerates downwards.... I'm not sure what this proves.
The contact area increases in size until the stress times area matches the gravitational stress times area.
Ok, I can agree with that statement, but it doesn't have to imply expanding or accelerating.
The earth pushes on the electron cloud. Gravity pushes on the nuclei.
The accelerations are equal and opposite so you don't move.
HuH ! How can you have acceleration in both directions and not move, sounds more like pressure to me and if both keep accelerating I would be crushed to infinity.
You remind me of some of my professors and it has been a very long time since my physics classes, as you can tell, but don't worry I was as stubborn then too. Bar had said he didn't have the balls to question his professors, well don't, they don't like it and it is detrimental to his opinion of you, fight the establishment after if you wish.
Last edited by daxwc on Mon May 11, 2009 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jim Mich summed it up in his post re traveling 4 times further, was on 1st or 2nd page. Kinetic energy is such a stumbling stone. It is just a way to figure out the velocity to potential energy conversion (height) on Earth. Almost everyone I have talked to fails to express m in slugs so their math is rubbish.
Hope to be in new domicile soon and get an internet connection. Has been waaaaay too long using library computer.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
When I realised that Impact is the Key, the model of impact I had in mind was that met in structural engineering when a weight is loaded slowly or suddenly onto a beam.
From the comments of Forum Members I can see that there are many kinds of impact they visualise and that I was just lucky to hit on the structural example. Had it been any of the others I would not have realised the potential so clearly, if at all.
Also, I also now recognise that looking at things hierarchically may be culturally natural to me but is anathema to many. Indeed the lack of even a dead cat bounce to my insight would almost make me doubt my own judgement, cf. the subject in a psychology experiment where all other subject are agents of the experimenter and choose a result which is manifestly false. Fortunately I have Hans von Lieven, Pop Keenie and my own discovery about the real nature of force as a rock to back up my conclusion.
I suppose that for active builders its a case of rien ne va plus as far as underlying concepts are concerned. Ideas can be quickly modified albeit with psychological pain but half built artifacts cannot. One has to crystallize a view, stick to it and trust that one has picked the right ticket in the sweepstake. At least the history of Bessler's wheel does give people some assurance that the winning post is real, not simply a mirage.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Thanks Grimer - please don't assume people like me are being hard on you. I ask a lot of questions because i'm much younger and considerably more ignorant than qualified professionals such as yourself. I don't have a college/university education (for parental/religious reasons in my youth).
This forum is unique, it that it seems to attract well educated scientist types, and uneducated creative types - who probably would otherwise have nothing in common. Typical engineering or academic types run a mile from such a contraversial subject as perpetual motion. So anyone who dares challenge the status quo is a hero in my eyes. The history of science is full of such people who pushed the boundries - and usually paid a price for it.
It seems to me that this forum attracts a disproportionate amount of religious thinkers. I'm assuming from your signature that you are of Catholic persuasion - possibly Jesuit? I find the boundries between religion & science to be the most interesting of all - most deep thinkers (really deep thinkers) find themselves pondering the nature of the universe and realise there is far, far more to it than we can possibly imagine in one lifetime ...
I've learnt a lot from your recent posts - so thank you for sharing your time & knowledge. I hope I can learn a lot more from you.
Earlier in this thread I referred to an Internal Research Note which dealt inter alia with the nature of mass. I also gave links to some of the pages from that note here and made further reference to its history here.
I think the time has come to post the full document on this site so that people can see where I am coming from in my treatment of kinetic energy, etc.
I have been loath to take this step this initially since in doing so I open myself to potential prosecution under the British Official Secrets Act which is very draconian and even extends to the number of sugar lumps in a minister's cup of tea, for example.
Fortunately the British Official Secrets Act has no force in the United States and the Peter Wright case has shown that even in countries closely connected to Britain the act is a toothless tiger. Nevertheless, I must warn any British citizen that even reading the attached document constitutes a breach of the Official Secrets Act as far as they are concerned and they do so at their own risk. I don't personally think that risk is very great but you never know. If for instance my worst fears were realised and reactors started popping off all over the place as a result of solar activity affecting Beta- and Gamma- atmospheric pressures then who knows how mad my ex-employers might get in their search for scapegoats. I don't think Dr Kelly was offed with his penknife but I wouldn't rule it out completely.
At any pont of impact there is obviously a sudden and unnatural compression taking place. Wouldn''t that have be true to some extent at an atomic level, whether we happen to see it or not?
Wouldn't electrons be forced onto one another's and into one another's way faster than they could get out of it beyond immediately shrinking their orbits and simultaneously speeding them up? Winding them up just like tight little springs?
So the energies involved wouldn't all be attributable to what simply put those electrons into contention at that impact point but properties of their own individual fields compressing and impinging on one another in ways they alone can and yet cannot tolerate for long. So they will natually enough spring apart from that in trying to re-establish their normal balance and speed and that shifting and re-balancing would not only be redistributed through-out whatever mass they are a part of but also move or "accelerate" it's entire "framework" in our more ordinary terms as it does.
Thanks for posting your paper Grimer. I won't pretend I understand it, but it's inspired me to think about Forces differently. I'll have to study this a lot more.
The idea of inertial substances being active & not passive interests me. That makes sense, since matter is a seething mass of atoms in perpetual motion.
Maybe i'm wrong, i've come to the conclusion that a Force is either accelerating something, or stressing something. When we see a Force accelerating a mass (whether a dropped apple, or a kicked football, or a rocket launch) - it's an impressive event. But i'm also seeing that there are forces constantly stressing mass, and just because there is no impressive acceleration of velocity and impressive displacement of an object - the power of a force to stress mass should be seen as just as impressive, and just as active.
Maybe i'm not making sense. For example: if I take a brick and drop it on a tile floor, it will make a lot of noise and probably damage something. The force of gravity on that brick is impressive if we let it accelerate that brick in freefall. But if that same brick is quietly sitting on the floor doing nothing - in actual fact the exact same force is acting on that brick. If the force was more, it might sink into the floor. If the force was less, it might float into the air. Basically - the force of gravity acting on that brick is being 'used' to hold it there on the floor, and that force is equally capable of accelerating that brick to high speeds, say, if the floor suddenly gave way and revealed a 100M drop underneath ...
The way I see it - once we get a Bessler wheel running, it should really be no more surprising that the force of gravity is accelerating a wheel than to consider the work that the force of gravity does just letting a stationary wheel sit still. Objects rise or fall to find their own density - and i'm viewing this as requiring a constant amount of work to merely stay in one place.
Just because we don't see motion, doesn't mean that 'nothing' is happening with our forces.
Maybe this has nothing to do with what you intended your paper to say, but this is why I relate to "inertial substances being active & not passive".
It seems natural to a human weight-lifter. To hold a weight up requires energy - and it takes a stronger person to hold a weight up for longer. A rigid structure just holding a weight up appears to be 'doing nothing' - but i'm thinking it is actually doing a lot - every atom is resisting the constant force of gravity pressing downwards.
When a gravity wheel is realized and creating energy. How would you describe gravity then? And how is it producing energy? Or is it more of a conversion force to energy?
