• 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.

Thabiguy said:
I deeply sympathize, Jim_Mich. People complain about their jobs all the time, but hardly anyone ever has to face a deadline assignment of "You have two months to build a working perpetual motion machine!"
Click to expand...

Johnson, if you don't have the unified theory resolved by Friday you're fired!

Gene
 
Jim_Mich said:
Claiming to have a working model will not make you famous. Even having a working model will not make you famous because none will believe it. Once a model is built that works then the next hurdle is making people aware of it and proving that it works. The MDC would be an excellent publicity method.

And the million dollars would make nice seed money to start a new industry.

Jim_Mich
Click to expand...

If you could demonstrate a working model, seed money would not be an issue. Choosing which seed money to accept would probably be the biggest problem. In spite of the MDC changes, you would still have no trouble getting the word out. If any skeptic had the slightest hint of belief that you had a working model, they would be all over it. Curiousity is a personality trait we all share.

Take it to the next TAM and set it up and invite people to look at it. If it survived the scrutiny there, I doubt Randi would deny you the opportunity to to take the challenge, and even if he did, the connections you would make would easily enable you to get serious scientific investigation of your ideas. I doubt Randi could resist looking at it if you showed up at his office with a claim of a working model in your trunk.

Just get the working model. Everybody who comes here has the same story. "It almost works." "Just a few little details to resolve." "I have some ideas on how to make it work." Not a single working model. Not a single idea expressed to even make anyone believe they may be onto something.
 
On a more serious note, Jim, your prospects are not nearly as bleak as you put them.

You should note that the changes to the challenge are not intended to prevent poor Indian orphans who are born telepathic from taking the challenge. The changes are intended to stop people who are mentally ill, unable to communicate coherently and/or unable to follow instructions from wasting JREF's resources. The changes shift the burder of dealing with these poor fellows to other people, so that JREF can concentrate on dealing with those who are actually competent to take the challenge.

Jim_Mich said:
Even having a working model will not make you famous because none will believe it.
Click to expand...

Wake up! 46% of Americans believe God created man less than 10 thousand years ago. 6% of Americans believe than man has never landed on the Moon. People will believe anything. There are people who believe that working perpetual motion machines exist right now, hidden in the basements of CIA and/or oil companies.

In order to take the challenge after April 1st, you don't have to become a second Sylphia Browne. You just need some media attention. That's easy, and you don't even need a working PMM to get that. Just do the routine, claim that you have one (show a random non-working wheel to them) and refuse to let them study it, because of "fears for your intellectual property". If you're afraid that tabloids and paranormal magazines won't write about you, then again, wake up.

The new rules aren't up yet, so we don't know what kind of endorsement will be required from an academic, but if it's the good old "I confirm that I've seen it work and can't offer an explanation for it", this shouldn't be a problem if you have a working wheel. The catch might be that you might suspect them to steal your idea and get rich themselves. The only problem then will be to find someone whom you can trust. I admit, if you're convinced that every single academic in the world is an honorless thief and fraud, then this could be difficult. On the other hand, if you really believe that, then I dare to assert that you fall into the category of people that the new rules are intended to keep out.

And, if you still have problems, there seems to be yet another way to get into the challenge. See here: http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-01/011907tam.html#i4 (finally, I can post links, yay). I may be interpreting Randi wrong here, but it appears that a preliminary test by a local sceptic group can serve as a poor man's alternative to getting a media profile and academic endorsement on your own (possibly a backdoor for the telepathic Indian orphans).

However, quoting Matthew Perry in Friends, these are all questions for science fiction writers. You are nowhere near building a working PMM. It's a waste of time for you to worry about how you'll get into the challenge when you don't have the device! Build it, then worry and complain. I don't think many people here will be impressed by your excuse, "Oh, I could have built a working PMM, but I was too busy complaining that it will be difficult for me to take the MDC."
 
I think if I was able to make a PMM, and wanted to become independently wealthy from it while still helping the world, I would take it to the Gates Foundation. They have billions of dollars they are trying to get rid of for the purpose of improving the world. It's an ideal match. Offer to sell all rights to it for 1 billion dollars or whatever. I doubt Randi's challenge would even enter my radar. If my goal was maximizing my profits, I'd take it to an energy company. Making insane amounts of money from this thing would be trivial.
 
When I can demonstrate a working wheel then I'm sure seed money would be available. But I would prefer to start a corporation to manufacture and sell the wheels without outside financial strings attached. I have no desire to have investors and all the headaches and pressures they can bring. The million would go a long way in starting a private company. I've already started one successful family owned corporation.

But first I must finish my current wheel and prove whether or not my ideas work and if my computations are correct. So, I'll not bother you good people as much over the next month or so as I work on my wheel.

It was not my intention to spend so much time here. It was about a week ago that hellaeon made a comment...
hellaeon said:
For the record I still think its fruitless and you should just get a degree in engineering and actually build real things. Its more fun when you know what your doing and more rewarding I am sure.
Click to expand...
to which I replied...
Jim_Mich said:
For the record, I've worked as an engineer. Yet I find searching for perpetual motion much more fun.
Click to expand...
and the discussion just snowballed out of control.

Jim_Mich
 
Thing, you ask, "how do you know that any of these statements is true?" My answer is, "I don't." But after almost 60 years of observing, learning, analyzing, reading, searching and trying to sort fact from fantasy, it is what is most logical and would seem to be workable. I can find no evidence that it's not true, and much antidotal evidence that it's probably true. Of course the skeptics here will jump all over this to defend their status quo special relativity concepts, which if you step back and take a fresh look at are really weird! Special relativity just seems to be a patchwork of many formulas all trying to hold together concepts that don't seem real. You can find formuals to match almost any situation.

At an example, at one time in my life I spent about four years computer analyzing horse racing. At almost any time I could find formulas that would pick winning horses for short periods of time until things changed. As soon as I found another formula things would change again. I finally realized that with the paramutual betting system one's profit is based on other's losses and losing provides a feedback that changes how people make bets which lowers the profit of the winning tickets. My point being that a formula can be found to match almost any situation.

So in conclusion all I can say is that I have seen much evidence that our world is not one where warped space causes gravity as Einstein tried to show. Over the past few years I've read about many unusual events and experiments that can be better explained and make more sense by an Ether Energy concept than by special relativity.

One place you can look is Stanley V. Byers website at http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/

I'm sorry, I know this is not much help.

Jim_Mich
 
That'd be interesting, except special relativity was not created by fitting a bunch of equations to known measurements. Einstein applied relativity (common Galilean relativity) to inertial frames with the postulate that light travels at the same velocity for all observers.

Every experiment and prediction resulting from that theory have been verified. Einstein's book on Relativity can be read and understood by a motivated high schooler. It's anything but a patchwork.

I wonder why you bring up special relativity and gravity in the same post; special relativity says nothing about gravity.
 
Relativistic quantum field theory has worked very well to describe the observed behaviors and properties of elementary particles. But the theory itself only works well when gravity is so weak that it can be neglected. Particle theory only works when we pretend gravity doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Gene
 
Jim_Mich said:
Thing, you ask, "how do you know that any of these statements is true?" My answer is, "I don't." But after almost 60 years of observing, learning, analyzing, reading, searching and trying to sort fact from fantasy, it is what is most logical and would seem to be workable. I can find no evidence that it's not true, and much antidotal evidence that it's probably true. Of course the skeptics here will jump all over this to defend their status quo special relativity concepts, which if you step back and take a fresh look at are really weird! Special relativity just seems to be a patchwork of many formulas all trying to hold together concepts that don't seem real. You can find formuals to match almost any situation.

At an example, at one time in my life I spent about four years computer analyzing horse racing. At almost any time I could find formulas that would pick winning horses for short periods of time until things changed. As soon as I found another formula things would change again. I finally realized that with the paramutual betting system one's profit is based on other's losses and losing provides a feedback that changes how people make bets which lowers the profit of the winning tickets. My point being that a formula can be found to match almost any situation.

So in conclusion all I can say is that I have seen much evidence that our world is not one where warped space causes gravity as Einstein tried to show. Over the past few years I've read about many unusual events and experiments that can be better explained and make more sense by an Ether Energy concept than by special relativity.

One place you can look is Stanley V. Byers website at http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/

I'm sorry, I know this is not much help.

Jim_Mich
Click to expand...

OooH! Is this like multiplying by zero and adding the factor in the back of the book?
Then again, whether you just say "Godddidit",or "Ether Energy", all problems and discrepancies are solved.
 
Scientists look at our reality and attempt to describe it. Newton experimented then generalized his observations mathematically. Theoretical physicists today develop ideas at the boundaries of known math and at times develop math like Newton did with calculus. A difference is that Newton developed the math to explain what he saw. Theorists are exploring areas of Nature in mathematics that technology so far does not allow us to observe in experiments. They may never live long enough to see if their ideas were true.

Gene
 
The explanation 'Goddidit' is on par with the one 'Einsteinexplainedit'. If there are strings of energy or light holding the fabric of time/space together then the idea that in the beginning God said, 'Light be' and light was would seem to be something that fits into what we imagine to be an answer; very small, omnipresent, tensioned strings of energy resonating.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
The explanation 'Goddidit' is on par with the one 'Einsteinexplainedit'. If there are strings of energy or light holding the fabric of time/space together then the idea that in the beginning God said, 'Light be' and light was would seem to be something that fits into what we imagine to be an answer; very small, omnipresent, tensioned strings of energy resonating.

Gene
Click to expand...
Logic comprehension problem.
Goddidit and "Ether Energy" mean you can quit looking--that's all the explanation there is.
"Einsteinexplainedit" on the other hand, means that there is an explanation. No "miracle cure", just a bunch of those messy, nasty equation things, which you guys seem to have an aversion to.

Look up "explanation" in your F&W.
 
Whoa! Hold on there, pardners. For a fleeting moment yesterday this thread actually began talking about the Challenge. I see now it has degraded right back to the same old PM gobbledygook. At least Jim_Mich said he wouldn't post here until he had something more challenge-worthy to say. I commend him. Can you do the same, AgingYoung? Or is it going to be the same old mumbo jumbo?
 
My point is that what we imagine to be reality might have been described thousands of years ago. That initial declaration of creation began with light, with such force that it broke up into small packages of energy that permeate our reality.

There is no need to understand the cosmos to attempt a gravity wheel. The two biblical principles of creation that I've modeled do exhibit energy. I've verified that using the Newtonian constrained simulator, wm2d. There is an Ezekiel whirlwind of power clearly evident. I'm working on the control system now.

Gene
 
Jim_Mich said:
Special relativity just seems to be a patchwork of many formulas all trying to hold together concepts that don't seem real. You can find formuals to match almost any situation.
Click to expand...
Jim_Mich,

Your portrayal of Albert Einstein's special relativity achievement is, to say the least, disappointing.

Relativity was not a new concept. In classic Newtonian mechanics, relativity meant the result for any mechanical experiment would be the same for all inertial frames of reference. Einstein offered the, well, frankly brilliant hypothesis that the concept of relativity applied to any optical experiment as well.

He did not simply find formulae to fit data. Your horse racing analogy is thoroughly bogus. The formulae were a consequence of his hypothesis and explained by his hypothesis. The Lorenz Contraction--theorized to account for "ether wind" but orphaned when ether wind was disproven by a variation of the Michelson–Morley experiment--left the ad hoc realm to join provable theory. Einstein's hypothesis had predictive power--something your horse formulae did not--and the predictions have elevated his hypothesis to theory status.

As for your Ether Energy, it still exists in the realm of wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
Jim_Mich said:
Thing, you ask, "how do you know that any of these statements is true?" My answer is, "I don't." But after almost 60 years of observing, learning, analyzing, reading, searching and trying to sort fact from fantasy, it is what is most logical and would seem to be workable. I can find no evidence that it's not true, and much antidotal evidence that it's probably true.
Click to expand...
Assuming that by "antidotal" you mean "anecdotal" evidence then great, anecdotal evidence could be interesting. So what is the anecdotal evidence for those statements about ether energy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom