Anyone suffer health problems over this?

[Johndoe2]

ME until you define and acknowledge the box that “ science� has tried to put us (everyone) in you will not make much if any progtess towards pmm.

As someone as smart as you you just have to open your eyes to see and easily find pm. I have posted a few examples of pm and posdible pmm machines and have not been seriously challenged.

Wr have had discussions like this before and i could “show� you or explain to you why science is weong but you would bot believe me or just regurgetate the same bs science has been shoveling since newton.

[ME]

GPE is not compared to a spring, a mass does not increase in weight as lifted, it is the harmonic motion which changes the speed of lift, the speed of lift refers to F= MxA

Well when you don't like the box of physics, then invent your own box and project your own jargon that applies to your own pet-idea onto anything you see out there... even if it's totally irrelevant.

As long as we can calculate the effect where GPE is converted into spring-potential, and spring potential can be converted into some momentum, and this momentum gives an object some height in a gravitational field...
...then yes, GPE can be converted into spring potential.... it also helps to know what energy actually is.

I know it's extremely rare on this forum, but I just checked if my suspicion is actually in line with the physics simulator.

So I made a simulation where I eyeballed the heights to show if that the momentum-transfer actually happens..
Who knows, I could talk total nonsense. And we can't have that!

The red-weight weighs 1.5 times the smaller weight... and there: see it fly.
And we can compare this effect with the video. By the looks of it it seems to me that once again the simulator is perfectly capable of predicting reality.
Those who have an elastic surface at hand could verify this in some laboratory setting.


Johndoe2... Science is not some cult. Although I wouldn't be surprise there exists some obscure ones.
"Science" is both a verb as a methodology to find truth. So yes, phuck the peeps who tell you differently, no matter how academically ranked.
Yet things don't suddenly work differently by fantasy, goodwill, hope, dreams, or perseverance alone...
And that's the crux as usual... but luckily we can simply apply a verification process to see what method is better able to predict what will happen.

So when you show a PMM to whomever suspects/thinks/calculates it doesn't work, then the only thing you have to do is show us a way to verify what you already did for yourself - assuming that it's not some random wild idea.
Note that "closed-eyes" is not a verifiable thing... you are just guessing. But nevertheless you blame those "closed-eyed"-people for not seeing what you apparently see.
How can we?

When you are the one who understands some principle and you want to show, then you are also the one who can explain things in a multitude of ways.
So, maybe you shouldn't give up explaining too fast.... as long as it is about explaining what you know instead of complaining about what the rest of us don't know (or see).

[cloud camper]

Marchello - you forgot to throw in the magic ingredient - the sandwiches!

Epic fail!

[Georg Künstler]

Hi ME,
what Johndoe2 and also I like to express is that the software, even it is the best up to now can not handle what is going on in Besslers wheel.

And you are right there will be then another Box that has to be developed.
I several times showed the indirect impact, the blocking device and and and.
This are results from experimenting ,not theoretical.

You must not agree to other's view of things.
I speak for my development, I can calculate everything by hand.
So I need no computer program.
The computer program is truncating your possibility, giving you some error message like function become instable, stop.

And in the result you calculate from hand.

And by the way, I have written some of this simulation programs. I am not a user of this software, I am developing it.
So when I limit the functionality, you are blind, so to speak.

But anyway, I will prove my calculations with a real build, and then I will adapt the simulation software.

[Johndoe2]

ME.
Hypothesis based on video provided.
1)
2 people weight the same. Each person jumps individually and reach roughly the same height of say 1 meter. 1 person plus height attained of 2 meter + 2nd person jumping attain the height of 1 neter =y

2) 2 people junp person A jumps 1/2 height and petspn b jumps full height . Person A lands .5 seconds before person b compresdong spring x distance. Person b now has farther to fall before contacting surface spring gaining additional potential energy. Now contacting the compressed spring compress it more from additional energy gained. This provides additional spring effect greater than initial test ( a+b <a2+b2) in total height.

Theory is synergesyic effect in action. My theory. (not synergy just results of experiment. Lol)

[Johndoe2]

Simulation 2 equal weight balls
Ball a dropped from 1/2 the height of ball b. .05 seconds before ball b. Ball b travels greater spring distance than both balls dropped from same 1 meter test..

[Johndoe2]

Im not complaining about you or sny one in general but science and the way that it trts to restrict thoughts and ideas.

For example all my life i was told we can Never see a black hole because light cannot escape. So i should never attempt to see a bkack hole ( my thoughts my prison in my mind created by science and media) a few days ago they were like “ oh remember when we said noone could see one? Yea we were wrong and here is proof!�

[cloud camper]

No sandwiches = no synergy, sorry.

[Johndoe2]

If you end up with more potential energy than you started yiu have violated newtons precious little laws. Oh no the police are goinh to arrest you ! Or maybe the universe will implode! &#128514;

[Johndoe2]

Wait for the results and see who is this eating what. I am allergic to crow my friend

[raj]

I graduated with a degree in Maths and Computer Science in UK in 1980. I learnt and did computer programming and algorithm on main frame computer.
After my graduation, I worked as a computer programmer in a knitwear factory, on an APPLE II, which has just come on the market, working on computerized wages, production control, with piece rate system.

There was no single software available in the whole world market place then.

Unfortunately I moved away from computers within a couple of years, But computer science moved on at gigantic pace and after 40 years or so, I am left miles behind.

What I know after all these years, is that a computer software is only as good as the programmer own ability to write the algorithm that a machine can follow and give an answer that the programmer would get after doing the calculation himself, in days, months and even years.

Since I am familiar with computer algorithm, and I have plenty of free time, I just follow my wheels concepts algorithms in real time.

AND I LOVE IT.

An algorithm is just a set of oral or written instructions to do certain actions that anybody can do if the follow the instructions properly.

For an example of algorithm/instructions:
Instruction to touch one's nose.

If I instruct a person to touch his nose thus: Lift your right arm, stretching your forefinger, touch your nose.

And I instruct a second person to touch his nose thus: Lift your right arm, turn it on the right, behind your head, past your left ear, stretching your fore finger, touch your nose.

The first person can do it easily.
The second person will say it can't be done.

Raj

[Johndoe2]

I trust ME's cimputer skills and to be honest and fair. If I am wrong I will apologize to everyone I have offended by running my big fat mouth about shit I know nothing about. Maybe even apologize to cloudcamper &#128514;.

[Fletcher]

The thing is, with the kinematic sim Working Model 2D, IIRC, it was beta tested by up to 10,000 programmers, physicists, and engineers, over many many years. It is used in commercial industry which gives it some legit.

It ain't broke.

It does a sterling job of predicting physical outcomes, without resorting to spreadsheet, graph paper, and math equations, or the Laws of Newtonian Physics.

If what you are doing is trying to break the Laws (and the math) then perhaps you should consider working with them, not trying to step outside them. That would seem illogical and a Hail Mary approach, imo.

ME is totally correct in his sim of the two balls bouncing on a spring tramp. In every instance the system CoM will initially lower then recover to near original height. The only exception that I know of is when a steel ball is dropped onto a artificially cooled steel horizontal plate. Then it will bounce higher than start height and the CoM increases over start height, IINM.

[Johndoe2]

I'm not trying to break any software. Just a simple drop test to see if my theory is correct. ME and others asked for a non living example as proof the laws of thermal Dynamics are BS. So between his video and my video I am asking for the above said conditions of a Sim of a drop test. If I'm wrong I'll shut up but based on his video I believe it will produce a correct result.

[Johndoe2]

At present I am trying to create a PMM machine the last thing I am worried about is some mathematician telling me why it will not work.
After it is running then I can validate my math and tell him why he is wrong and what to do with his math all the way back to newton that says it's impossible . Maybe even thank him for his help in the Blue print of my design