Friday, 15 November 2013
Belief is not knowledge. Belief is only what you accept as true.
I was taught that Perpetual Motion machines were a violation of nature's laws and therefore impossible. Later I discovered there were various interpretations of what a perpetual motion machine is, but I understood that the one I was interested in, was a machine that used no additional energy beyond that needed to start it. This was described as a closed system with no access to any energy other than that with which it was started. I was told to imagine a flywheel which was spun up to a high speed after which it just ran and ran - until friction, or work, slowed it down to a stop - why? ... because it had used up all of the bit of energy used to start it and there was no more available. Then I thought, friction or making it do work was like applying the brakes on car that was coasting down hill without the engine on, to bring it to a stop. I considered that the car was made to coast down hill by the force of gravity.
But surely I thought, the energy provided by gravity was constant, continuous (and perpetual as far as we are concerned), and although you could say that it was external to the car, it wasn't just external to the car, it was all around it and in and through it, but however you vieweds it, it was not part of a closed system, and therefore it was available as an enerfy source- so why was it impossible for gravity to drive a wheel ...continuously?
To the title of this blog, I would add, Belief is not knowledge. Belief is only what you accept as true, until you find evidence that it isn't true. Gravity-driven wheels are impossible, or so I was taught to believe, but then I found evidence that that wasn't true.
It's a strange thing, belief. There are so many beliefs that appear to conflict with each other, that one must conclude that a lot of them are just plain wrong. The problem seems to lie in the establishment of a theory which seems to answer the question at the the time. Assumptions that the theory is right, lead to additional speculations which appear proven when based on the originating theory. But suppose the original theory is right but doesn't encompass all possibilities, or the originator simply did not consider suffiently other potential effects? This in my opinion is the case with the gravity-wheel. There is a way in which no law is violated and no dramatic reconsideration of the laws of physics necessary, that allows Bessler's wheel to operate quite legitimately without recourse to such theatrical conclusions. It's another case for occam's razor, it's the simplest exlanation.
I believe this is so and that it is the only way to explain Bessler's wheel in a way that satifies the scientific experts as well as those of us who know beyond a shadow of doubt that Johann Bessler's claims were genuine.
At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...
I’m currently getting ready to move house again so finding time to write my blogs and complete my work on Bessler’s wheel, is now too diffic...
Once again I’m posting the Legend of Bessler’s wheel because I’m going to be working hard on finishing my reconstruction of Bessler’s wheel....
For the last twenty-five years I have been publicly maintaining that Johann Bessler really did invent what used to be known as a Perpetual M...