What I believe.

[neptune]

You may have read ny previous post , " The spark of Creativity " . I wrote that to promote discussion , and this post has the same purpose .All my life , I wanted to ride a unicycle . When I was 35 , I finally did it . You could not buy unicycles then , so my friend and I made our own. About 6 months later we made a tall one with a chain drive . I spent weeks trying to master it , all to no avail. Then , one day , my friend , who had more courage than I . got on it and rode about ten metres. I immediately got on it and rode it 100 metres! What had changed? The difference was , that now I BELIEVED . I had seen it with my own eyes. Therefore I was motivated.
As A young man I was interested in the supernatural . My dream was to join the Society for Psychic research. But I had no money . Years later , I had the money to do so . Then I suddenly realised that said society was over one hundred years old . and had failed to prove a thing. The only differense with the search for Besslers wheel , is that the search is about three times older.Oh , and you dont have to pay to join.
My point here is that if and when some indisputable proof of PM is shown , the world of invention will go mad , and other examples will appear daily ., bcause now ,inventors will believe. The best justification ever for open sourceing.
The human race can exist without ghosts , telepathy , psychokinesis etc , But maybe not without free energy. Here endeth the second lesson.

[nicbordeaux]

Not sure the world of inventors would go mad with inventions appearing daily, people would just replicate and slightly ellaborate on what was shown ?

As to open sourcing, there seems to be no proviso for any type of free/open licencing covering disclosure which would stop anybody, big money or smalltime crook, from patenting an invention.

[neptune]

@Nicbordeaux. It is true that there would be replications initially. And as you say , there would be elaborations. But hopefully , there would also be simplifications. The main point I was trying to make was that once people know that gravity has been tapped , the negative influence of the laws of thermodynamics , Newton et al , will be destroyed , and folks will then think if gravity has been tapped then why not magnets , zero point , etc etc.
Many people have ideas , but do not even try them coz Newton says no .
As to copyright issues , I dont know. If there was a God , he would give the Big Idea to someone who could afford to give it away. Even if you give it away , hopefully you will be finished paying for electricity!

[Fletcher]

Nobody could beat Mike Tyson until Buster Douglas - it was impossible - the combination of ferocity & power could not be matched by boxing skill -the "first with the head & follow with the heart" mantra seemed to have abandoned a hopeless cause - then iron mike fell over regularly - olympic records get smashed every 4 years, in just about every discipline - track is probably the most popular example thru time - break the mental barrier by example & other will do it also, almost as a matter of course - the clean & jerk [weight lifting, is another example] - the combined totals couldn't break 600 kgs for decades then one day it was broken - IIRC in training the coach lied to his lifter & put more on than he said he had [over the total] - once broken it was doable in his mind & he did it at the olympics for good measure & to get a medal & record [it didn't stand for long].

The problem is is energy from gravity a real & obtainable objective, in the PM/FE sense ? - is it a matter of busting the mental barrier or more of a physical barrier i.e. will the laws of physics allow it ?

If a FE device is built & demonstrated then there will be a raft of replications, simplifications & evolutions - many will appear out of the woodwork with the same or similar idea from the past [many tweaking their gravity only solutions to fit] - I tend to think that any FE device will not be a result of breaking any mental barrier but a result of lots of hard slog using & recombining current laws of physics - then it will be head smacking moments, why didn't we see the obvious, the combination that proved successful, it was there all the time for those with eyes to see & tenacity.

But first, like a serendipitous Newton under the apple tree, you have to be looking up the right tree & not barking up the wrong one, because wishful thinking or magic won't break a non existent mental barrier when a physical one exists, & make gravity give up energy to do work & replenish itself, IMO.

[John Lindsay]

It would seem there was Not a "physical barrier" for achieving a workable solution for Johann Bessler. He probably discovered something the Universe already knew about Itself: Clever use of one-directional pressure. He seems to have had strong faith in some type of Higher Power, although the idea wasn't just instantly dropped into his lap. Belief, action, manifestation. Although there are "regular" parameters for certain things -Don't try to Will the planets to be square tomorrow!- IF something is possible, then this quote applies "You get what you concentrate on-There is no other Rule". Book reference-The Nature of Personal Reality

[Michael]

Seth. Good book.

[neptune]

My posting certainly provoked some interesting replies , which is what I had hoped for. I did not mean to imply that "positive thinking " could manipulate reality. Simply that knowing that a goal is attainable could motivate one to try harder.
I am reminded about a documentary I half watched recently [or slept through.] I seem to remember it was about monkeys or apes. There was food available , but it was contaminated with sand. Then one or two young indeviduals learned to get round this by washing the food. In time , this behaviour spread throughout the colony . But here is the really strange thing. This behaviour was later observed in other colonies on other islands which had no contact with the original colony! This could be an example of a needed invention happening in different places at the same time , or monkeys develloping telepathy! I still think that if free energy is confirmed and proven , it will be like tiggering an avalanche.

[jim_mich]

There is no "physical barrier" for achieving a workable PM solution. Many men of science say that the Laws of Thermodynamics prevent any perpetual motion machine from working.

The second law of thermodynamics is a statement of repeated observation (or perhaps better yet, a statement of some things that have never been observed).

Here are two things that have never been observed:

1. Heat has never been observed to move spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.
2. Heat has never been observed to be converted entirely into work with no other result.

So the second law, in other words, is just the statement that these two things are impossible, that is:

1. It is impossible for heat to move spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body with no other result.
2. It is impossible to convert heat quantitatively into work with no other result.

The latter statement is sometimes phrased: "It is impossible to make a perpetual motion machine of the second kind." This simply means that you cannot use temperature differences to power a device and then expect the heat to self-sort back into hot and cold. There is a way around the Second Law. Let me explain…

Heat is kinetic energy. It is the motion of individual molecules within a substance. Man has found ways to measure this energy and we label it as temperature. This temperature is a measurement of the average motion of the molecules. If we could sort the molecules or cause the slower molecules to give up some of their motion to other faster molecules then we would have spontaneous heating of warmer molecules along with spontaneous cooling of the other cooler molecules. This would cause spontaneous flow of heat from a colder object to a warmer object. This has never been observed to happen. Thus we have this observation written as The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Heat is kinetic energy. Motion is also kinetic energy. Heat cannot flow from cold to warm. Please think of slow motion as being cold motion and fast motion as being hot motion. The question becomes, “Can motion spontaneously flow from a cold motion object to a hot motion object?� Would such break any Natural Laws? I say, “No!� There is no natural law that forbids a slower moving weight from giving up its motion to a faster moving weight. Such a transfer will not happen spontaneously without a little help. This is the same as using a small force to lift a large heavy object. The small force cannot directly move the big force, but if a lever is used then a small force can lift against a big force. This happens anytime we manually jack up an automobile. So by using the proper leverage, a slow moving object can transfer some or all of its momentum to a fast moving object. Thus an object with cold motion can transfer its kinetic energy to an object with hot motion. If we consider the motion as being heat then this breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But if we consider the motion as being motion then it does not break the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If we then harness the speed difference between the hot (fast) moving object and the cold (slow) moving object then we have a gain of kinetic energy. If we do it in a cyclical manner then we have what most people would call a Perpetual Motion Machine. If such a machine gains kinetic energy from the cosmos then does it meet the definition of perpetual motion? Perpetual motion of the Second Type is defined as more energy output than energy input. But the cosmos supplies increased kinetic energy whenever a weight is sped up. Conservation of Momentum is the supreme law. There is no Conservation of ‘Kinetic’ Energy Law. The Conservation of Energy Law is only valid when accounting for the conversion of heat into motion and motion into heat. It is not valid in certain circumstances where momentum is transferred from slower (and thus kinetically colder) moving objects to faster (and thus kinetically hotter) moving objects. In such cases involving motion there are gains and looses of kinetic energy to and from the cosmos. Thus there can never be a totally closed system whenever inertial momentum and kinetic energy are involved.

[silverfox]

Well Neptune...

What I most firmly believe, is that any phenomena or the circumstances under which it can occur, will always dictate whatever rules of science or physics may or may not be applicable to them, or in what quite specific ways if they do, and that never, at any time, is it ever the reverse of that.

So Newton can spin in his authoritarian grave all he likes and I won't lose any sleep over it because I happen to live in very different universe from the one he had in mind. We all do, incidentally, and there's no scientific debate about that at all just a very great deal of difficulty in trying to find some purely material and objective ways to express what isn't material in any sense at all and scientists can't allow themselves to do that any other way unfortutately.

That's their basic problem, not ours. They were the ones that insisted on having such a narrow and confined view of things and being so arrogantly proud and concieted about it being the only way to go about it, so let's see if they're smart enough to get around their own idea of being smart and just leave them to it untill they finally figure out where they went wrong and happily painted themselves straight into that little corner.

Since it's not exactly quick drying paint that they used it may take some time and some fancy footwork as they get around to dirtying their shoes and tracking it all up while they paint their way back out and try to look composed and dignified and purely scientific about it all...hmmm?

Now the inability to see or understand the ideas or concepts that underwrite any particular phenomenon or what the right circumstances might be for it to physically exist or occur, are purely a mental limitation, and not a physical one when it comes to making them real, or demonstrating their existence in more ordinary or physical terms.

There are of course certain physical limits and restraints but not so limiting as you might expect. It all depends on just how true to form, so to speak, we can actually make any idea out of the physical world we have to work with.

So it may very well look like what the idea suggested without actually being able to do what it suggested or it may be able to do what it suggested without necessarlily looking a whole lot like what it suggested and those are choices we sometimes simply have to make do with depending on what we want to achieve.

There are of course purely imaginary constructs like say "a unicorn", or pehaps even "a flying pig", but even there nothing actually prevents us from painting a very real picture or producing some other very real rendering or representation of them, or making them appear as living creatures in some movie where they would be indiistinguishible from any others that are actually real in the ordinary sense when it comes to the idea of making them simply "come to life" in that way for ourselves instead.

In short if there is a will, there is always some way, to paraphrase that old maxim.

What's important for to remember as thinking creatures is that any and every idea is very real as an idea, or in and of itself, and always has some potential to be realized or to help us to realize other ideas that it's related to, once we understand the context and nature of what their relationship to one another actually is and what we want to do with them or have them do for us.

Now I'm trying to give you some of these ideas, but while I'm about it it seems only fitting to simply ask you where exactly you happen to think any of those ideas are or come from?

Obviously they aren't a property of any of the individual letters or words I'm using that are merely symbols strung together that we have certain conventions about using in order to transmit ideas or information. But from where to where, would you say?

The simple truth is that every idea already exists somewhere in our very own minds and all we can actually do is to try and give one another a few hints by using these symbols about where to look for them based on where we find or locate them in our own minds.

All of that is based upon a relationship that already exists between those ideas and wouldn't be possible if they weren't all "real" and "in there" or related in that way, in the first place.

None of us, of course has the slightest ability to actually put an idea into someone else's mind in any other way and the more you think about that the sooner you'll see ust how true it is.

So we need to understand that we actually live in a mental landscape or "a world of ideas" and not really in a physical one at all and life for us is all about translating ideas back and forth between those two very different perspectives. The real world of ideas we live in and the physical one we subsequently experience and is something of a touchstone or a reflection of those ideas in a different way.

So it is the reality of our existence in our minds, if you will, first and foremost, that enables us to both translate ideas into physical terms and then take any physical data we directly percieve and translate it back again into the same kind of conceptual terms and ideas to compare the results.

It's not any physical things we're ever genuinely comparing, but actually our ideas "about" them and to whatever extent those ideas themselves might be true, or have some worth to us in any other circumstances if we try and apply them there as well.

Sounds a bit complex and complicated when it's put it that way, I know, but that's what "thinking" is, and it's what we do all the time, curiously enough, without actually thinking about what we're doing or how we even begin to do it because it all comes about quite naturally and spontaneously just because we're human beings. It's what we are and what we're all about...learning to handle all kinds of ideas.

So you are quite right about the necessity of vision and imagination above all else, or giving yourself enough room to simply play with any ideas without pre-judging or having any preconceptions about their usefullness or appropriateness or where they might lead you and what you might accomplish with them if you just simply allow yourself to.

By the way, Neptune, God is the "One Very Big Idea" about absolutely everthing. Perpetual Motion is simply the means by which that One Very Big Idea is steadily and endlessly spinning into reality in as many ways as that is possible.

I could tell you more about that, but I think I've given you enough to think about for the time being....hmmm? LOL

[nicbordeaux]

I'll go along with all for that except for God but I don't wish to get involved in that particular debate on a public forum, and perpetual motion which is a concept I can't agree with. The universe is still expanding we are told and this means again we are told that from a infinitely dense (lol) area of "matter"" arose a mighty bang because one would assume that higher density wasn't possible, which projected all this energy (matter being a byproduct or rather transient manifestation of energy and the accounting tool e = MC2 being wrong) all over the place in a most undignified way at a "known" rate of acceleration. We are further told that the present continued rate of expansion or acceleration must be due to some unidentified element such as anti matter (or other, substitute at will), and no mention is made of the fact that the muzzle velocity of the initial shot could have been rather higher than calculated. Which is not of much practical interest except for the fact that one is told that upon reaching maximum possible expansion or distance from Ground Zero all this energy will, after having slowed down, start to contract towards, ultimately, the initial state of untenable density, which de facto implies that there must be a "stop" point at both ends, and you can verify this by putting your car into reverse and then moving forward, even if you burn out your clutch trying there is point at which moving one way has to stop before movent the other way can start. And therefore the model one would use for "perpetual motion"" would be not a wheel but a oscillating lever, which must stop at one end of travel before starting the return swing.

Anyway, nice piece of writing Silverfox, especially the part about a thought process not necessarily having an aim, and being of potential use at some later point of time in another context, which translates also as no experiment is pointless, and brings to mind the surprise visit to the household of your's truly via a common friend who happened to be passing by of a well known physicist (small world, innit ?) who upon seeing a gizmo o' mine which was supsended at one end by a spring and heavily loaded with weights and water bottles swinging madly about asked in a pretty disgusted manner "yes, but what is the point?" and was visibly utterly disgusted to hear that there was no specific point.

[nicbordeaux]

As to copyright issues , I dont know. If there was a God , he would give the Big Idea to someone who could afford to give it away. Even if you give it away , hopefully you will be finished paying for electricity!

Probably misquoting someone but "If you want to know what God thinks of money take a look at the people he gives it to"