Continuity of Perpetual Motion quacks

AgingYoung said:
I'll clear it up for you, ~grt. You were responding to the false dichotomy that Brian presented that I summarized. The answer is still I'm the excluded middle. I don't fit either absurd over simplification found in either of his broad sweeping generalizations.

Hope that helps yet I know some prefer confusion.

Gene
Click to expand...

So what exactly is this excluded middle? Perpetual motion is not possible. Either you are deluding yourself, or you are attempting to delude other people. I am inclined to believe the former, but I honestly can't see any other possibilities.
 
Cuddles said:
So what exactly is this excluded middle? Perpetual motion is not possible. Either you are deluding yourself, or you are attempting to delude other people. I am inclined to believe the former, but I honestly can't see any other possibilities.
Click to expand...
Could Gene be thinking of those who claim to have something promising that they can't or won't demonstrate but will solicit money for options on it, while claiming to have an MIT Professor, a Texas State Senator and a millionaire interested, none of whom can be named for some reason? A veritable latterday John Keely, only without so many crank cheerleaders.
 
AgingYoung said:
I'll clear it up for you, ~grt. You were responding to the false dichotomy that Brian presented that I summarized. The answer is still I'm the excluded middle. I don't fit either absurd over simplification found in either of his broad sweeping generalizations.

Hope that helps yet I know some prefer confusion.

Gene
Click to expand...

So, if I understand you, you are now claiming that there are more than two sorts?
 
We could take these one at at time. Let's start with this blatant lie.
Thing said:
...while claiming to have an MIT Professor, a Texas State Senator and a millionaire interested, ....
Click to expand...

Could you kindly quote me directly? Incidently that very serious offer to let you look at my ideas for a small fee of 2 million dollars is still open. :) You're rich.

Gene
 
Brian Jackson said:
So how would you categorize your position? That's all I was curious about. Thanks.

Brian
Click to expand...

Hello Brian,

You might have asked directly. If it weren't clear from the thread you previously posted in I don't think gravity is a conservative force. There was some debate in that thread about w2md and the results it produces. In some very simple models within the first 6 to 30 seconds I'm seeing some very interesting things. In one particular model (close to 30 seconds) I saw a spike of acceleration of 70,000 degrees/sec ^2. I think that unreal quantity is the result of the accuracy of working model and nothing short of reality would work to see how the model would act.

In another model the acceleration gradually started to increase then became quite jagged. It then became very erratic. I'd post a screen shot but for most it's a meaningless graph. That model stalled for a brief period then the system center of gravity lifted vertically. I don't think a sim can accurately model what I'm looking at.

I have always shared ideas on modeling or testing ideas. I've also shared the obvious fundamental ideas. Specifically you need to cause a mass to move faster than gravity will accelerate it at some point in its rotation. You then need to decelerate that same mass. In that process you're going to have some negative effects. Some say those negative effects are another reason why gravity is a conservative force. I'm the sort that looks for ways to nullify those negative effects.

As I see it all that can be said concerning gravity being a conservative force is that either it is or it isn't. I'm not in a position to prove it isn't yet I know no one is in a position to prove absolutely that it is either. That's an impossibility. I'll share some ideas but I have no intentions of sharing specifics until I'm finished thinking about them. That might be a while.

If I can make a model I'll do a short paper. Then I'll email a certain world renowned mathmetician and ask him if he'd do me the favor of looking at it. I haven't mentioned the idea to him yet. I don't think affidavidts will be a problem.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
We could take these one at at time. Let's start with this blatant lie.


Could you kindly quote me directly? Incidently that very serious offer to let you look at my ideas for a small fee of 2 million dollars is still open. :) You're rich.
Click to expand...
Bad crank. Greedy crank. No more free science lessons for you.
 
They were never needed, Thing. Incidentally nice way to refuse to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. If you can't afford to have me do your thinking for you you're on your own. I'll give you one piece of free advice but that's it. Take a breath; now exhale.

Gene
 
So now facetiousness is a claim? I've never claimed a lot yet if you want a claim I'll put one in quotes for you.

There are two sorts of people wrt perpetual motion. Of the first sort there are two sorts; the ones that believe it is possible and the ones that don't.

Of the second sort that actually know there are two sorts. There are those that think they know it is impossible. Since it's impossible to know everything the sort that knows perpetual motion is impossible is an arrogant and deluded sort. Then there are the sort that know it's possible.

Presently I only have a belief that perpetual motion is possible. I'm working on moving to the sort that knows it's possible.
Click to expand...

You can quote me on that.

Gene
 
Brian I think what you are observing with the quack group is self-selection. Excluding crooks, you have perpetual motion machine inventors who can accept external criticism and those who can't. Those who can accept criticism get shown the errors of their ways by their teachers and maybe even gain a deeper understanding of the principles involved. Those who can't are quacks.
 
AgingYoung said:
So now facetiousness is a claim? I've never claimed a lot yet if you want a claim I'll put one in quotes for you.

There are two sorts of people wrt perpetual motion. Of the first sort there are two sorts; the ones that believe it is possible and the ones that don't.

Of the second sort that actually know there are two sorts. There are those that think they know it is impossible. Since it's impossible to know everything the sort that knows perpetual motion is impossible is an arrogant and deluded sort. Then there are the sort that know it's possible.

Presently I only have a belief that perpetual motion is possible. I'm working on moving to the sort that knows it's possible.
Click to expand...

You can quote me on that.

Gene
Click to expand...

OK, so we are putting together a few more than just two categories, then. Let me see if I follow you. People can generally be separated into two groups: those who believe perpetual motion is possible, and those who do not. Of those who do not believe perpetual motion is possible, there are two varieties: those who believe they know it is not possible, and those who know that it is possible...

Wait, I think I'm confused again. Gene, are you one of the ones who knows it is possible, while believing it is not, or are you one of those who believe it is possible, while knowing it is not?
 
So, the laws of thermodynamics say it's impossible. Every past attempt has failed. Yet there are still bright-eyed, rosy-cheeked individuals who are confident that their PMM is different. Or people like Joe Newman, who just won't admit they failed.

It's all the same; only the names have changed...
 
I have a bottle of Lamb's Navy Rum, so this must be Saturday...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom