Reply to 300 Clues on the 300th Anniversary

[eccentrically1]

Jeff, if it matters

[Richard]

Jim Mich states:

"Thus Bessler could speak of weight and most would think out-of-balance.

Even the term 'out-of-balance' can have multiple meanings. It can mean more weight on one side than on the other side. It can also mean something that is mismatched. A baseball game can be unbalanced between a strong team and a weak team.

Can you see how words can be a woven tapestry containing many subtle meanings? If you fixate on only one meaning and fail to keep an open mind to other possibilities, then you might miss Bessler's more subtle meaning.

Just my thoughts.

.........................

...this is a good point Jim, we see such imbalances here in this forum.

richard

[Perpetual Motionist]

Hi Jim Mich, my hello to every body here.

Hi Rockey,

Well done Rocky!

You have accomplished an encyclopedic work! Your effort is indeed a wonderful tribute to Orffyreus on the 300th anniversary of his Gravity Wheel.

However, I have one feeling, ….clue after clue …. and clues and more clues, then, a big heap of clues in front of us…how to actually proceed to build the Gravity wheel? …It is like you have excess of the material in the front of you to build your home, but confusion in your thoughts, eventually, prevent you to apply your art in a precise manner, how to build it….? Sometimes learning is conditioning of mind.

In my opinion, 300 clues, systematically categorized by you, in an excellent manner, unequivocally, lead to the conclusion that “the gravity is a Creative Force.� I am aware that it is already a well debated subject on this forum, I don’t know whether it is ok to revisit the subject here and post it here, however, let me permit to say something about Gravity in a summary fashion as to why I think it to be a creative force.

This august forum has galaxy of brilliant perpetual motionists. While considering gravity like a “conservative force,� most of the members of this forum are relying too much on laws of classical mechanics which erroneously, debunks perpetual motion. Most of the Classical laws of mechanics are based on the consensus decision of the scientists which rejects perpetual motion as something impossible that also constitutes the first law of thermodynamics, more popularly known as law of conservation of energy. Law of conservation of energy has no direct experimental evidence.

Let me quote Max Planck here to instill confidence among us about the fluid nature of laws of physics invented by scientists.

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�

Quote by Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947

In my opinion, it is highly contradictory that most of the members of this forum consider gravity like a conservative force, at the same time, they also believe that gravity based perpetual motion is possible. In my opinion, they are a bit confused because of their conditioning of mind brought about by education and influence of science.

We must pay attention to what Orffyreus is saying. Orffyreus unequivocally stated that “the internal structure of the machine is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion�. It must be noted that his laws of mechanical perpetual motion are contrary to the Newtonian laws of mechanics. In all of his books, he alludes to different principles of mechanical perpetual motion, for example, “My 'principle of excess weight’, "principle of superior weight", “The causative principle of the movement, its ponderous impetus.� Principle of preponderance etc, but it appears that members of this august forum have not taken his statements seriously instead they are relying on the putative laws of Newtonian mechanics.

Though Orffyreus lacked erudite and sophistication of a scientist to develop a well coherent theory of perpetual motion and well define his principles, it does not reduce import of his statements that strongly indicate that whatever principles he laid down, certainly, they stand contrary to the laws of classical mechanics.


Orffyreus was well aware of laws of mechanical perpetual motion and their connection to gravity and universal law of perpetual motion that led him to remark beautifully:

“Is there such a thing in nature as perpetual motion, or a perpetuum mobile? And whether it may be possible for human hands to introduce into material bodies, in themselves lifeless, a permanent innate motive force, a constant interchange of rise and fall, of excess and deficient weight, resulting, as it were, in a living machine. Imagine how a heavy material body, in defiance of its innate natural tendency to gravitate towards the center of the earth, could be induced to rise once more.� GB 52

According to Deva Ramananda, law of perpetual motion is represented by Universal vibration and pulsation by which nature thrives forever.. Balance, harmony, complementarily, and synergy are the main ingredients of laws of perpetual motion. Pulsation is a periodically recurring phenomenon that alternately increases and decreases some quantity, a regular periodic variation in value about a mean which causes the rhythmic contraction and expansion of some object.


I am intrigued to see that there are many members here on this forum, one of them regarded as most respected, who even don’t consider the gravity wheel as a form of perpetual motion. When we have contradictions of this sort in our views, it can hardly lead to success.

In developing a correct worldview that Orffyreus based on his perpetual motion machine, he was far ahead to all of those leading philosophers and scientist of his time who were debating a clockwork universe and struggling hard to reconcile it with basic tenets of Christianity. Orffyreus looked to the heavens and saw the same principles at work as could be found in the workings of his perpetual motion machine. Just as a beautifully designed perpetual motion machine runs forever by a prearranged, prefixed set of principles and rules without demand of energy, so, too, does the perpetual motion based world and everything in it. According to him, God was a master perpetual motionist who designed the world perpetual motion machine and started it to run forever without further demand of any rewinding. On the other hand, even the best talents in the world before and after him failed to conceive perpetual motion and instead they relied on clock to describe the working of the world.".�


In theory, it is often claimed that laws of the science are universal, they equally apply to all domains, terrestrial as well as microcosm or macrocosm but we have host of examples to show that it is not so. Now modern cosmology is also coming to the fact that Gravity is a creative force.

A careful investigations into the nature of gravity and its role in creating and evolving the cosmos will reveal that that gravity is a “creative force� responsible for the entire evolution of the universe. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Beckenstein produced an important work by finding a surprising connection between thermodynamical entropy, quantum mechanics, and general relativity, which has paved way for much inspired current work on quantum gravity. In the last decade of the twentieth century, new discoveries in the science of thermodynamics like that of the Amin Cycle, shows that entropy can be reduced by gravity. Gravity may be considered as the catalyst in reducing entropy. Any force which reduces entropy in nature can be called a “creative force.� It has been found that strong gravitational forces reduce entropy of matter in the universe. This is a profound and fundamental discovery but same was known to Vedic Rhisis thousands years back. It has far reaching implications, not just in the field of thermodynamics but also in various other fields of knowledge.

Gravity is like an Albatross around the neck of all physicists since they know little about its ultimate nature. Physicists know gravity exists, they can describe its effects, but they cannot tell us satisfactorily why and how it works. While formulating his law of gravitation, Newton was perplexed by the fact that gravity does not appear to extract any energy from the affected masses, which is contrary to the law of conservation of matter and energy. As I already stated Einstein himself confessed that his Special theory of relativity fails to apply to the phenomena of gravitation.
By very Newtonian definition, the force of gravity is the mutual attraction between masses of the two objects separated by a distance. At the moment two objects merge into one, force of gravity vanishes into nothingness. When they are separated, force of gravity gets created instantaneously out of nothing. The oldest book Rg Veda mentions this fact in an archaic manner that when gravity was born, world divided into two. The meaning is that force of the gravity is instantaneously created out of nothing on the very moment one object divides into two. For example, in geological history of the earth, once moon had been the part of the earth. At the moment, moon separated from the earth, force of gravity was created instantaneously between moon and earth just out of nothing. Since force of gravity is a mutual phenomenon, there is no point in telling about gravity field of a single object.

Under the influence of gravity, these planets have been spinning on their axis and revolving around the sun without apparent loss of any kind of power. Scientist considers the movement to be a result of “historical force� (when planets had separated from sun billions of years ago) which I consider to be wrong. I have no doubt that our planetary system is using a “current force� imparted by “planetary perpetual motion’ under mere influence of gravity. I don’t think that gravity is being consumed or expended or extracted or harnessed in this entire process, hence, we can conclude that “all energy is from nothing�. Moreover, logically speaking, we would always remain confronted with “indefinite regress� in case we identify one or other source of energy responsible for running the entire celestial mechanics. If this phenomenon is run by gravity, then, where gravity has come from? If the gravity comes from matter or mass, then, where mass comes from? So, question will always remain “where does energy come from? In Orffyreus’ machine, while it is running, it is impossible to objectively establish that gravity is being expended since in each cycle of operation weights and entire mechanical system returns to its original state, therefore, it is fair to conclude that machine operates just under influence of gravity!

By mere influence of a force, I mean without being expended if some force can perform work, it is definitely a “creative force�. This is why mystic Eckhart says, when God created this universe, he put no effort into it. This why Alan Guth says that Universe is a free lunch, it has come out of “nothing�. This is why Nature operates on the principle of economy.

I have 300 facts to prove that "gravity is a creative force', but telling them here would unnecessarily make this post heavy like the Gravity Wheel and long like the tongue of Wagner.

With best regards

Perpetual Motionist

[murilo]

Jim Mich states:

"Thus Bessler could speak of weight and most would think out-of-balance.

Even the term 'out-of-balance' can have multiple meanings. It can mean more weight on one side than on the other side. It can also mean something that is mismatched. A baseball game can be unbalanced between a strong team and a weak team.

Can you see how words can be a woven tapestry containing many subtle meanings? If you fixate on only one meaning and fail to keep an open mind to other possibilities, then you might miss Bessler's more subtle meaning.

Just my thoughts.

.........................

...this is a good point Jim, we see such imbalances here in this forum.

richard

Yesssss, Rich...
We can see them on this forum... absolutely!
( at least you and me! )

[Stewart]

In all of his books, he alludes to different principles of mechanical perpetual motion, for example, “My 'principle of excess weight’, "principle of superior weight", “The causative principle of the movement, its ponderous impetus.�

Actually all three of those are the same and not different principles, in fact they are the same word in German (Uberwucht) but, confusingly, have been translated differently each time by the same translator!

Orffyreus was well aware of laws of mechanical perpetual motion and their connection to gravity and universal law of perpetual motion that led him to remark beautifully:

“Is there such a thing in nature as perpetual motion, or a perpetuum mobile? And whether it may be possible for human hands to introduce into material bodies, in themselves lifeless, a permanent innate motive force, a constant interchange of rise and fall, of excess and deficient weight, resulting, as it were, in a living machine. Imagine how a heavy material body, in defiance of its innate natural tendency to gravitate towards the center of the earth, could be induced to rise once more.� GB 52

Those aren't Bessler's words. [GB] Gründlicher Bericht (Thorough Report), 1715 was written by one of Bessler's friends/patrons.

Stewart

[Mark]

In reference to the name Apologia Wheel, IIRC from my research (before I became a member) of the posts on this forum it was John Collins that first applied the label of "Wheel" to the drawing. Before that, it was simply referred to as a drawing or sketch. Or decoder. :)

The only book of John's that I have at this time is MT, so I may be mistaken... but I'm under the impression that Bessler never gave that diagram a name. Please correct me if I am wrong.

edited for clarity(?)

[eccentrically1]

by very Newtonian definition, the force of gravity is the mutual attraction between masses of the two objects separated by a distance. At the moment two objects merge into one, force of gravity vanishes into nothingness. When they are separated, force of gravity gets created instantaneously out of nothing.

Gravity doesn't vanish and reappear; if it did, the universe would be nothing like it is.
Our reality arises out of the interactions of the four fundamental forces.
Most of the reality we safely observe with our senses is based on interactions between electromagnetic forces. Most of the remainder is based on interactions between gravitational forces. If any of these forces behaved any differently, or occurred in differing relative strengths, we would live in an entirely different world, that we couldn't imagine.
If "creative forces" reduced entropy, then time would run in both directions, forward and backward. Hard to imagine.

I don’t think that gravity is being consumed or expended or extracted or harnessed in this entire process, hence, we can conclude that “all energy is from nothing�. Moreover, logically speaking, we would always remain confronted with “indefinite regress� in case we identify one or other source of energy responsible for running the entire celestial mechanics. If this phenomenon is run by gravity, then, where gravity has come from? If the gravity comes from matter or mass, then, where mass comes from? So, question will always remain “where does energy come from?

It comes from the stars. Our star, the sun. Our sun contains nearly all the mass in our solar system. Is it any wonder the planets orbit the sun (perpetually, until the inevitable end), given this fact?
Astronomers are only beginning to discover evidence of other planets orbiting other stars in other systems. If all the stars suddenly blinked out of existence, the universe would be one cold, lifeless place with no sources of energy.

As I already stated Einstein himself confessed that his Special theory of relativity fails to apply to the phenomena of gravitation.

I don't think Einstein confessed that, because he developed the general theory of relativity to apply to gravity.

Eccentric1

[Stewart]

In reference to the name Apologia Wheel, IIRC from my research (before I became a member) of the posts on this forum it was John Collins that first applied the label of "Wheel" to the drawing. Before that, it was simply referred to as a drawing or sketch. Or decoder. :)

I'm not sure who first called it a wheel, but you're correct in thinking that it is not specifically labelled as anything by Bessler on the page. It's on the second from last page of AP. I suggested the possibility it might be a decoder wheel at one point, but have also suggested many other things it could represent over the years.

While we're on the subject of AP, I notice Rocky keeps referring to the metaphors section as "Little Book". When Bessler says:

who indeed is keen to question,
question this little book. &c.

...he is referring to the whole book itself. AP is a pocket book and measures only 9.5cm x 16cm, which is why he calls it a booklet or little book. If you're looking for some way to refer to the metaphors part then I would suggest calling it "chapter 46" or the "metaphors chapter".

Also, in chapter 46 Rocky has quoted a line "Children play with heavy clubs.". The word(s) translated in John's AP incorrectly as "clubs" should instead be translated as "marbles" (the children's toy).

I've been reading through Rocky's clue list this weekend and I like the way he's compiled it, but there are so many mistakes in the translations quoted that I just don't have the time to tackle correcting them at the moment. Many of them I have talked about several times on the forum, so hopefully people are aware of some of the main corrections. I'll continue to work on my own list of clues from my own translations and Rocky's list will be a useful guide as to what to include.

Stewart

[jim_mich]

Stewart, your "marble" translation was a most excellent achievement. The children's game of marbles consists of drawing a ring around some marbles then shooting or flicking marbles so that the impact of the shooter marble causes the other marbles to be bounced out of the circle.

So we might ask ourselves, "What does this have to do with Bessler's wheel?"

In the children's game of marbles, there is a transfer of momentum as marbles hit other marbles.
In Bessler's wheel, weights were heard hitting something, probably hitting the wheel pushing it forward.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim-mich,

Not forgetting there are many games of marbles, we used to dig a small hole and flick the marbles into the hole, you keep going until all the marbles are in the hole, if you miss then the next person takes a turn. there is a large number of different rules as well, Playing for keeps also spring to mind, still it was only last week lol!
Regards Trevor
Edit, spelling, -ww

[daanopperman]

Perpetual Motionist ,
For many of the forum members ,including myself , it is inconceivable for gravity alone to drive a wheel , but there are so many roads we have not traveled . Where J.B. speak of a " heavy material body , in defiance of it's innate natural tendency to gravitate towards the center of the earth , could be induced to rise once more ." gravity cannot now or ever have the body rise again . See " innate natural tendency " . It must be something else that cause the body to rise , and it is this " something " that we have missing in or toil .
In a " WHEEL " , gravity can be the effect that rotate the wheel , but it cannot be the cause , we need a catalyst , something that is causing the weight to go overbalance .

On the other hand , like I said , there are many untraveled roads. One for me personally , is to have the weights not all on the wheel , but some on the axel , or the wheel as a whole , itself to shift some of the weights on the wheel out of balance . The reason for this line of thinking is to get away from weighted wheels , for J.B. say he can use spring's . If you use spring's , you need to tension the spring's , if you do not have weight's , what is going to tension the spring's . You will only have the weight of the wheel itself to do any work , once you have the spring's tensioned , you have some potential . If I drove over a lever on a pivot , the car will of cause have some resistance , but the car will not lift up if the lever sinks into the ground but the pivot point does not . Once the first lever is out under the wheel , some of it's potential energy is used to help the car negotiate the next lever in the form of leverage , not as potential energy . In this case , gravity have the car displaced the lever , but gravity did not , it was the car .

To me , J.B. have not spoken of a single way to turn a wheel , he was trying to confuse as much as he could . J.B. did not want anybody to find the "movement " he was talking about , he made sure you saw the effect , but not the cause . He stuck all kinds of way's in all of his preachings . His clue's is as good as Nostradamus quatrain's , you could fit anything that you know to it , and there are so many , and not all will be true , until the " movement " is found .

So , maybe , if members start to look for alternative way's but weight's , we might find the answer .

[Mark]

Rocky
Good job, man. It must have taken quite a while to compile that. I appreciate your effort and that you shared it.

One thing that I've wanted to do since I started with all this madness is to get clear in my mind, or at least on paper, which of the various clues were in reference to which wheel(s). Not that I'm sure it would help me in figuring anything out, but who knows, right?


Jim, nice picture.
(that's not sarcasm)


Stewart

I'm under the impression that Bessler never gave that diagram a name.

... it is not specifically labelled as anything by Bessler on the page. It's on the second from last page of AP.

Thank you for the heads-up, I'll do my due diligence. I have access to a scan of AP chapter two online but it's in untranslated form. I'll run it thru Google to get an idea of where on the page the bits I need are, and then use dict.cc to clean it up. If I still can't make sense of it, could I bug you for clarification?

Marbles... that reminds me ..... but I'll get back to you on that, later.

[Perpetual Motionist]

Hi Stewart

Those aren't Bessler's words. [GB] Gründlicher Bericht (Thorough Report), 1715 was written by one of Bessler's friends/patrons.

Thanks for correcting me.

Perpetual Motionist

[Perpetual Motionist]

Hi daanopperman

For many of the forum members ,including myself , it is inconceivable for gravity alone to drive a wheel , but there are so many roads we have not traveled . Where J.B. speak of a " heavy material body , in defiance of it's innate natural tendency to gravitate towards the center of the earth , could be induced to rise once more ." gravity cannot now or ever have the body rise again . See " innate natural tendency " . It must be something else that cause the body to rise , and it is this " something " that we have missing in or toil .
In a " WHEEL " , gravity can be the effect that rotate the wheel , but it cannot be the cause , we need a catalyst , something that is causing the weight to go overbalance .

In my opinion, it is not gravity alone but synergy of gravity and inertia that moves the wheel very similar to the encircling of planet around the Sun or similar to artificial satellite around the earth. While finding the solution of the Gravity Wheel, it is better to have a vertical picture of rotation of solar system in our mind, we see planets falling and rising around the Sun by mere agency of gravity and inertia. The rise of weight is accomplished by the property of inertia, the only problem in Gravity Wheel is we need additional "force" to overcome friction and require wheel to perform the work. Bessler constantly refers to achieve it by "his principle of excess weight"- that's the only secret. I agree, in his writings, Bessler has deliberately confused his fans at many places, especially, noteworthy is his misleading statements about the connection of weights to the axle by stating that weights do not hang on the axle directly. The fallacy of his statement is obvious because even the entire internal structure of the machine rests on the axle. In my view, the back and forth movements of weights, near and away from the center of the wheel involve both the components of the wheel- horizontal as well as vertical. While the horizontal component is more intimately related to and towards the periphery of the wheel, the vertical component bears direct relationship to the axle. Yes, Bessler often misleads as you stated, however, his unique drawing that looks like steering wheel of a car shows wedges 120 degree spatially placed around the periphery of the wheel but eventually terminating into the center, it unequivocally hints at the importance of design of axle. Your thoughts connected with design of the axle and placement of weights in relation to it are indeed crucial to the problem. I think you are moving in a right direction. Keep on digging!

perpetual motionist

[christo4_99]

In my opinion "it" can be defined as motion augmentation . Two weights with a more or less vertical range of motion affecting two weights with a more or less horizontal range of motion . Direct trade causing more height than width accelerated due to impact for the horizontal movement . The excess is the height horizontally transitioning to vertical but vertically on only one side at a time .