Your not the first to beat that horse, it comes here often.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... gony#46906
I am sure you know that was not what you were taught as a spermophile in university.
Impact is the Key
Moderator: scott
re: Impact is the Key
For Gimer (or any gravity expert), this question relates to your accelerating earth earlier.
A huge nuclear (so we don’t have to worry about fuel mass) spaceship goes to a planet with no atmosphere and is not in orbit, because it is too close. The spaceship turns around say at 1000m, but is greatly affected by the planets gravity and hovers there for 2 years. If the spaceship crashed after this time, it would have done so with only the PE for that 1000m. Question: where did the massive amount energy go for the two years?
Now, you will say during that time the energy was spent getting the planet closer to the spaceship.
Scenario number 2, now imagine there are two huge space ships hovering the same 1000m, but the second is now 180 degrees around the other side of the planet. Now the planet cannot move toward either spaceship as it is in the middle. Where is the energy going for two years?
A huge nuclear (so we don’t have to worry about fuel mass) spaceship goes to a planet with no atmosphere and is not in orbit, because it is too close. The spaceship turns around say at 1000m, but is greatly affected by the planets gravity and hovers there for 2 years. If the spaceship crashed after this time, it would have done so with only the PE for that 1000m. Question: where did the massive amount energy go for the two years?
Now, you will say during that time the energy was spent getting the planet closer to the spaceship.
Scenario number 2, now imagine there are two huge space ships hovering the same 1000m, but the second is now 180 degrees around the other side of the planet. Now the planet cannot move toward either spaceship as it is in the middle. Where is the energy going for two years?
Last edited by daxwc on Wed May 13, 2009 2:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Think of gravity as a vertical wind and Bessler's wheel as a windmill with an axis (axle) perpendicular to the wind. I believe that the task Bessler was engaged on when he fell to his death (bit ironic that gravity should have killed him) was building a windmill with an axis perpendicular to the wind.AB Hammer wrote:Grimer
When a gravity wheel is realized and creating energy. How would you describe gravity then? And how is it producing energy? Or is it more of a conversion force to energy?
So it is producing energy in a similar way to that produced by the atmospheric wind. It blows unopposed on the side where the weights are in free fall but on the side where the weights are being lifted the net force is lessened by the opposition of a counteracting force.
Simple enough once you can accept the idea Newton toyed with but did not develop. But then he was anally retentive bugger. He sat on the calculus for years which led to all that argy-bargy with Leibniz.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Re: re: Impact is the Key
Can I answer for "Gimer".daxwc wrote:For Gimer (or any gravity expert), this question relates to your accelerating earth earlier.
A huge nuclear (so we don’t have to worry about fuel mass) spaceship goes to a planet with no atmosphere and is not in orbit, because it is too close. The spaceship turns around say at 1000m, but is greatly affected by the planets gravity and hovers there for 2 years. If the spaceship crashed after this time, it would have done so with only the PE for that 1000m. Question: where did the massive amount energy go for the two years?
Now, you will say during that time the energy was spent getting the planet was closer to the spaceship.
Scenario number 2, now imagine there are two huge space ships hovering the same 1000m, but the second is now 180 degrees around the other side of the planet. Now the planet cannot move toward either spaceship as it is in the middle. Where is the energy going for two years?
I don't think I understand your question. If it's not in low orbit and there is no atmosphere, how does it hover?
And I think the English of this sentence might need some more work.
"Now, you will say during that time the energy was spent getting the planet was closer to the spaceship."
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Impact is the Key
Grimer:
Yes thanks... dyslexia you knowAnd I think the English of this sentence might need some more work
The same way any spaceship moves in space. I am sure a controlled burn could be found.how does it hover?
re: Impact is the Key
The problem is no work is being done according to science.
Hmm... doesn't seem right... let me think on it.
And where did it disappear to after ejecting?The energy is going into ejecting whatever stuff it is ejecting in order to keep it hovering
Hmm... doesn't seem right... let me think on it.
re: Impact is the Key
Just like the recoil of a gun, half the force would be on the spaceship. Half of the energy should be going with it too.
If you can prove gravity consumes energy, then it is not hard to believe gravity will also give energy up. Most likely gravity will give up energy only at the expense of something else, say like rotation momentum, but it doesn't hurt to look.
If you can prove gravity consumes energy, then it is not hard to believe gravity will also give energy up. Most likely gravity will give up energy only at the expense of something else, say like rotation momentum, but it doesn't hurt to look.
Energy cannot be produced nor destroyed. However, if E=MC2 is correct, and there is a lot of evidence that it is, then gravity itself is the result of massive ammounts energy being converted to force. Namely the force of gravity. If this is true than perhaps force (gravity) can be converted back into energy. This phenomena has been witnessed in the form of gravity creating friction which intern creates heat AKA energy...AB Hammer wrote: When a gravity wheel is realized and creating energy. How would you describe gravity then? And how is it producing energy? Or is it more of a conversion force to energy?
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Impact is the Key
What's this about gravity creating friction? At absolute zero there would be just a bunch of atoms hanging around doing nothing. Yet they would all still be attracted to each other because gravity would still exist. Additional energy would need be added to get these atoms moving around, i.e., be heated, which wouldn't be gravity, but would be something other than gravity. E=mc2, for example, or maybe friction.
re: Impact is the Key
JIM W,
As I stated on another thread regarding the triad of force, even gasoline is only potential energy until two other ingredients are introduced: an oxidizer and a kindling point.
As I learned in middle school science class gravity is a triad. friction making sparks is because gravity is playing on the moving mass. without gravity their would be no mass or sparks.
Ralph
As I stated on another thread regarding the triad of force, even gasoline is only potential energy until two other ingredients are introduced: an oxidizer and a kindling point.
As I learned in middle school science class gravity is a triad. friction making sparks is because gravity is playing on the moving mass. without gravity their would be no mass or sparks.
Ralph
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Impact is the Key
Ralph - Bet to differ. Perhaps one of the physics people here can explain it better than I can. Gravity for its part supplies none of the energy. It's like saying a heavy weight attached to a clock to make the clock run means the clock is powered by gravity. It's not. The energy comes from someone lifting the weight back up so the clock can continue to run. The energy is not from the gravity, it's in the resistance to gravity by lifting the weight back up. The same is true when matter is collapsed by gravity. The heat generated is not from the gravity itself, it's from the resistance of atoms to being crushed. The heat energy is not being supplied by gravity's energy anymore than gravity energy itself is a source of energy to power a clock. Gravity is not a component of the triad.
Jim W.
Jim W.
Re: re: Impact is the Key
Jim W.
you wrote:
Gravity for its part supplies none of the energy. Then you say; 'The same is true when matter is collapsed by gravity' Collapsing matter sound like it would take force.
Everything from growing grass to creating combustion fits into a triad. Bill often refers to hydroelectric power and how the water is cycled by solar heat.
If it were not for gravity then how would it fall to turn the turbines, solar heat must be a resistance to gravity not unlike raising the weights on the clock.
By the way! I will soon be sending you a private e-mail via the forum.
Ralph
you wrote:
Gravity for its part supplies none of the energy. Then you say; 'The same is true when matter is collapsed by gravity' Collapsing matter sound like it would take force.
Is it not and if not then what are the weights for?It's like saying a heavy weight attached to a clock to make the clock run means the clock is powered by gravity.
Why is their resistance to gravity if gravity has no force?It's not. The energy comes from someone lifting the weight back up so the clock can continue to run. The energy is not from the gravity, it's in the resistance to gravity by lifting the weight back up.
Resistance is gravity pushing down on a mass and true it will not create heat, That takes another force to overcome the force of gravity called inertia. If I remember my basic physics; heat is the acceleration of electrons which you might say is resistance to gravity. Which once again brings up the question resistance to what if gravity is not a force?The heat generated is not from the gravity itself, it's from the resistance of atoms to being crushed.
Jim, this is all in jest, so please: No debating! IMO there are many points of contradiction to gravity being a conservative force. Even its name is contradictory. Our goal in seeking Bessler's secret would best be served by considering gravity a component of the triad.The heat energy is not being supplied by gravity's energy anymore than gravity energy itself is a source of energy to power a clock. Gravity is not a component of the triad.
Everything from growing grass to creating combustion fits into a triad. Bill often refers to hydroelectric power and how the water is cycled by solar heat.
If it were not for gravity then how would it fall to turn the turbines, solar heat must be a resistance to gravity not unlike raising the weights on the clock.
By the way! I will soon be sending you a private e-mail via the forum.
Ralph