Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"

[rlortie]

Tarsier79 wrote:

"Ralph, I believe you are missing the important parts of my statements. It doesn't really matter. IF you do find a mechanical means to perform reset, Im confident it won't be due to gravity, leverage and weight position alone, but through some peculiarity of nature."

If you go back to post one, page one, you will see that my hypothetical question is based on a machine that physically shows OB or UB depending upon side of center line parallel to the axis it is weighed from.

You speak of mechanical means to perform reset, my design in a sense has no mechanical reset and relies on what you call a "peculiarity of Nature". A simple act of Nature that states; A Newtonian fluid of low viscous properties will seek its own level. The lower the viscosity the faster it will accelerate in its natural course of seeking equalization.

Not unlike the swing of tides as represented here as "Omega" utilized in "Angular frequency" not to be confused with angular momentum. Natures tidal swings or motion are infinite.
In a rotating or orbiting object, there is a relation between distance from the axis, velocity, and the angular frequency of the rotation:\omega = v/r
Now we add to this +\infinity

BTW, I have done a fair few geometric mathematical analysis, when you assume a perfect movement without loss, then the difference on both torques are very close to 0.

Using a very low friction (smooth flat surfaced) mass sitting upon a pool of low viscosity oil at the edge of your smooth topped 28" high desk. Push or slide the weight off the desk and let it fall to the floor. Did the potential energy that can be utilized equal that used to set the mass in motion? I think not.

But of course now is the time to address: "yes but now you have to return the mass to the desk top". For a solid mass this is true and an undeniable fact.

But if I approach this problem on a molecular level the mass did not drop, only the potential, which is infinitely replaced. In my hypothetical/half built case it occurs every 13.84615385 (rounded) degrees of rotation. I only run this factor to its 8 digit extent to show that I do know how to gain mathematical conclusions with being educated in it.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Out of 1,477 members registered on this forum, only 20 have bothered to participate in my Poll.

Come on guys, give me a break, there cannot be that many freeloaders seeking only to ride on someone else's band wagon!

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Since this poll was started five days ago, only 78 of the 1477 members have visited the forum. Twenty of those voted. The poll was/is simply a hypothetical question, so I'm amazed it received the 25% response that it did.

About 500 to 600 unregistered guests visit each day, but since they do not log in, it is not known how many unique guests have visited during the 5 days. The guests can not vote.

[rlortie]

Thank you Jim!

Your point of view regarding the stats is enlightening to say the least. I had not thought of approaching it via the "Statistics" link.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

The problem with Fletcher's answer is that it does not address the original question as to if CF is conservative. It only addresses if momentum is conservative. And I said that momentum is conservative.

Momentum is not CF. Momentum is conservative per Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum. CF is not momentum. CF is the result of momentum.

[1] CF is caused by a change of direction.
[2] CF is caused by velocity.
[3] CF is caused by weight-mass.

Fletcher did address it. I don't conceptualize it the way he does or the way you do.

To me Cf is caused by an energy conversion. In Fletcher's experiment, it was conversion of GPE. The potential energy in gravity can only be converted to kinetic energy (this KE then caused the CF in Fletcher's pendulum), when mass is raised by a form of energy that isn't gravitational potential energy. That seems like a stupefyingly obvious thing to say, but maybe if we say it enough, in different ways, it will eventually sink in. So the CF, nor the motion, would have appeared without the energy that raised the mass into position at 3 o'clock.

It seems the biggest misconception here, after the above misconception, is that Work (or motion) doesn't have to be associated with an energy conversion that includes irreversible conversions; hence the gravity believers and motion believers; which props up the PM argument on indefensible logic. If you can't identify a source of energy in your design, it won't do any work. Period.

And Ralph, just because the exact conservation laws say they have never been shown to be violated doesn't mean a wheel and axle will suddenly show a violation because someone alters some component inside the wheel or the axle. At the end of the day, it's still just a wheel and an axle that requires energy conversions to enable it to do work (2nd misconception) like every simple, or as complex as you want to make it, machine.

[rlortie]

misconception:

I have spent the last three days, machining fabricating and testing one small but significant part for my design. I will continue to do so until the problem is solved to my satisfaction. It has to do with friction verses applied force. It is not radial and need not be a misconception of/or part of a wheel.

Reminds me of Edison and the praise he was given for inventing an improved light bulb. His response was that nobody gave praise for the 10,000 ways he tried that did not won't work.

Here are more inspirational quotes by Edison;

“Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.�

“Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.�

“This problem, once solved, will be simple.�

And this one, which I find most fitting for the occasion:

“The most necessary task of civilization is to teach people how to think. It should be the primary purpose of our public schools. The mind of a child is naturally active, it develops through exercise. Give a child plenty of exercise, for body and brain. The trouble with our way of educating is that it does not give elasticity to the mind. It casts the brain into a mold. It insists that the child must accept. It does not encourage original thought or reasoning, and it lays more stress on memory than observation.�

The bold is of my doing; it is my response to those who have been taught that there are impossibilities and continue their attempts to persuade others into their way of thinking.

I have not kept track of the numbers of failures I have endured, but inspiration and innovation continues and so does my endeavors.

Ralph

[rlortie]

John Collins MT, pages 209-210

(Page 63) And in truth it now seems to me that the time is long
overdue, now that I have achieved my goal, once known only to
God, that I and the world should see this principle, in itself so
simple, and yet at the same time so deeply hidden, of
everlasting motion, described in total detail and in mathematical
simplicity, in praise of God’s boundless wisdom, and for the
benefit of the entire world.

[ovyyus]

...the time is long overdue...that I and the world should see this principle...described in total detail...in praise of God’s boundless wisdom, for the benefit of the entire world.

Deeds betray words for money?

[Grimer]

I agree. Let it be a lesson to us all.

[ovyyus]

What is the lesson?

[Grimer]

"For the love of money is the root of all evil"

(1 Timothy 6:10),

[FunWithGravity2]

Out of 1,477 members registered on this forum, only 20 have bothered to participate in my Poll.

Come on guys, give me a break, there cannot be that many freeloaders seeking only to ride on someone else's band wagon!

Ralph

Maybe the other 75% of us don't feel like playing "name my hypothetical non running machine" with a member with 6500 posts that used to frown on such vague descritpions and hypothetical masturbation. Who used to berade anyone willing to suggest anything with less than full blueprints as rubbish and unintelligible. Maybe we have better things to do than play guess what i got" with a member who accepts numerous ideas from various sources and then taunts the forum with " i got a great idea but becuase of confidentiality i cannot share". Maybe the cynicism and lack of response suggests that although green dots prevail your just a crazy old man and everyone is sick and tired of you telling us certain things won't work because you must have done it and if it had worked it would have for you. Maybe you have just closed you mind off so much that you have actually come full circle and don't even realize that your ideas and behaviour are no better than a sock puppet or internet bot .

I applaud the members that try and humor you with conversation in the face of such unappreciative response.

Dave

[justsomeone]

Why don't you tell us how you really feel Dave. :)

[FunWithGravity2]

Im sure Ralph will think that its unjustified, and probably won't even have the sense to realise that he IS "that guy" seems the thick old ones never get it. But lets be realistic, "freeloaders" wasn't a hypothetical insult. it was a real one, and it was meant to insight a respones. So there is my response, STFU Ralph and build something that works, you have become a PM oxymoron. If you need that much attention regarding a name for your hypothetical non working machine then your pretty sad.

No i'm not jealous or nervous of anything Ralph is doing, his behaviour over the years has led me to put as much credence to his ideas as Murilo's avalanche drive or trevors levers, once you see a persons pattern of misleading themselves you tend not to be to concerned about "miraculous new" directions they seem to lead themselves down.

I for one am not concerned about riding on someone elses bandwagon, as it would seem Ralph is clearly OFF his wagon.


From someone that is so judgemental of others and always seems to have a harsh word when he only reads every other word of most peoples posts the response that i'll recieve won't be much of a surprise. And even less of a concern.

[daanopperman]

ovyyus ,
Would gravity not induce extra KE into the satilite , even at a angled aproach , I cannot understand if you say gravity is not the energy source . If I had 2 disks in close proximity and spin one , sure the 2nd disk would not start to spin because of momemtum transvere . What or how do you understand how momentum transvere happens between 2 un connected masses . It is surely called Gravity Assist Fly by , and even if the planet is " stationary " , it should still be gravity assist , but then it doesn't fit in with Conservasion of Momentum , you see , you have free lunch with that fly-by .