Hello new here

[greendoor]

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. We are talking in broad generalities - painting with broad brush strokes.

I'm fairly confident that the statement "Science is funded by business" is more correct more often than not. Funded implies money. All money comes from busines, ultimately. Even lotteries and charities are businesses.

I assume that because you nitpick of minute trivial little details about what i've said, that you can't find any major flaws in my main arguments ....

... just yankin' your chain.

What is your reason for frequenting this forum? You don't seem to be presenting any workable solution to solving the Bessler secret. You just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Do you have any positive suggestion for solving the wheel? Do you even believe it is possible? Do you think Bessler was a fraud?

Do you think that gravity can power a wheel? If not - what do you think of the Pequaid/Atwood theory? (I assume you know what this is?) Do you think that the ability to accumulate more Momentum than a weight free-falling the same distance is valueless? Do you have any better ideas?

Or are you completely obsessed by your negative beliefs? Is it your goal to stop anyone else succeeding?

What gives?

[greendoor]

There's no mention of any requirement to believe anything.

There is no mention, because it's a given.

For a scientist to get out of bed in the morning, he has to believe that there is something worth getting out of bed for. Without that belief, nobody would ever get out of bed in the morning.

We accept axiomatic facts and 'truths' that we have learned because we 'believe' them to be true. At some point, we have voluntarily decided to 'trust' or 'believe' someone or something.

We believe that 2 + 2 'always' = 4. We can't 'know' this, because we can never repeat this experiment in 'all' locations of the universe, in 'all' periods of time (past & future). We just 'assume' that 2 + 2 will always = 4, based on a relatively limited set of experiences.

But something as axiomatic as "2 + 2 = 4" is about as certain of anything as we can get. We can afford to put our faith in this as much as we can but our faith in anything.

But how do we know that at some point in history, in some location of the universe, that maybe two electrons may have collided and only 3 bounced back ... or perhaps 5 ...

Some of the quantum mechanics experiments have suggested that particles may be a little stranger than we think ... or maybe there is that grey area of uncertainty ...

We are assuming that Physical Reality always perfect mirrors Mathematical Theory. That's a big assumption. On what basis do we assume that? On raw, unadultered Faith. We Believe it to be true. But is it?

I could challenge you on 1000000 different facts that you believe to be true. If you analyse why you believe them to be true, you would have to come to the conclusion that somewhere - despite the fact that you don't believe in 'belief' - that you actually do believe a lot of things, simply because you believe them to be true.

[Irish Oracle]

Hi LustInBlack,

You have 0.0001% chance of announcing a genuine success, best of luck

300 years and its possible that 100,000 to 1,000,000 people tried to solve this riddle. I'd say the odds are much lower lol, but it only takes 1 working wheel.

I, myself, had, let's see, from the beginning of that research, about 200 ideas

Yes but how many of the designs fit the exact description of besslers own words, my guess is none.

Thing is I just want u and every one to see it and not hide it

[Irish Oracle]

Hi georgexbailey

My wife was walking around the house smiling since we were soon to be rich and famous. But, after a week of building I found quickly that what goes up will always go down

What makes you think it will make you rich and famous ?
Any single person can make a wheel its impossible it have control over it.

You are alluding to 3d, 4d, etc trying to get us to think out of the box. Good luck. I have thought of every imaginable 3d scenario that my little brain can think of

Yes this is exacitly my point.You are not thinking out of the box.

[Irish Oracle]

Hi greendoor

To be honest, I really think that if Bessler himself emerged from his grave and demonstrated the naked spinning wheel, and presented a hard bound copy of his finished book - 99% of the people here would not believe

Yes true. But it only takes one example to prove it works.

Balance of probability - there is probably some fatal flaw with your design, and people here will be able to point this out and save you some time and cash

There can be no flaw, its only going to cost a little bit of my time and very very little money. If it is to be used for real work than building a large wheel will cost, but the return in free power will make up for it.

But seriously - you may as well throw you idea to the wolves - you will certainly learn some things by doing that

No I wont lol, theres nothing to learn.

Or just build the thing and quietly improve your life with it under the radar

No I want all to have it. Bessler made this mistake and greed got the better of him.


greendoor I like reading your posts, so just stick around and we will all have this together.

[docfeelsgood]

Greendoor ;

You say 2+2=4 ,,, well 2+2 also = 22 !!!
just ta furthur your eddycation .

[LustInBlack]

Hi LustInBlack,

I, myself, had, let's see, from the beginning of that research, about 200 ideas

Yes but how many of the designs fit the exact description of besslers own words, my guess is none.

Thing is I just want u and every one to see it and not hide it

Hmm not true! .. I had ideas that contains many of these "clues" ..
Fact is, many mechanisms could have all these clues and not perpetuate..

Show me I'm wrong, I'll be happy.. 8]

[ruggerodk]

2+2.....=.....

If it's 2+2 rabbits then you soon have a thousand or more,,,if it's rats: ohmymy ;-)

ruggero ;-)

[Grimer]

Good points docfeelsgood and ruggerodk.

People often forget about interaction terms, a point bought forcibly home to me when I studied Factorial Analysis and realised how quickly high order interaction terms increased with increase in the number of Main Factors.

[Michael]

Science is funded by business. It is never unbiased. Would you trust a McDonalds Nutritionist?

Greendoor, the scientific method, is not funded by business. That's what's important.