Posted by Darren (208.143.232.66) on May 19, 2003 at 13:49:08:
In Reply to: Re: Darren, sorry one last one posted by Joel L. Lewis on May 19, 2003 at 11:01:15:
:Sorry Darren-can't resist fishing:-D
No problem Joel!
:That 'principle' of physics wouldn't be related to the way wheels around the rim of a rotating wheel begin to rotate themselves, albeit in an opposite direction, would it? *Raises eyebrow*
Nope *shakes head*
Bessler wrote some things, responses to skeptics, and now, looking from this new perspective I totally think he was taunting Newton, one of his contemporaries and someone who wouldn't even go look at the wheel because it "broke" one of his laws.
Bessler said the wheel consisted "of weights arranged according to several a priori, that is, scientifically demonstrable, laws of mechanical perpetual motion" and I believe that was a poke, a way of saying one of Newton's *well known* three laws of motion was the foundation and reason for his wheel's success. I think it's pretty funny actually.
Read Newton's three laws again and then see if you can make "perpetual" fit in there anywhere. It's really rather obvious ;-)
Darren