A brief aside in one of the posts on the besslerwheel forum, gave me pause for thought. When someone comes to a reasoned explanation for Bessler's wheel, without having actually made a working model, that explanation might be termed a hypothesis, however the three terms, hypothesis, law and theory have similarities and may overlap in places.
I found the critical feature that enables gravity to work on weights so that they cause the wheel to rotate. I called my discovery about why Bessler's wheel did not break any physical laws, a principle or an observation. I read that a hypothesis is an educated guess based on an observation. So it might be a hypothesis, but apparently a hypothesis can be disproved, but not proven to be true. I can prove my hypothesis is correct so it can't be a hypothesis.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproved. So my discovery can't be a theory because it can be proved and it can't be disproved.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. As my Bessler-Collins principle lies within the scope of an existing set of laws it is already covered and cannot be a law on its own.
So my problem is this; I have reasoned an explanation for why Bessler's wheel worked and how. The principle which I have called the Bessler-Collins principle still escapes a valid definition. I can prove it works both by describing it with illustrations, and by physically making a testing model which performs as predicted.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” So it is just a fact, an observation or a description of something that is well-known but has so far escaped everyone's noticed, or as I think Bessler put it, 'I found it where everyone else had looked'.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Looks like the comments link is working again on this blog, John. You have asked some interesting questions here; mainly what are the distinctions between the concepts of facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories. Like most things, these concepts are open to many subjective interpretations although, in reality, they have much in common. All are meant to express some "truth" about a part of the universe (or even the whole universe!) in the simplest possible terms. Such expressions of truth take the form of spoken or written descriptions and these can be either qualitative or quantitative in nature or some combination of these. Another important thing they have in common is that they are all potentially capable of modification or even complete negation if new data emerges that shows they are incomplete or physically impossible. There are many examples of this happening in the history of science. Pm chasers usually become aware of this feature of hypotheses, laws, and theories early on. One might be absolutely convinced that he has found a design that will, once constructed, produce the wondrous pm effect. He is so sure of it that he may even decide to skip building anything and try to immediately patent his design! Then, seeing how incredulous his fellow human beings are, he decides that he will build the design and prove, once and for all, that it works. He builds it and it does not work. He, however, is convinced that the design is inherently good and will work with just a slight modification (remember the words under the second DT portrait!). He modifies the design and still...nothing. He sleeps on the matter and, days later, tries another modification and...still nothing. Perhaps he tries dozens of times (or even over 1200 times!) and then, finally, exhausted mentally and physically, he must finally face the fact that his design is just plain not workable. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but, in time, he learns that, just as all that glitters is not gold, so too, the vast, vast majority of all designs he will conceive or which he sees others promote will also not work. That, unfortunately, is the central fact of reality of the pm chasing world. Also, even if one does manage to come up with a workable pm design, then how does he know that it is actually outputting the mass energy of its parts and not, somehow, tapping energy from its environment just like a common wind mill or water wheel does? Of course, further precise measurement could probably eliminate that possibility. Leibniz was quite convinced that this was how Bessler's wheels actually worked. He was wrong.
ReplyDeleteReading this blog reminds me of reading the Bible. I have been following John's ramblings, on and off, for over ten years now and with every "step closer" he reports the BS gets thicker. When I first discovered John's work in 2004, he was convinced he was only months away from a working wheel. Of course, there were delays due to family commitments, weather, health, etc., etc., etc. I wonder if it is his readers or himself he is trying to convince.
ReplyDeleteJohn does seem to have escaped the scathing criticisms that have been dished out to others that have made similar claims without providing a shred of proof. 0ystein would be another. My guess is it is their helpful nature and a not-in-your-face approach. Lets not forget all that John has done for the Bessler search. I don't think anyone can compare so lets cut him some slack. The fact that he is not going to sell out to big oil or attempt to patent means he is not selfish and truly cares about getting the secret principle out to the public.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so John has not yet delivered a working model of one of Bessler's wheels. Has anybody else? The fact remains that he has done far more than either Dircks or Gould to promote interest in Bessler and his invention. Without John's early heroic efforts to have Bessler's writings translated into understandable English, most here, especially me, would have no hope of ever unraveling the secret of this "simple" 300 year old enigma. I applaud his enthusiasm. Also, don't forget that we are all posting this on the blog that he started because of that enthusiasm.
ReplyDeleteLaw of physics is saying that gravity wheel is not possible, well, in my case, i simply don't care about the law.
ReplyDeleteI am starting new project, but in small scale, like i stated before, it is not a wheel.
Thanks for the support guys, I do understand anon's comments.
ReplyDeleteI'm very aware of my early over-confidence that I was on the brink of success and I have more recently tried to reign in my enthusiasm to go public with my personal convictions of imminent success. However from time to time I get tempted to respond publicly as I continue to receive emails asking how much progress I've made and why don't I publish reports on it. I post very few comments on the forum now, although I read it almost daily and I have reached the point where I need to finish this model and try to get it to work.
I expect to move out of this house by the end of October, and then it will be almost impossible to work on my wheel until I have moved into my new house, so I must finish the wheel before then.
JC
So you know the feeling then John!...it looks like you and I are cut from the same clothe.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. We have John's history and all he has done to bring the BW to light and keep it in the public eye. On the other hand, Trevor's has a bw.com topic with 5 million dead end posts. Yep, same cloth!
ReplyDeleteOh yeah! well you forgot to mention my history in my private capacity, which is my business.
ReplyDeleteUpdate. I am now working on model # 1221, so it looks like I've overshot my earlier absolute limit of 1200 models. Well, unfortunately, that pesky thing called "reality" had different plans for me. I finally reached the conclusion that trying to make my 9:00 going to 10:30 lever "rise in a flash" was physically impossible by just tapping the available lost gravitational potential energy or GPE (and its associated mass) of the 7:30 going to 9:00 lever. This simplistic approach is implied by the second DT portrait and is, I believe, a dead end deliberately inserted into the portrait by Bessler to endlessly frustrate the Bessler wheel reverse engineering pm chaser. It's certainly did that to me for over 1200 models! How to escape from this trap? Actually, escape is rather simple. One needs to tap into an additional source of lost GPE and, indeed, I have found this source. What is it? That must remain confidential for the moment. However, with that extra source of lost GPE , one can make his 9:00 going to 10:30 lever, indeed, rise in a flash. How fast? To keep the CoM of a wheel's weights and levers constantly on the wheel's descending side it is necessary to completely shift the 9:00 going to 10:30 lever in only half of a segment of drum rotation. Since each segment of drum rotation is 45 degrees, that means the shift must take place in only 22.5 degrees. So, what would the shortest time interval be for such a shift to occur? Consider the Merseberg wheel coasting along at a maximum free running speed of 40 rpm's. That works out to 1 rotation every 1.5 seconds. And, that means it only took this first dual direction wheel of Bessler's 1/8 of that or 0.1875 seconds to complete 45 degrees of rotation. Since the shift of the 9:00 going to 10:30 lever must occur in only 22.5 degrees or half of 45 degrees, that means the shift only took 0.09375 seconds!!! Just a little less than 1/10th of a second! Now the reader can realize why Bessler said that his weights were "rising in a flash". When I first saw these figures, I found them difficult to accept, yet, if Bessler's wheels were genuine, then these calculations must be valid. I am now experimenting with various combinations of the lifting ropes that interconnect my various ascending side levers. As always, if I hit the right combination, then that "rise in a flash" shifting action should take place and keep the model wheel's CoM on its descending side. These are somewhat exciting recent revelations for me and, once again, I could be within a few models of finally having "it". Stay tuned for future updates!
ReplyDeleteInteresting blog topic.
ReplyDeleteA fundamental cornerstone of the scientific method is Popperian falsifiability (after Karl Popper who expounded upon the principle). A theory is considered a valid scientific theory if it is eminently falsifiable - ie. that it CAN be shown to be false, if it is indeed so. But this doesn't in any way preclude its validation - on the contrary, there could be no satisfactory validation of an unfalsifiable theory.
A scientific theory also makes testable predictions, and supercedes or unifies those theories it replaces, as it is able to go further than them, and its validated predictions better describe observed pehnomenon than the pre-existing theories.
Phlogiston was a theory, as was caloric, as is the modern thermodynamics that replaced them. Contrary to popular belief, being "just a theory" doesn't itself connote any degree of acceptability, or question integrity - it can be synonymous with a "framework" or "paradigm", can be verified to ten significant digits or laughed off the podium..
A scientific fact is generally held to be a theoretical prediction that meets or surpasses "six sigma" verification - ie. can be reliably measured to 99.999999% accuracy of a predicted value or outcome.
A principle would be something contngent upon facts - something axiomatic and non-controversial. A law, likewise.
A hypothesis could be the inspiration for a theory, or also any of the predictions it makes.
So from a scientific standpoint, "Bessler-Collins theory" is perfectly acceptable, since whether it is right or wrong, it can be shown to be so..
Thank you Mr V, Theory it is then.
DeleteJC