P.S. I noticed there is an educational Version of WM2D available now, called Interactive Physics. It the same as WM2D for a 10th of the price :)
I had IP first, and thought I was going to get a huge upgrade when I got WM2D. I started it up, and it is literally the same program, made by the same company. Interchangable in every aspect that I have seen so far.
I think WM2D serves the definite purpose of at least telling you when you're wrong. Perhaps it can tell you when you're right, but that is yet to be seen. I'd recommend anyone to download the free version (everything is free on the internet) just to check it out and see others' simulations. Start with simple designs and move your way up. If you can draw with the competence of a 3rd grader, you can probably get your feet wet in WM2D and start learning the intricacies of the program. I myself am no expert in it, but in the short time I've been using it my knowledge of the program has grown by leaps and bounds.
And Jim, would you let me know how that satellite internet turns out? My father lives in a more rural part of the state and is also stuck with 23k. Direct TV internet is still a bit more than he'd like to pay.
Good points. wm2d could help spot things that might go unnoticed from just a build. Sorting out if it's a glitch in the software or a characteristic of the model can be tricky.
At first this pendulum looked as if it were sliding along the y axis with no change. There is a different picture when the resolution is increased. wm2d can help you see forces that might otherwise escape your notice. You could then examine your model at that point to see if the difference is real.
It's not a bad tool for the price. It gives third graders the ability of Einstien. I mispelled Einstien on purpose.
John Collins wrote:I agree with Gregory that no laws will be found to be flawed. I am in the process of writing a paper which seeks to explain why gravity wheels don't violate the laws of mainstream physics. I am sure that many will disagree with my 'proof' but I hope that it sows some seeds and perhaps provokes some discussion. I need a few more days to finalise it but hopefully I shall post it here.
I'm doing this as I once tried to do before in order to stimulate some thoughts about how we can explain this dilemma. I say dilemma because we seemingly have a paradox; Bessler has proved to us here that his machine was genuine and yet mainstream physics proves that such machines are impossible.
Either Bessler has fooled us - and I don't for a moment now believe that - or mainstream physics is wrong. By 'wrong' I don't mean that the laws are wrong - just our interpretation of them in some areas. I hope to develope this theme in my paper very soon.
John Collins
I think that what you will eventually find, if not already, is that individual shifters are required. There are eight of them. Each has six weights. The weights are all counterpoised against each other.
There is not enough room to make one giant shifter that would comprise the entire perimeter of the wheel, but eight smaller ones do nicely.
I see an ad for some clown named Ron Paul who's running for President.
Is that legal on this board? Various snooty personages get upset when anyone mentions religious beliefs (the mere mention means it it being rammed down your throat), but touting Ron Paul is OK
All I see is a clown called wikiwheel making baby noises again and expecting everything for FREE and offering nothing of value in return. Why don't you at least try to make a decent contribution Mik instead of just winging about everything at every opportunity. You remind me a little of a past waster on the forum, what was his name... something to do with oak... na, couldn't be :P
Some laws of physics have to be wrong for a perpetually rotating gravity wheel to be possible. Some of the laws are conclusions based on 100's of years of observations.
I think we've come to some wrong conclusions. I agree with you that Bessler didn't fool us with his wheels.
Either Bessler has fooled us - and I don't for a moment now believe that - or mainstream physics is wrong. By 'wrong' I don't mean that the laws are wrong - just our interpretation of them in some areas. I hope to develope this theme in my paper very soon.
The religious fervor over Ron had me thinking Jesus changed his name and we were witnessing the second coming. You can dress them up but politicians are all the same. You can't take them anywhere.
ovyyus wrote:All I see is a clown called wikiwheel making baby noises again and expecting everything for FREE and offering nothing of value in return. Why don't you at least try to make a decent contribution Mik instead of just winging about everything at every opportunity. You remind me a little of a past waster on the forum, what was his name... something to do with oak... na, couldn't be :P
ovyyus,
Hey man, I found a couple of henry dircks books in .pdf for the forum members. Remember? I hope the first pmm builder gets more credit than you've given me. And then there was the failed stoks bills experiment. It has been said that posting failures is good for the health of the research. Yes?
I have tried to respond two times to your other posts to me but the site here has rejected them.
I said briefly that your questions were red herrings and questioning my motives was a logical fallacy.
Several posts of mine have gone trrough in the meantime so I'm trying again.
Mainly i didn't respond to you because i forgot about doing so.
I am one of the people t5hat really values B ill's opinions and his humor. he comes down hard if he thinks that you are talking out of your arse. j. kelly
I agree with JK (welcome back James by the way) Bill is a steadfast member of this community who posts real plausible concepts and ideas that always get you thinking.
He is also a straight talker which is sometimes a breath of fresh air.
Please don't run a person down because he says it as it is.
Kas
“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
ovyyus wrote:All I see is a clown called wikiwheel making baby noises again and expecting everything for FREE and offering nothing of value in return. Why don't you at least try to make a decent contribution Mik instead of just winging about everything at every opportunity. You remind me a little of a past waster on the forum, what was his name... something to do with oak... na, couldn't be :P
ovyyus,
Hey man, I found a couple of henry dircks books in .pdf for the forum members. Remember? I hope the first pmm builder gets more credit than you've given me. And then there was the failed stoks bills experiment. It has been said that posting failures is good for the health of the research. Yes?
I have tried to respond two times to your other posts to me but the site here has rejected them.
I said briefly that your questions were red herrings and questioning my motives was a logical fallacy.
Several posts of mine have gone trrough in the meantime so I'm trying again.
Mainly i didn't respond to you because i forgot about doing so.
That's how important it was...
Mik
Big Jim,
I might consider taking it back, If "O" here takes back what he said about me never contributing anything. Like thay say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Or Are the anointed exempt from this standards??
As you can see, I didn't get too hot and bothered about it.
Really, is your standing here so fragile that you have to be so defensive?
Mik
pS; my cf workings are not working. but i am on to something else an am xtatic.
[edit by scott: deleted waste of space attachments]
Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot to respond on this one and you said it wasn't important. How's this: Thanks so very much wikiwheel for scanning all those pages of Henry Dirck's book and posting them on the internet. It must have been a huge and time consuming effort, well done!
Oh, hang on a minute, you just found and posted an internet link - lol
