Musings on Gravity

[Richard]

keep going...we'll see how man ditto's you get now.

[Grimer]

For me it's absolutely HARD to visualize gravity as a pushing wind... even if you are not the only one to say this!

Easier is pulling according mass, permanently surrounding bodies.

Hard would be assume this kind of 'wind' with the 'natural' 'sail' effect over volume and/or area.... ( ??? no deal! )

Best!
M

"The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous.

This seemed unacceptable on two counts.

In the first place, it seemed to be a form of action at a distance.

Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton:

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.� (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it'".

[Timothy]

Richard:

You posted to me, "I'll kick your scrawny little ass right into the oil filled gulf of Mexico..." Then you said you were sorry because you discovered I was an old guy. (Presumably, in your world, saying such to a younger person is perfectly acceptable).

Now you just told eccentrically1, "....having now seen your second post, I am comforted by your stupidity...." Then you said you were sorry.

Does the term "Anger Management" mean anything to you?

These are uncalled for and unwarranted.

[greendoor]

For me it's absolutely HARD to visualize gravity as a pushing wind... even if you are not the only one to say this!

Easier is pulling according mass, permanently surrounding bodies.

Hard would be assume this kind of 'wind' with the 'natural' 'sail' effect over volume and/or area.... ( ??? no deal! )

Best!
M

Think about gravity in relation to the Casimir effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Since this effect happens at the atomic level, why should it not happen at the planetary level too?

I don't believe in 'action at a distance' - and certainly not within an 'empty' universe.

We accept that electromagnetic waves of all types travel through the universe, in the absence of matter. But what is actually 'waving'? Waves require a 'fluid' - and I believe the best way to picture the universe is as a fluid medium that not only can be 'waved', but out of which is created all visible matter and energy. This is some powerful fluid ...

This of course is the 'aether' theory - which most people believe was debunked, but in my opinion (and many others) it was a grave error to discard the need for an Aether.

Michelson Morley allegedly demonstrated that light travels at the same speed regardless of the relative velocity of the Earth. Their primitive thinking was that IF light was a wave within an Aether, the Earth should be moving relative to the Aether, and therefore there should be the equivalent of a Doppler effect that could be measured.

There is considerable doubt about the experimental accuracy of the actual tests. But worst of all was the assumption that the Earth would be moving relative to the Aether. IF, as I believe, all matter (including Earth) is a manifestion of Aether, then Aether is so intrinsically entrained in matter that there can be no relative motion between Aether and Earth. If we could see Aether, I believe we would see a vortex of whirling Aether surounding the Earth that diminishes with the square of distance ...

Does that help any?

[John Collins]

In the end, no matter how contrary it seems to what we've been taught, Bessler said his wheel depended on gravity for its energy source. So, there has to be a way of using gravity, and I do mean gravity alone, to drive it. If you wish to include CF etc - ok, but no ambient energies, or other slow. weak forces to add energy.

Eccentrically1 - Maybe I should have used the term 'isolated' rather than 'closed' system. I was not aware of the definition of 'closed' system. To me a closed system is one with no access to external energy, certainly that is what it used to be, I guess definitions change and get refined over time. So Bessler's wheel could have been a closed system but not an isolated one. I stand corrected, apologies for my ignorance.

I know Jim and Bill's (and some others) opinion of my belief in gravity-only wheels but I am absolutely certain that it will turn out to be the correct one.

My use of the term 'packets' of energy was descriptive rather than an accurate definition which I thought was obvious but perhaps I should have been more precise.

As for push and pull, I did originally write a paragraph about that and I think I might reintroduce it as there has been negative comment about it. I don't think it matters actually. If there is argument about whether gravity pushes or pulls, obviously we cannot tell which it is doing, so does it really matter or make any difference in our small area of research?

PS I note that wikepedia adds this interesting line at the end of its definition of isolated systems. "In practice, a system can never be absolutely isolated from its environment, because there is always at least some slight coupling, such as gravitational attraction. "

JC

[ovyyus]

I know Jim and Bill's (and some others) opinion of my belief in gravity-only wheels but I am absolutely certain that it will turn out to be the correct one.

John, I think gravity is as important to the operation of Bessler's wheel as it is to the operation of a water wheel. But I'm absolutely certain that neither use gravity as their energy source.

If Bessler actually said his wheel "depended on gravity for its energy source" a mill operator, perhaps in a clever moment, might honestly say similar about his falling-water wheel.

[Fletcher]

In the end, no matter how contrary it seems to what we've been taught, Bessler said his wheel depended on gravity for its energy source.

So, there has to be a way of using gravity, and I do mean gravity alone, to drive it. If you wish to include CF etc - ok, but no ambient energies, or other slow. weak forces to add energy.

JC

I know this has come up before John - could you please quote the source where Bessler says his wheel 'depended on gravity for its energy source' ? - IIRC he said his were gravity wheels in the descriptive sense but TMK he never says that gravity was the energy source - my apologies if I've got this wrong, but its an important distinction.

As a slight side note John - have you ever wondered why Bessler never went to print describing anything in absolute physics or math terms ? - just generalized laymans words like impetus etc - he was learned in math [your decoding efforts testify to that], conversant with others work in physics [his published friends & acquaintances in natural sciences] but he chose to never describe anything himself in technically accurate meaningful language - even more curious IMO is MT which he did not publish - even though these notes were to himself they lacked technical detail, no mention of even fledgling physics or math terminology, that we might reasonably expect from an educated man intent on leaving a defining legacy - especially if we are to believe that he intended MT for his school of learning, it seems overly sparse & technically underwhelming - yet they do show a progression of his thoughts & experiments, introducing forces in addition to gravity until the end when pages removed are replaced with the toy page.

Perhaps he was unable to describe his prime mover force both in technically accurate language or in accepted physics & math language of his day so he steered clear of all technical detail & used laymans language ? - but that's just my supposition.

If Bessler actually said his wheel "depended on gravity for its energy source" a mill operator, perhaps in a clever moment, might honestly say similar about his falling-water wheel.

Bill .. an even cleverer mill operator would realize it did 'not depend on gravity for its energy source' but that falling or moving water imparted some of its momentum [i.e. Kinetic Energy of Movement] to other objects in its path.

[John Collins]

John - could you please quote the source where Bessler says his wheel 'depended on gravity for its energy source' ?

You're right Fletch, Bessler doesn't say so incontrovertably, but the implication is obvious, to me.

I understand your scepticism, and yours Bill and Jim-mitch, but I still think that we are ignoring every possibility if we ignore Bessler's words. I wish he had been more specific but perhaps he thought he was being.

To me it is clear that he had no need of other forces, he used gravity twice per weight, once allowing gravity to make the main weight fall and secondly raising the same weight by means of another weight falling.

I've included a few references to weights and what I deem to be gravity in words from my version of Das Tri, but the other translations give a similar meanings, in my opinion.

Pge 20 DT -"No these weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

page 72 DT, "once it has received its externally-given motive force will never lose it." That refers to his use of two fingers to start to the Kassel bidirectional wheel.

page 126"...when a single one of the weights present inside the body of the device began to fall.. the machine then gradually began, of its own accord, to revolve faster and faster."

I see nothing suspicious in his use of generalisations and non-mathematical language, I do it myself! I have always avoided getting into technical language partly because I'm no good at it and partly because I don't want to lose the attention of anyone who is not conversant with it. I have received interesting comments and some support from one or two "scientists" who supported my approach.

I think Bessler wanted to appeal to as wide a proportion of readers as possible hence his use of non-technical language.

JC

[Grimer]

For me it's absolutely HARD to visualize gravity as a pushing wind... even if you are not the only one to say this!

Easier is pulling according mass, permanently surrounding bodies.

Hard would be assume this kind of 'wind' with the 'natural' 'sail' effect over volume and/or area.... ( ??? no deal! )

Best!
M

Think about gravity in relation to the Casimir effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Since this effect happens at the atomic level, why should it not happen at the planetary level too?

I don't believe in 'action at a distance' - and certainly not within an 'empty' universe.

We accept that electromagnetic waves of all types travel through the universe, in the absence of matter. But what is actually 'waving'? Waves require a 'fluid' - and I believe the best way to picture the universe is as a fluid medium that not only can be 'waved', but out of which is created all visible matter and energy. This is some powerful fluid ...

This of course is the 'aether' theory - which most people believe was debunked, but in my opinion (and many others) it was a grave error to discard the need for an Aether.

Michelson Morley allegedly demonstrated that light travels at the same speed regardless of the relative velocity of the Earth. Their primitive thinking was that IF light was a wave within an Aether, the Earth should be moving relative to the Aether, and therefore there should be the equivalent of a Doppler effect that could be measured.

There is considerable doubt about the experimental accuracy of the actual tests. But worst of all was the assumption that the Earth would be moving relative to the Aether. IF, as I believe, all matter (including Earth) is a manifestion of Aether, then Aether is so intrinsically entrained in matter that there can be no relative motion between Aether and Earth. If we could see Aether, I believe we would see a vortex of whirling Aether surounding the Earth that diminishes with the square of distance ...

Does that help any?

I agree with all that. By the way, how did you get on in the more recent earthquake?

[Fletcher]

I've included a few references to weights and what I deem to be gravity in words from my version of Das Tri, but the other translations give a similar meanings, in my opinion.

Bessler: Page 20 DT -"No these weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

Bessler: Page 72 DT, "once it has received its externally-given motive force will never lose it." That refers to his use of two fingers to start to the Kassel bidirectional wheel.

"The Third Testimonial": Page 126 DT, "...when a single one of the weights present inside the body of the device began to fall.. the machine then gradually began, of its own accord, to revolve faster and faster."

The first two quotes were by Bessler himself - here he tells us exactly how this is achieved i.e. "so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity." - clearly A FORCE is required to do that though he doesn't say gravity alone can achieve that outcome.

In the second he says that his wheels are given an impressed force to set them moving & once moving they will never lose it - so he says directly it is set in motion by hand for example, then maintains its motion - nowhere does he say or imply gravity is the sole restorative force - he actually tells us there is another force, that being an impressed force to start the motion, else it cannot maintain its motion.

The third quote is from a written testimonial from others who were witness to Bessler's wheel & not himself therefore subject to their interpretation.

I think Bessler wanted to appeal to as wide a proportion of readers as possible hence his use of non-technical language.

JC

That, IMO, doesn't explain MT - the others were published & I could buy your explanation John - MT was different, it was meant for his school after his wheel sold & therefore should have contained technical detail & description - especially when showing & saying why failed designs didn't work, IMO.

None of his writing contained technical detail whether meant for public consumption or not.

[eccentrically1]

JohnC, gravity is a force, not an energy. Your musings are still confusing because of this distinction you're not making. There are 4 forces in physics; forces have vectors (direction and speed). Energy is identified with mass. The mass of the earth contains a lot of energy, but the gravity of the earth has no mass that can be converted to energy.
The potential energy contained in a mass due to its position in a force field such as gravity, received and stored that potential energy when it was lifted up in the gravitational force field by anything with energy: your arm, the sun, etc. Forces in nature such as gravity, centripetal force, inertia etc. can't supply this potential. When the mass is released, the stored potential energy transforms to kinetic energy that can be captured and used.

[AB Hammer]

eccentrically1

When a gravity wheel is proved a new meaning will be given gravity or Science will have to admit perpetual motion is possible. One thing for certain things will change in science.

[eccentrically1]

AB hammer - Not when but if a gravity wheel is demonstrated, will our definitions change. Until a demonstration, gravity engines remain impossible according to present definitions. We shouldn't be lured into thinking something is possible by changing the definitions to fit the scenario we might be hoping for.

[Richard]

Tim..

..it is good you point out my " anger" in our prior exchange....Anger, I did not feel when countering eccentrically1..

eccentrically1 ..Presentation..(John your wrong) statement of fact..

the body of the message...(mostly entropy, only) ignoring CoE

conclusion of the message...( Bessler wheel is a closed system) statement of fact...

..Opinions are O.K....but to express factually what is not empirical..is fraudulent

..at the level of our communication...this is stupid...

...thus my apology was to the (word / stupid) where I could have used Liar or fraud....

..it is clear that eccentrically1 puts forth effort in research...and I appreciate that effort..

richard

[John Collins]

eccentrically1 said,

JohnC, gravity is a force, not an energy. Your musings are still confusing because of this distinction you're not making

Yes it is a force. The point I'm trying to make is that when a force is in action as in making a weight fall, the weight has energy. Before it falls it has potential energy. The weights are equivalent to water flowing under the force of gravity, or wind flowing against a windmill blade. Before any of them move they have the potential to move. So, yes gravity itself is not energy but it can induce movement in an object which has energy available for transfer or use.

I'm sure you understand the point. Gravity is the cause of water moving down hill just as it is the cause of weights falling downwards. It is not the energy but it is the source of it. Without it there would be no falling. What is so difficult to understand about that?

We shouldn't be lured into thinking something is possible by changing the definitions to fit the scenario we might be hoping for.

I have no wish nor need to change any definitions, I believe that all of my arguments can be accomodated within current definitions.

JC