"The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines"

[Furcurequs]

Furcurequs

Interesting video. It is the typical stand of science. Then it ends with a fishing for something that might work in their opinion.

It does seem to be a bit ironic, doesn't it? They start out addressing the "nonsense" of the notion of a perpetual motion machine by saying that a working one has never been experimentally verified and then end up discussing somewhat seriously a hypothetical "negative mass" that, of course, has also never been experimentally shown to exist. ...lol

[ME]

ME,

Go ahead, rub it in. It's just as I said, do to your superior intellect, it will always mean that you are right.

The burden does lie with me---------------------

Sam Peppiatt

That was not my intention, really sorry if you feel rubbed.
It was actually meant as a bunch of tips for avoiding victimizing yourself and maybe even help in researching perpetual motion. Your choice.

And dude, its a discussion forum.
I understand you can't suddenly put an your opinion on series of consequences.... yet you do manage to put consequences on your own opinion.
Please have your opinion about things, but I will just keep pointing out opinionated facts that are otherwise knowingly false.

I think this is an excellent monologue, and exactly on topic.
Perhaps not a tactful advice, but: Deal with it, it's not limiting anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7jVTGjb-I

[Sam Peppiatt]

ME,

Please forgive me, my level of understanding is pretty low, I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Sam Peppiatt

[Silvertiger]

Gravity is already a perpetual force, the only demonstration we can make is to exploit this force. There are still some enthusiasts here, which is good.

Excellent statement! I have had the same thought many times. If all we had in the universe was time/space and two masses, they would eventually come together, regardless of whether they are in motion or at rest. To me, this has always seemed a bit...odd. It contradicts conservation of energy. According to Einstein, gravity is a result of the intersection of geodesics in 4d space/time in relation to the mass of a thing (2d example: bowling ball on an outstretched tarp). However, we cannot observe a net FORCE acting, whether on the cosmic scale, or on the quantum, and we only guess that 4d space exists. And so these things just...ARE. The two masses in our little universe will exchange no energy with space/time to come together. Sooo...WHERE does the GPE between the two masses actually COME from lol?

Vacuum energy cannot be relied upon to explain this due to the Cosmological Constant Problem. It seems to violate quantum field theory since gravity has never been shown to vibrate and behave as a quantum particle. Wave detection, imho, is a joke. Yes, they measured something - a twinge in space - but from what I have read, it seems to me more rather like a shock wave from a major collision (if even that is the case), comparable to a rock landing in a pond. In my estimation, they simply detected ripples in our little pond; not gravity waves - but space waves.

So, gravity can't even be quantized! As an example, magnetism is a quantized field due to that fact that we know the CAUSE of the potential difference: an atomic charge difference created by matching deBroglie "spins" (waves). If we compare magnetism to gravity, the potential energies are viewed as vastly different. But why? The PotDiff between two magnets is a factor of electric charge; distance isn't considered except in field strength, and the PotDiff remains whatever the difference in charge determines. Yes, we could cheat and say that an accelerational constant between two magnets exists, and that its effect is reduced the greater the distance, but the acceleration remains the same, and call this distance "potential energy." But when you look at it that way, for magnetism, it seems like stupidity and blind guessing. Just based on that alone, one should think that more people should reconsider the standard of GPE. :P

At the end of the day, we are getting gravity for free and NO body seems to know why.

[ME]

ME,

Please forgive me, my level of understanding is pretty low, I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Sam Peppiatt

Sam. sorry, it may take a while... my level of understanding suddenly dropped.

You could just have asked questions on certain things, but instead did something else.
Here is the actual rub:
Can you please stop insulting people, either dead or alive. And stop blaming theories for no good reason?

Another tip of the week:

• Theories, formulas and physics "laws" are like acronyms.
  They are mathematical shortcuts to predict how reality is likely to behave.
  Reality itself operates perfectly without them.
  
  Marchello E.

[ovyyus]

But redirection of gravity can do it.

How can gravity be redirected?

[Fletcher]

Another tip of the week:

• Theories, formulas and physics "laws" are like acronyms.
  
  They are mathematical shortcuts to predict how reality is likely to behave.
  
  Reality itself operates perfectly without them.
  
  Marchello E.

And that is it in a nut shell. Reality (nature) doesn't have to behave as current physics would predict. But Physics does a pretty good job for most things we observe. Until an exception or anomaly is found. Then it's time for a rethink and new theory. The point is to find and then to falsify the Theory or Law with an example that can't be explained by current physics.

IF Bessler's wheels were proven to be solely gravity enabled then that would falsify the Newtonian Laws of Physics, or at least one corner of the foundation of that house (CoE).

So those believers in the above proposition have to first find the exception, prove it is an exception by experimentation and then document it for peer review. And see if it is repeatable by others. Then anti-physics crusaders can crow from the tallest building while others scurry to find answers and plug fingers in dykes.

Taking a strong position (belief) on one side of the divide or other is illogical. What we have is a mystery on how Bessler's wheels worked ? That needs to be empirically solved. Everything is on the table until it is figured out and proved beyond a doubt. Then crow can be served for those that feel the necessity to do so. I myself would be more interested at that time (should it happen) in understanding where current physics of symmetry lost the trail. And can a new Theory be found.

[Sam Peppiatt]

So I should keep my mouth shut------------------

You know what, that's probably good advice.

Peppiatt

[ovyyus]

So I should keep my mouth shut------------------

Why not ask questions?

[Johndoe2]

HGod / nature makes laws.
Science discovers describes and obeys said laws. Scientists/physicist etc etc are neither judge nor jury and have 0 authority!
If we followed the lead of science we would still be carrying clubs in a cave somewhere drawing stick figures in the cave walls.
The idea that science can determine what will is it can be is ludicrous.
Every major invention in human history has come from people breaking laws that others supposed or mentally Imagined.

[Furcurequs]

. . .but rather emphasizing that we may need to rethink gravity itself.

This is a long held belief. If gravity is conservative, there
is no energy to turn the wheel. If the wheel turns was the
energy created and how? We suppose Bessler's wheels turned.

If the conservative force of gravity can cause a wheel to
turn, why not a spring? It's probably just me but it's
incredibly exciting to think about how this rediscovery
is going to turn the world on its head.

The definitions are based on empirical observations, which are subjected to the scientific method.
Every experiment that fails to create energy from a force at least successfully proves the first law of thermodynamics, if nothing else. That’s the way the universe has been for 13.799 +/- .021 billion years.

I have a thought experiment for you.

Let's say we have a snail-like creature with a spherical shell that lives at the bottom of a fast flowing stream of water. Let's also say the water flow is uniform and that the flow rate is constant in the region of interest.

Our snail-like creature, then, if he had a force sensing mechanism would feel a constant force exerted on his shell by the flowing water which would be in the direction of "downstream." He would also feel the same downstream force no matter where on the bottom he was.

Being a snail-like creature which moves with a snail-like pace too, though, which would be quite slow relative to the speed of the flowing water, he quite likely would be unable to distinguish a difference in the magnitude of the downstream force when he was moving upstream or when standing still or when moving downstream. Under these conditions, then, the snail-like creature would determine that the stream was applying a constant conservative force to his shell.

So, when he sits still, he does no work. When he moves upstream, he does work against the downstream force of the stream, and when he moves downstream, the downstream force of the stream does work on him.

So, what's the point of this thought experiment?

It's to show that when a force is seen as conservative, that doesn't necessarily preclude the notion that a flow of mass and energy could still be associated with it - which, of course, is actually the case with a flowing stream of water.

We all know of ways to continuously extract energy from a stream of water. Mainstream scientists, however, don't know of ways to continuously extract energy from a gravitational field.

I'm not a mainstream scientist. I'm an amateur mad scientist with unique ideas and some real world experimental tests that are just not yet complete.

So, if my experiments prove to be successful, I might be able to show that mainstream scientists may also be as slow as snails. ;P

[John Collins]

I like this thought experiment. I have tried over many years to explain why I “know� that energy can be extracted from gravity, but somehow most people remain unconvinced. Good job!

JC

[Georg Künstler]

Hi John Collins,
the example of Furcurequs is very good and explains also why a small wheel in diameter will not work.

Gravity must first accelerate a mass, then, when the mass has a Minimum of a Speed it can be redirected.

To allow the acceleration of a mass by gravity it Needs time, and this is only manageable with the size of the Wheel.

The moving weights are creating momentum. Swinging is the key.

"Gravity energy or whatever it will be named then" can be harvested I am absolutely shure. I only wait that my Carpenter completes the built.

[ME]

I have tried over many years to explain why I “know� that energy can be extracted from gravity, but somehow most people remain unconvinced.

How do you "know"?
How can we "know"?

To allow the acceleration of a mass by gravity it Needs time

Don't forget Distance.

An object on a table still experiences gravity.
It can stay there for a very long time.

[eccentrically1]

. . .but rather emphasizing that we may need to rethink gravity itself.

This is a long held belief. If gravity is conservative, there
is no energy to turn the wheel. If the wheel turns was the
energy created and how? We suppose Bessler's wheels turned.

If the conservative force of gravity can cause a wheel to
turn, why not a spring? It's probably just me but it's
incredibly exciting to think about how this rediscovery
is going to turn the world on its head.

The definitions are based on empirical observations, which are subjected to the scientific method.
Every experiment that fails to create energy from a force at least successfully proves the first law of thermodynamics, if nothing else. That’s the way the universe has been for 13.799 +/- .021 billion years.

I have a thought experiment for you.

Let's say we have a snail-like creature with a spherical shell that lives at the bottom of a fast flowing stream of water. Let's also say the water flow is uniform and that the flow rate is constant in the region of interest.

Our snail-like creature, then, if he had a force sensing mechanism would feel a constant force exerted on his shell by the flowing water which would be in the direction of "downstream." He would also feel the same downstream force no matter where on the bottom he was.

Being a snail-like creature which moves with a snail-like pace too, though, which would be quite slow relative to the speed of the flowing water, he quite likely would be unable to distinguish a difference in the magnitude of the downstream force when he was moving upstream or when standing still or when moving downstream. Under these conditions, then, the snail-like creature would determine that the stream was applying a constant conservative force to his shell.

So, when he sits still, he does no work. When he moves upstream, he does work against the downstream force of the stream, and when he moves downstream, the downstream force of the stream does work on him.

So, what's the point of this thought experiment?

It's to show that when a force is seen as conservative, that doesn't necessarily preclude the notion that a flow of mass and energy could still be associated with it - which, of course, is actually the case with a flowing stream of water.

We all know of ways to continuously extract energy from a stream of water. Mainstream scientists, however, don't know of ways to continuously extract energy from a gravitational field.

I'm not a mainstream scientist. I'm an amateur mad scientist with unique ideas and some real world experimental tests that are just not yet complete.

So, if my experiments prove to be successful, I might be able to show that mainstream scientists may also be as slow as snails. ;P

Ok, what's wrong with your analysis of this analogy?

The mass of the stream water was lifted in the gravitational field and given PE by the sun. Gravitational fields have no mass. Relatively speaking, they're an effect of actual mass on spacetime. Without solar power, no flow. It wasn't the sun's gravity that lifted the water, was it?

The water does the same amount of work on the snail as the snail does on the water, not counting the internal work in the snail.

The snail does work even when he's still, I have to disagree. Unless of course he finds an embedded rock to rest against.

Did the sun lift Bessler's weights? If the wheels weren't a fraud, ultimately, it did. We just don't know his method that we can track back to the sun. We're all too stupid! If his wheels "continuously extracted energy from a gravitational field" with a simple mechanical arrangement, wouldn't that be easier to rediscover than a simple mechanical arrangement that extracted energy from solar power? Maybe that's why it hasn't been rediscovered?