". . . . Violations of such principles are ruled out . . ."

[primemignonite]

On July 4, "jonnynet" wrote on his poll inquiring about the use of springs in a Besslerian Wheel, as follows, in part:

"...bitter reality! a mechanism that is self-sustaining must be godlike. . . ."

The intensity and straightforwardness of his exclamation really impressed me.

and then . . .

While going through Scott's excellent collection of links on this site on the outside, I found one linking to an article written by Tom Van Flandern and appearing on his own site, I believe, named Meta Research.

The article itself is entitled The Speed of Gravity - Repeal of the Speed Limit. Although the entire work is utterly fascinating and well worth a careful read, the part of greatest interest and relevance to me is under 2. Principles and definitions, it being the very first paragraph and reproduced here verbatim:

"Mathematics and physics take fundamentally different approaches to describing nature. The former is more concerned with what might be possible, and the latter with what is definitely real. Math is constrained by the need for internal consistency, but is generally oblivious to external constraints. Physics has it's laws too, and these can change as knowledge improves. But physics is rigorously constrained by it's principles, which have no counterparts in mathematics. [8.] Examples are the causality principle "every effect must have a proximate, antecedent cause" and the prohibition against "creation ex nihilo". Violations of such principles are ruled out as requiring magic, a miracle, or the supernatural. Although mathematically allowed, they are said to be "physically impossible".

[Underscoring for emphasis, mine]

The whole thing was an eye opener, but what struck me so, was Van Flandern's stating that mathematics allowed for predictions, or conceptualizations, of such phenomena, but NOT physics! Well, now, isn't THIS most interesting? Mathematics, technically, strictly, DOES, but asserts NOT in the physical plane, but rather, only in the theoretical!!!

Eeeeeeeeeegads, Martha!

Well, OK, given that operating wheel spinning away self-animated and considered along with the above shocker, I ask: WITH WHAT MAY WE ACTUALLY BE DEALING?

Also, in light of the foregoing, might it not serve us some to consider at this point the following: that all our senses (the standard five) are severely bandwidth-limited (distrained ab initio a natura), and in fact, on account of this, we can only expect to be detecting a certain fraction of all potential activity taking place around us at any given time, and that being only within that very real, limiting condition?

The basic point of what I present here being, that mathematics seems to be able to go places where physics and physicists dare not, and, that we humans cannot know of but a fraction of what is taking place around us. Such undetectable activity might serve to explain the general compulsion so common among humans, toward the mystical so as to explain the otherwise unexplainable. At such a point, need for understanding regarding it, becomes a rational one, but because it is usually emotionally expressed, it is dismissed with prejudice because of this general mis-understanding of it's actual physical realities.

And finally, it now naturally occurs to me to wonder, was Leibniz more mathematician or more physicist (natural philosopher)? One side pulled him strongly toward Bessler and his Wheel, while the other put him in denial of it as a possibility, along the lines of PM, as understood by the definition for it of that time, at least.

James

P.S. Dr. Van Flandern comes with some really heavy-duty main stream credentials. Here is the link to the original, complete article: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/g ... _limit.asp

[ken_behrendt]

Van Flandern wrote:

But physics is rigorously constrained by it's principles, which have no counterparts in mathematics

I do not think there is as much "constraint" in physics as he implies.

Physical principles are all just the simplest mathematical expressions which describe the data we currently have. They do not really "explain" anything, but just offer tentative descriptions. In time, as more data is collected, old principles may fail to adequately describe the new data and new principles must then be crafted to provide descriptions that will include the new data. Ultimately, however, all of these descriptions are reducible to mathematical symbols.

In mathematics, we see much the same process at work. Mathematics is the science of reasoning with symbols. Those symbols may or may not describe actual physical situations. When they do describe physical situations then, inevitably, the mathematician / scientist crafting the description finds that, in order to make the expressions as simple as possible, he must begin to make approximations or even ignore various "trivial" parts of the description. Thus, at best, he can only obtain an approximate description of the "real" world with mathematics. However, when mathematics is used to make descriptions of the "conceptual" world, then it can, indeed, be very precise as, for example, in the realm of geometry.

Einstein (one of my personal heroes) once said "Abstract mathematics is real and the real world is abstract.". He well understood the limitations of using mathematics to describe the real world.



James then wrote:

The basic point of what I present here being, that mathematics seems to be able to go places where physics and physicists dare not, and, that we humans cannot know of but a fraction of what is taking place around us. Such undetectable activity might serve to explain the general compulsion so common among humans, toward the mystical so as to explain the otherwise unexplainable.

I do believe that pure mathematics can lead us into what may prove to new realms of the physical reality...but, underline the word "may" about ten times. One can also be led far astray by the results of one's mathematical voyage of discovery even though the destination one arrives at seems quite mathematically logical.

In the final analysis, the real universe is not obliged to conform itself to what sentient beings' mathematical models say must exist. The universe will do its thing quite indepently of us and we can only hope that our mathematical conclusions are valid and then find a way to prove them via observation or experiment.

Nature does not give up her secrets easily, but mathematics can offer us a way to, at least, begin to know where to look for her secrets.


ken

[james kelly]

There is much debate and ado about the nature of bessler's wheel. My opinion of all of the fueds that go on over this is crazy. It seems to me that reading comprehension goes lacking, even though there is a mountain of info available. jim kelly

[LustInBlack]

Prime : Interesting! .. We had the same impression on this expression "god like" ..

It imposes perfection and precision . .

But I also think like you, we don't feel all there is to feel ..

If we had better senses, we might actually feel gravity differently, feel things that we don't know about yet! .. I don't say that gravity is making sound or a sensation.. But if it was the case, we wouldn't know about it yet.

Imagination.. Not physics or mathematics ..

I believe, those senses we have, are just there to limit our perception of reality, to make it coherent to a certain level ..

It's the relative of intelligence...

Intelligent people have better sensibility to details ... They can do with less than others ..

"Stupid" people, have trouble with simple problems ..

I believe this analogy can be true in our example ..

God would be intelligent, and we would be stupid .

In that case, God-Like would mean that the perfection/method required has not been reached..

Intelligence is also a step sequence toward result.

Less intelligent people would have to take more time toward result, they would step in fractions of an intelligent person step .
Ex.: Stupid = 0.5 Step, Intelligent = 1 Step.

Ex.: 2 times longer to reach ..

Bessler made many machines before results.. We should build as much, if not more, before result.


Success will be given to those who dedicate their life to it.

.. "stupid" term was used as an example and is not targetted against anyone..

[Fletcher]

Bessler said "am anvil receives many blows" which implies spectacular lack of success for some time (about 10 years IIRC). He also said that once he found the answer he understood why all his other attempts had failed. This implies that although he undoubtably learnt from his mistakes & the mistakes of many others, the lessons did not entirely sink in at the time & he continued to make them in different guises, never truly believing or understanding why his builds & ideas were doomed to failure until the literal last.

The implication is clear imo. We must make every effort to truly understand why things fail to perform. With that knowledge eventually will come a time when the will & imagination are no longer opposed & an answer will seem possible, perhaps.

[LustInBlack]

This thread is blessed ..
Right timing .


The best thing we can do right now, is post all our failures and explanation .. So we do not replicate them, I see too often someone post the same failure as someone else! .. That's good to learn, but not good for evolution on the collective side.


Personally, I learned that counter-torque is produced when you "disconnect" a weight from falling side of the wheel.

I learned that the toughest weight to put back in position is the one between 10 and 12 o'clock!

I learned that not only the displacement of weight creates overbalance..
You can use weight distribution : 4 weights of 1 Kg on one side and 1 of 4 Kg on the other side.. The distribution of weights will give the overbalance.
4 weights in a row, and 1 weight at the tip of the arm . The weight at the tip will make the wheel turn same direction as it is falling ..

I learned that even if the wheel makes more than 1 turn, it will not necessarily turn forever..

I learned that the leverage effect on a circle is not even.. At 3 o'clock we have the greatest effect, which is equivalent on the other side of the wheel (Lift side / Fall side) . The advantage must be on the falling side, to work.

Pendulum can make a wheel turn, but they create too much oscillation, there are direction change in the amount of torque produced, which cause chaotic speed change in the wheel and consequently a failure. A successful wheel in my opinion, is a wheel where the speed is consistent in acceleration, under load and at idle.

[...]


This can be very simple, but without those simple rules, I would keep making mistakes.

[rlortie]

A man of high IQ is traveling at night in a heavy rain storm. He has a flat tire and pulls over next to a fenced insane asylum. He jacks up the car and removes the lug nuts, carefully putting them in the hub cap.

All the while, a patient of the asylum is watching. The man thinks to himself, here is a person to dumb to get in out of the rain. While his mind is wondering and he is cursing his dilemma he steps on the hub cap and all five lug nuts roll down a storm drain. Now he is frantic, what can he do!

He is at a total loss, until the so called stupid patient suggests to him, remove one lug nut from the remaining three wheels.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people alone or in groups. If you do not know the laws of physics then how can you abide by them.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

I got it the first time Ralph :)

[primemignonite]

Ken Behrendt,
Thanks much for the carefully done and considered response to Van Flandern's paragraph, as well as to the tail I appended to it.

Much being there, It will take me awhile to absorb. I am not quite as 'quick' as some of my writing might suggest. In the mean-time, I will say that that Einstein quote is 'a keeper'.

There is much debate and ado about the nature of bessler's wheel. My opinion of all of the fueds that go on over this is crazy. It seems to me that reading comprehension goes lacking, even though there is a mountain of info available. jim kelly

INDEED! But of course, I myself know nothing about "feuding" |:)
Yes. So let's start digging, Jim!

Lustinblack,
Obviously, your response and content to what I wrote is of an opposite reality than the one of Ken Behrendt's. It's content, as well, will take me awhile to get through and do justice to. Thanks for it. Additionally, might I detect a jewel in die lotus blume?

To all three, sorry that I do not have anything more intelligent to add, but soon though, maybe.

James

[primemignonite]

Something wrong happened here and the foregoing message got done twice, so I am editing the rude redundancy out, and will take the opportunity thus presented to add this: All-in-all, before this very one (if I recall correctly) I started two new topics, neither of which got ANY responses. This one being the third, I will suppose to be 'the charm'.

Thanks to all respondents, so far.

James

P.S. If it happens that matters go waywardly, as in 'off-topic', then HAVE AT IT, and with my compliments!

[primemignonite]

Bessler said "am anvil receives many blows" which implies spectacular lack of success for some time (about 10 years IIRC). He also said that once he found the answer he understood why all his other attempts had failed. This implies that although he undoubtably learnt from his mistakes & the mistakes of many others, the lessons did not entirely sink in at the time & he continued to make them in different guises, never truly believing or understanding why his builds & ideas were doomed to failure until the literal last.

The implication is clear imo. We must make every effort to truly understand why things fail to perform. With that knowledge eventually will come a time when the will & imagination are no longer opposed & an answer will seem possible, perhaps.

Fletcher handily points out that we often learn more from our mis-steps than from the various successes that may result from them. When learning to build organs, now looking far back, this was certainly the case for myself, and, I was surely unaware of it at the time - also as Fletcher touches on. I could not understand why the Germans (well, one of them, at least, his name being Wolf) were so very cruel to a new and happy apprentice. I was told that it "builds character, Miller". Well, I don't know about the "character" part, but the seeming adversity and resulting frustration at not being able to plane anything straight corrected itself soon enough, and of course, similar occurred with other severely lacking disciplines as well, thank goodness.

Thank you, Fletcher.

So, yes, do let us REJOICE in our 'failures', for soon enough they will all run out, and then . . .

James

[LustInBlack]

Ralph : Indeed we have the same opinion .. But, I have yet to see a lower IQ tell me how to change a tire .. ;] (joking) ..

I do not judge people by their intelligence ..

I have a good example to backup this :
I have a friend which, is much more brilliant than me, no contest..
But he is soooo lazy that he gets nothing done! .. He just play online to multiplayer games like final fantasy .. But his life is centered on this ..

Once I had the chance to convince him of creating something in his life.. It was a piece of Assembler code for a vision system we created for a project in school.. Well he did it and it was the only thing I know of he created by himself..

Anyways, just to say that motivation, conviction, imagination are the base of my research, not necessarily intelligence.

I am at 0.7 step, he is at 0.9 .. However, I move slowly, but he doesn't move at all.

[LustInBlack]

Prime : The Lotus flower you are talking about, is about my avatar?! If so, it doesn't contain any secrets, except that it's a symetrical organisation of circles and it's fascinating!

[primemignonite]

Lustinblack,

Yes, it certainly is that, as you say.

Might you be a 'he' or a 'she'?

James

[LustInBlack]

err.. a he .. But it's not a flower, it's an arrangement of circles.