Yes Ralph, i saw your response that your concept exists in nature. But your concept isn't perpetual motion. I don't need to know specifics.
I may be unpopular here, but that is ok. I don't mind playing Wagner's part.
Just because you can't figure out how he could have done it if he was stretching truth, doesn't mean he didn't stretch truth.
Did you ever consider he was stretching truth and approach problem from there?
A lighter wheel than we have been led to believe fits environmental solution.
All I am saying is consider possibility, he was only human.
Why bother posting?
Moderator: scott
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
Some, including myself, also argue that if one actually could somehow use gravity to power a device, then technically speaking there would be an open system and thus the device wouldn't fit the true definition of a "perpetual motion machine."
There does seem to be energy stored in the gravitational field - somehow stored in the separation of masses - and also, of course, there is energy stored in the motion of mass.
So, to account for the energy of a working gravity powered device, again if such a thing is/were possible, we would have to consider interactions with a much larger system.
ETA: ...and in ways that may have not been considered before.
Dwayne
There does seem to be energy stored in the gravitational field - somehow stored in the separation of masses - and also, of course, there is energy stored in the motion of mass.
So, to account for the energy of a working gravity powered device, again if such a thing is/were possible, we would have to consider interactions with a much larger system.
ETA: ...and in ways that may have not been considered before.
Dwayne
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
jim_mich, you didn't think the reason I gave you was good?! Maybe you should reconsider it.jim_mich wrote:No one gave any good reasons why I (or anyone) should bother posting in the Bessler Wheel Forum.
Here, let me say it again with some added emphasis.
After posting some of your ideas in this forum, others were able to scrutinize them and properly criticize them so that you've had to actually recant them! ...but of course, you were then able to go on to say that your corrected understanding of things would make your own stuff work even better, though!!
How, then, could that possibly not be a good thing?!! Seriously!!
I think you really need to reconsider your very pessimistic outlook on things here.
Again, by posting your notions here, you were able to have some of them corrected and then you were able to claim that you were better off for it!!
...but... ...okay... ...okay... ..let me give you another reason, too.
The constant soap opera is kind of entertaining. "These are the Days of our Lies" "As the Forum Churns" "Breaking Bad"
...and even beyond the serial drama aspect of it all, I think we are also getting to see an interesting side of human nature that may also carry on into other parts of people's lives - like in politics and cults and religions and clubs.
Think the cult leader actually needs the validation of his blind followers and believers to reinforce his own possibly nutty and incorrect beliefs? Think the leaders and the followers feed off of one another in that aspect?
It would seem a true leader would encourage others to "seek the truth" and to "test the spirits" of those making claims - even their own claims, of course - and by even encouraging others to always "test whatever the claimed ideas against reality" - rather than to "just believe them," of course.
Oh, and so your posting in this thread has led to your ideas being challenged by your very own skeptical peers and in such a way that you have now had to admit that you thus far can only "believe" you have an answer and that you haven't actually validated it the only way that it can be validated - through proper experiments and tests.
That, of course, is your "catch-22." You can't claim to first have something that works until, of course, you've seen that you actually have something that works.
Of course, though, if you were to claim that, you could still be lying or having delusional hallucinations. ...but at least we don't have to consider those possibilities yet, huh?
If you can't share your ideas in enough detail that they can be properly evaluated and tested by others, then what we others believe about those ideas really doesn't matter - and so, of course, shouldn't matter to you.
You need to do what many of us are trying to do with our own ideas - and that is to validate them - and then if you are successful you can truly lead - instead of doing all this misleading.
Also, if you were actually sincere, daxwc has also listed some rather good reasons for posting in this forum.
Dwayne
Last edited by Furcurequs on Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
Dunes,Dunesbury wrote:Yes Ralph, i saw your response that your concept exists in nature. But your concept isn't perpetual motion. I don't need to know specifics.
I may be unpopular here, but that is ok. I don't mind playing Wagner's part.
Just because you can't figure out how he could have done it if he was stretching truth, doesn't mean he didn't stretch truth.
Did you ever consider he was stretching truth and approach problem from there?
A lighter wheel than we have been led to believe fits environmental solution.
All I am saying is consider possibility, he was only human.
You are correct in stating that I cannot figure out how he done it! That is why after years thinking of how many others over 3oo years have not been able to find it. I gave up. Was he stretching the truth? If he was, does that imply that those who witnessed his machine also lied? I do not pursue Bessler's wheel design, I rely on the witnesses statements; simply that a self sustaining mechanism is possible.
I have never claimed, IIRC that any of my research and designs were alleged perpetual motion machines or gravity machines. To me it makes no difference. I am seen as a gravity prone person, only because without gravity mass is useless.
liquid seeks its own level nature abides to this, what causes it to do so if not gravity?
Thank you for the opportunity to speak my opinion!
Ralph
Thank you!Dunesbury wrote:If one could actually use gravity to power a device, technically it would still be closed system. Gravity is everywhere, so it doesn't have to cross system boundaries, it would be part of system, and, part of system environment. It would fit definition of true PM, in my opinion.
Ralph
re: Why bother posting?
Dwayne wrote:
Open loop, closed loop, perpetual motion, gravity wheel,etc... They all have one thing in common, as long as they are earthbound gravity is going to play a role.
Ralph
Does it really matter and is it worth debating before we find it? I am happy with the words; "self-sustaining machine"... Find the solution and build it, let others decide what they wish to call it.Some, including myself, also argue that if one actually could somehow use gravity to power a device, then technically speaking there would be an open system and thus the device wouldn't fit the true definition of a "perpetual motion machine."
Open loop, closed loop, perpetual motion, gravity wheel,etc... They all have one thing in common, as long as they are earthbound gravity is going to play a role.
Ralph
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
Well, if I actually got something working I would, of course, brag that I had built a working perpetual motion machine! I would then go on to explain, though, the theory behind how it was working and show that what needed to be understood was already in the physics books.
That's assuming that what I got working was based upon my current working hypothesis that I've had for several several years now and that I've been trying to test. If one were to get something working, he would surely know how it worked, don't you think?
...but again my ideas currently just fall into the realm of "working hypothesis."
I'm currently not looking for mechanisms. I'm just trying to complete things I've started.
That's assuming that what I got working was based upon my current working hypothesis that I've had for several several years now and that I've been trying to test. If one were to get something working, he would surely know how it worked, don't you think?
...but again my ideas currently just fall into the realm of "working hypothesis."
I'm currently not looking for mechanisms. I'm just trying to complete things I've started.
re: Why bother posting?
I am not sure the scientific community will ever call it a perpetual motion machine because the energy source will always be identified sooner or later.
What goes around, comes around.
daxwc
Well it could change their understanding of gravity. For it to work from gravity? Gravity will have to be considered to be an energy. At least convertible to an energy, but then they will have to consider that it took energy to make gravity. All and all it will be fun to watch the scramble. LOL
Alan
Well it could change their understanding of gravity. For it to work from gravity? Gravity will have to be considered to be an energy. At least convertible to an energy, but then they will have to consider that it took energy to make gravity. All and all it will be fun to watch the scramble. LOL
Alan
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
Yeah, that was sort of my earlier point. I highly suspect that if it is possible to build a working device, the conservation of energy and momentum laws will probably still hold true and so the source of the energy will ultimately be understandable. Which would mean that it wouldn't be the creation of energy from nothing and so in that respect it would not be considered a perpetual motion machine. The device would just be tapping into a source of energy that may have been there all along.
A working device would definitely open up new ways of thinking in the scientific community, though. Thinking about this stuff myself has led me to speculate that it might change the interpretation of the relativistic view of things from the "warping" of space and time to explaining the math from an understanding of perhaps an actual "flow" of mass and with it energy - with the mass here being the "m" in the momentum and (relativistic) energy equations. Different systems of mass that we would call "particles" would thus have different internal "clock" rates because they may actually have differing amounts of internal mass when moving relative to one another. ...which might ultimately mean that not all reference frames are created equal. "Accelerations" would then be due to just exchanges and/or transfers of mass on a subatomic level. Anyway, for now that's getting a bit beyond just coming up with a working device, I guess.
A working device would definitely open up new ways of thinking in the scientific community, though. Thinking about this stuff myself has led me to speculate that it might change the interpretation of the relativistic view of things from the "warping" of space and time to explaining the math from an understanding of perhaps an actual "flow" of mass and with it energy - with the mass here being the "m" in the momentum and (relativistic) energy equations. Different systems of mass that we would call "particles" would thus have different internal "clock" rates because they may actually have differing amounts of internal mass when moving relative to one another. ...which might ultimately mean that not all reference frames are created equal. "Accelerations" would then be due to just exchanges and/or transfers of mass on a subatomic level. Anyway, for now that's getting a bit beyond just coming up with a working device, I guess.
Last edited by Furcurequs on Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: Why bother posting?
Alan,
Does gravity need an example to prove it will do work, If so I will give you one:
In the days of sailing ships and cockle shells and the harbor was not large enough for a ship to 'tack', the following phrase was used:
"The ship will be leaving the harbor on the outgoing tide"
Gravity makes for the tide, the water is moving laterally the ship is using this force to assist it in getting out of the harbor. The ship is moving with the water in motion, As long as it is moving it is mass in motion, which is also considered doing "Work"
Now the armchair theorists can jump on this explaining how this effects the orbit of the moon etc... stating that you do not get something for nothing. My only response is: it has been happening since the creation of the earth and moon. has sailing vessels had a noticeable effect on this act of nature?
Ralph
Does gravity need an example to prove it will do work, If so I will give you one:
In the days of sailing ships and cockle shells and the harbor was not large enough for a ship to 'tack', the following phrase was used:
"The ship will be leaving the harbor on the outgoing tide"
Gravity makes for the tide, the water is moving laterally the ship is using this force to assist it in getting out of the harbor. The ship is moving with the water in motion, As long as it is moving it is mass in motion, which is also considered doing "Work"
Now the armchair theorists can jump on this explaining how this effects the orbit of the moon etc... stating that you do not get something for nothing. My only response is: it has been happening since the creation of the earth and moon. has sailing vessels had a noticeable effect on this act of nature?
Ralph
re: Why bother posting?
Ralph, you can't disregard the truth just by saying the words "armchair theorist"
Trillions of years ago, the moon was closer to the earth (actually, it was also closer yesterday), and it probably spun at some point. The earths rotation is also slowing. Yes Ralph, the tides are at the cost of the kinetic energy of the earth/moon system, they are not perpetual motion. The sun is not perpetual, and the movement of the planets and their orbits will change eventually based on losses of energy, also not perpetual. physicists (armchair theorists who base their views on experiments past and present) calls it "Entropy".
Trillions of years ago, the moon was closer to the earth (actually, it was also closer yesterday), and it probably spun at some point. The earths rotation is also slowing. Yes Ralph, the tides are at the cost of the kinetic energy of the earth/moon system, they are not perpetual motion. The sun is not perpetual, and the movement of the planets and their orbits will change eventually based on losses of energy, also not perpetual. physicists (armchair theorists who base their views on experiments past and present) calls it "Entropy".