IS it or, is it NOT?

[eccentrically1]

the energy "made available" by the devices could likely be accounted for by an almost imperceptible change in earth motion due to the earth's relatively massive inertia

That's one reason it doesn't work. Any force (gravity in this case) is opposed (by the normal force from the earth).

Good luck

[Furcurequs]

That's one reason it doesn't work.

If "it" is one of my device designs which you surely have not yet seen, then you do not have enough information to make such a proclamation with any degree of authority.

I'm sure you believe you are right based upon what maybe you and I both have been spoonfed during a formal education and/or maybe based upon what those in mainstream science would currently proclaim (and/or maybe even what you yourself have yet seen and understand) - and surely based upon a history of perhaps similar pursuits your assertion would even be considered a rather safe bet - probably true - most likely true - almost certainly true.

...but it, of course, is not necessarily true.

Any force (gravity in this case) is opposed (by the normal force from the earth).

...except for when and where it's not (in regards to the earth and its force of gravity on another mass).

...and some forces are also only opposed by the inertia of the accelerating masses that are gaining energy (considering ones reference frame).

Anyway, I apologize for having spoken of things I'm not yet prepared to fully share online. I try to avoid that as much as possible, but it seems to happen when I enter speculative conversations.

If you were a local friend or even acquaintance, I would be much more open in sharing both my ideas and actual designs. I'm just not ready to publish them online yet nor do I really want them floating out there in cyberspace somewhere beyond my control.

Thankfully, though, I plan to do good (mad and amateur) science! So, I also plan to eventually publish my hypotheses, device designs and experimental results - and regardless of their outcome.

Good luck

Thanks. I'll still certainly take all that I can get.

Dwayne

[primemignonite]

The matter is far from settled.

If you believe the luminous ether theory as espoused by Tesla, gravity IS the expression of transfer of energy towards and through physical objects.

Has anyone thought of what source of energy is used to keep elementary particles spinning? Are they just unacknowledged perpetual motion devices that spin endlessly of their own accord?

Without a continuous influx of energy these particles would slow to a stop similar to all other macroscopic processes. According to Tesla, gravity IS the source of this energy.

Modern physics even today has an intractable problem with their own concept of the missing ether.

By Einsteins theory of relativity, we have the absolute requirement of no ether field in which to define the curvature of space. With the presence of an ether field, Einstein's theory falls apart according to his own admission.

Then by the principles of quantum mechanics we have the absolute requirement for an ether field to exist.

This is due to the fact that quantum mechanics defines all matter to be composed of a combined wave/particle duality. A missing ether field is fine for particles but for a wave, there is no known physical model for it's existence without a physical medium (ether) in which to propagate.

Einstein himself hated quantum mechanics as he knew it meant the invalidation of his ideas. He died still trying to come up with his own description of elementary processes that did not require a wave/particle duality.

Both theories of special relativity and quantum mechanics are accepted as fact but yet are totally incompatible with each other for this and other reasons. Why should we then believe either one of these theories is correct?

So nothing is settled, everything is in flux. My money is on NT.

Very nice, c-c!

Then, would your paragraph from above "If you believe the luminous ether theory as espoused by Tesla, gravity IS the expression of transfer of energy towards and through physical objects." not tend to indicate that the author I quoted from Wikipedia, also believes at least similarly?

When I read that there, I was astounded, as he absolutely had excepted gravity from the laws that govern other "kinds of energy". This is the very thing that inspired this thread.

Again, for review, the quote-of-note:

"Most kinds of energy (with gravitational energy being a notable exception)[10] . . ."

"The matter is far from settled." - cloud camper

INDEED!

But, we are getting there.

AtB(s)!

James

[Dwylbtzle]

patrick flanagan, who claims he is tesla re-incarnated, had a frictionless smoke ring ether theory

the rings, once started, would never stop
and some would be swirling from the inside out
and some would be swirling from the outside in
so some would attract and some would repel
(he drank a lot of mercury, though, apparently, in his sordid youth)
no--really: (by his own account)
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... b88d7e623e