• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

Jim_Mich said:
Which is why I prefer to use the broader term of Ether Energy! I only brought up the subject of Ether Energy/ZPE because Thebiguy kept trying to force a closed system concept onto Earth gravity. The only way to explain that Earth gravity might not be a closed system is to explain what and why gravity can be an external source of energy.

Jim_Mich
Click to expand...
I am sorry, Jim, but gravity has been explained quite well without your baseless speculation. Show us where Einstein is wrong.

IXP
 
Cuddles, I'm fully aware of all that you have stated.

None of these are the same as each other. But all relate to the concept of Ether Energy in one way or another. It's like the blind men trying to describe an elephant; each groping a different part with one thinking, "An elephant is like a rope" because he had felt the tail. Another says, "No an elephant is like a hose" because he felt the trunk. A third says, "No, an elephant is like a wall" because he felt the elephants broad side. A fourth says, "You're all crazy, an elephant is like a tree trunk" because he had felt the leg. So when someone says an elephant is like a rope, a hose, a wall, and a tree then it might appear he does not know what he is talking about. But maybe he knows more than appearances show?

Ether Energy is very complex. It is the building material or raw energy of the universe. Our world is but vibrations within the Ether Energy world. We are just an image composed of Ether Energy. So how do you describe something so simple yet so complex? On its lowest level it is something that our world has no words for, you might call it is pure energy. But as this pure energy develops patterns, swirls, vortexes, vibrations standing wave patterns it becomes electrons, neutrons, protons, quarks, etc. etc. And these build into atoms, elements, matter and compounds, and eventually planets, stars and galaxies.

So what holds molecules together to form materials such as steel? It comes from the Ether Energy by way of pressures on the molecules. When we are pushed down by gravity, where does this pressure come from? It comes from an unbalanced flow of Ether Energy. Sure we humans like to put specific names on each category of force or energy and we like to discount anything that we cannot see, feel, touch, hear, taste or sense with our test instruments.

Far be it from me to know all there is about Ether Energy for it must be as complex as our world yet is so simple that it's what everything is created from. You have a choice; you can reject the idea or you can investigate the concept and see if it has any validity.

So what does this have to do with gaining energy from weights swinging about on a rotating wheel? The Ether Energy can provide the source energy for PMM's. Men do not yet know everything about our world. There are still many wonders to be discovered. Anyone thinking that man knows everything is arrogant.


Jim_Mich
 
Last edited:
Jim_Mich said:
Far be it from me to know all there is about Ether Energy for it must be as complex as our world yet is so simple that it's what everything is created from. You have a choice; you can reject the idea or you can investigate the concept and see if it has any validity.
Click to expand...

Done. It doesn't.
 
Jim_Mich said:
So what holds molecules together to form materials such as steel?
Click to expand...
The electric force. Quantum electrodymics explains it quite well, agreeing with the best measurements scientists are able to obtain.
When we are pushed down by gravity, where does this pressure come from?
Click to expand...
It is not pressure, it is an acceleration due to moving in a straight line in a curved space-time.
It comes from an unbalanced flow of Ether Energy.
Click to expand...
Only in your mind.
Anyone thinking that man knows everything is arrogant.
Click to expand...
As is anyone who rejects the extremely successful theories arrived at through centuries of careful scientific observation / experimentation / theorizing, in favor of an ill-formed notion that they cannot support.

IXP
 
Jim_Mich said:
TjW,

Going back to my original statment, Thabiguy kept trying to to make me say that my machine would do an infinite amount of work, which would make me sound like an idiot because it could never be true. I was attempting to point out that a gravity and inertia powered perpetual motion machine is NOT an infinite energy machine. Like all engines it has limits as to the amount of work energy it can put out during any given amount of time based upon the size of the machine.

Jim_Mich
Click to expand...

The more you explain, the worse your understanding looks.

Let me see if I can phrase the question in a way that will allow you to understand what Thabiguy was getting at.

Consider gasoline engines. Clearly, a 500 HP V8 can supply more power than a 5 HP Briggs and Stratton in your lawnmower. They both have limits to the amount of energy they can produce per unit time.

But that lawnmower sized engine can, in theory, produce just as much work as the V8, though it will take one hundred times longer.

However, there is a limit to the amount of work that either one can produce, since there is a finite amount of fuel in the universe.

However, the "free energy" machines don't have the fuel limitation. An overunity machine of even very small power, integrated over an infinite time, will produce an infinite amount of energy. So any PMM built with real materials, overcoming real friction, has the potential to produce an infinite amount of energy.
 
A gravity wheel can't be thought of in terms of how we now think. If you try to explain it in present terms without contradiction you have to explain where the energy comes from. Whether you think of gravity in terms of a force or acceleration, the gravity we have on earth isn't an infinite phenomenon. It, like the sun, won't be here for ever.

I think that Jim's explanation of ether is an attempt to reconcile where the power is that causes gravity which in turn causes the wheel to turn. It is interesting to think about but consider this example. You don't have to have any earthly idea how signals are processed and broadcasted in order to turn on your wide screen and watch it.

The perception that will change when someone makes a gravity wheel is that of gravity being a conservative force. There could be other results but that is certainly one of them. There has to be more effort produced by dropping weights in a gravity field than is needed to lift them. We all know that's impossible. I'm presently working on the impossible. It might take me a little longer.

Gene
 
Jim_Mich said:
Far be it from me to know all there is about Ether Energy for it must be as complex as our world yet is so simple that it's what everything is created from. You have a choice; you can reject the idea or you can investigate the concept and see if it has any validity.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone expects you to be an expert, but as the only person with any knowledge of it at all I think a explanation of a single simple experiment for which it predicts a different outcome than established physics would suffice.

Ones that that I saw:

1. A description of a change in the rate of acceleration under gravity based on rotational velocity. No experiment yet has demonstrated this, and it appears a very precisely controlled experiment has demonstrated that acceleration under gravity in just such a situation remains constant. Feel free to get back to us when you discover evidence that your hypothesis is correct.

2. A suggestion that the ratio of matter in the gas state to that in the solid state (no mention of liquid state) found in planets is likely different than that currently estimated from their gravitation. The implication would seem to be either (1)that you believe traditional science has other means to measure phase that will, or already has, estimate a different ratio or that (2)you yourself have determined some other means of measuring this ratio that can be demonstrated accurate in controlled conditions (since one of the conditions of the request was that the observation be "testable"). Let us know which it is.

3. You've noted that there may exist some array of gyroscopes that, while still obeying Newtonian physics, will display behavior indicating over-unity energy. Given that I believe there actually exist proofs that any Newtonian system will neither create nor destroy energy, it seems this would be the most difficult to demonstrate. If you can find some error in the existing proofs, that would be remarkable enough. You could, of course, simply build the device and let us know how it goes. You may find in the end that it will then violate Newtonian physics and retract that part of your statement, I know I wouldn't hold it against you.

----

You also appear unclear on the concept of the term "infinite" as a measure of quantity independent of the variable "time". Such a concept does exist. For example, some mass with some distance from another mass is said to have a finite amount of potential energy related to the gravitation between them. The conversion of this potential energy into kinetic energy is limited over time by the maximum velocity of the masses (the speed of light), but it is also limited independant of time based on the two masses and the distance between them. It is for the latter reason, and not the former, that such an energy source is considered "finite". Your energy source has not been declared to have any limit without considering the variable "time", and is therefore considered infinite. If one were able to successfully argue that time is finite, a different conclusion could be reached.
 
AgingYoung said:
<<snip>>
I think that Jim's explanation of ether is an attempt to reconcile where the power is that causes gravity which in turn causes the wheel to turn. It is interesting to think about but consider this example. You don't have to have any earthly idea how signals are processed and broadcasted in order to turn on your wide screen and watch it.

<<snip gratitous ignorance>>
Gene
Click to expand...
You don't haveto knowhow an IC engine works to drive a car; you don'tneed to know mathematics to use the internet; You don't need toknow quantum mechanics to turn on the lights in the house.
If you are designing a lawn mower engine, a computer and/or network, or a nuclear power reactor, though--don't you think they might come in just a little bit handy?
If not, tell me where you live--I want to be as far as possible from you.
 
rwguinn,

That might not have been the best analogy.

What I meant was an understanding of the cause of gravity isn’t essential in making use of it. As far as I know we don’t know what causes gravity. If I read Jim correctly he’s speculating that it’s ether energy. I don’t see harm in speculating.

It is a good idea to to have a basic understanding of the forces. I'm pretty sure Jim has that. That understanding might not be essential though. I have now modeled the two principles I think have merit; it’s a moving sculpture. That sculpture has transformed a little since I first mentioned it. Yet if there is any value in the concepts I could build it not knowing the forces and it would work. If there isn’t I could examine it perpetually and its merit wouldn’t change. I do plan on doing a simulation to check some guesses to see if I should actually build this mechanical nightmare.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
rwguinn,

That might not have been the best analogy.

What I meant was an understanding of the cause of gravity isn’t essential in making use of it. As far as I know we don’t know what causes gravity. If I read Jim correctly he’s speculating that it’s ether energy. I don’t see harm in speculating.

It is a good idea to to have a basic understanding of the forces. I'm pretty sure Jim has that. That understanding might not be essential though. I have now modeled the two principles I think have merit; it’s a moving sculpture. That sculpture has transformed a little since I first mentioned it. Yet if there is any value in the concepts I could build it not knowing the forces and it would work. If there isn’t I could examine it perpetually and its merit wouldn’t change. I do plan on doing a simulation to check some guesses to see if I should actually build this mechanical nightmare.

Gene
Click to expand...

Once again:
Using a simulation which is constrained by Newtonian Physics--Which was written specifically incapable of violating Newtonian Physics, is not going to give you any answers which are meaningful.

How uneducated do you have to be?
 
How uneducated do you have to be?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you're attempting.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) seems to have been driven to do his own independent thinking rather than follow directions from others. Not doing assigned tasks resulted in less than ideal academic grades and then failure to find well paying employment.
Click to expand...

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
Depends on what you're attempting.


Gene
Click to expand...

You're missing the point I made (not surprising, that!)
If you ballance your checking account using a program which has a line:
"If (ballance<0.0) Ballance= 0.0"
Then you will never show a negative ballance-- Which will cause a great deal of surprise to you when all those phone calls start coming in wanting you to make good.
By the same token, a program written acording to Newtonian physics will never allow you to violate the "laws" of Newtonian physics.
You're gonna have to come up with some new math and write your own program, lad.
 
rwguinn,

There are some design considerations that I might calculate to get some answers. One of the neat things about a simulator is that you can draw the picture and it will do the calculations for you. I don't plan on making a simulation that I think would work. I've previously mentioned I don't think that's possible. I am pretty hyped about these two principles though.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
I don't know if you guys know what 'the short school bus' is. :)
Click to expand...

I went to Catholic school. We kicked out all of the "Special Ed" students and let the public schools deal with them.

IXP
 
Would anyone agree with me that this thread has run its course? Over a year and eighteen pages later, these guys are no closer to convincing anyone that their PM machines work. More importantly, it is evident that they have no intentions to apply for the Million Dollar Challenge. It's time to put this one to rest, folks. We might suggest to AgingYoung and Jim_Mich and others that their comments are more appropriate for the Science section of the forum. But, please, let's put this one to bed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom