Sunday, 25 November 2018

Do We Really Need to Break the Laws of Physics?

It has often been suggested that in order for Bessler's wheel to work, the design must break the laws of physics.

Firstly, if we believe Bessler told the truth then we must seek the solution so that  we can reconstruct his wheel.  The prize for humanity is incalculable, reducing dependence  on fossil fuels, pollution from the burning of fossil fuels; provision of a free source of energy; warmth for cold climates, air conditioning for hot climates; irrigation for desert regions and reduction of transportation costs by land and sea, to name but a few.

Do we honestly believe that Bessler’s wheel worked in some mysterious way which somehow not only broke the established laws of physics, but did so with impunity?  The so-called “Laws”  are conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observation over many years which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.  We must accept that however unlikely it may seem, his wheel worked according to long established principles.

Just because our calculations appear to rule out any possibility of any of the laws of physics permitting such a device to work, does not mean that we have thought of every angle, point of view or approach that might resolve this apparent paradox.

But it is only a paradox if we continue to say that Bessler's wheel  cannot work because it would defy some physical law.  Obviously it didn't and we know it worked, therefore we are missing something.  What ever that something is, it is very simple and easy to understand, because Karl the Landgrave stated as much.

JC

16 comments:

  1. “Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”

    ― Muhammad Ali

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inspirational, Bill. Thanks for the uplift, and thanks to Muhammed Ali!

      JC

      Delete
  2. The Laws of Newtonian Physics are deduced and written by man, from observational, repeatable, data sets, which we call the scientific approach. Besslers' wheels therefore are a paradox in the sense that they must obey those same Laws at a mechanical level, yet when the Laws are factored in a wheel and expressed as mechanical actions they yield a different physical outcome than what those same Laws should predict. Therefore the Newtonian Laws are not 100% robust, 100% of the time, and are not extrapolated from 100% of data capture opportunities, as per a unique mechanical context which Bessler found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nicely phrased Anonymous. I think Newtonian laws are robust enough all of the time, and I suspect that the unique mechanical context which Bessler found will prove to have been predictable within those laws, once their design is known.

      JC

      Delete
    2. And yet another useful topic appears, and a delicious one at that, John. With your ever-accruing years, you just get better and better at what you do. (I wish that I could claim this same but, I just soldier-on.)

      OK! So as to maybe contribute some here, maybe, I think I could do no better than to offer some little bit of my planned book cover's fly leaf verbiage, as it states a quite lot in just a few words:

      "Too it might profitably become understood that, what lays outside of Nature does not interfere with Her realm nor vice-versa, and so if a Perpetuum Mobile were to be experienced as created, naturally Nature's laws should not in-the-least be impacted, and thus rudely rendered inoperative/inapplicable 'all-of-a-sudden.' Further meaning that, the succeeding mechanism dependent upon those very laws for it's operation, would produce that very extended external effect internally but, would not ACT TO OBVIATE THEM.

      Even though 'of Nature', the mind of Man is capable of imagining things and matters way outside and above that mere ken. . . ."

      From my planned little opus to be titled . . .

      Or, in-short, if Nature's laws of whatever did not act uniformly always, then Bessler's Wheel might not have functioned all the time nor dependably, which it seems to have.

      It is interesting that term "Paradox" is being used more-and-more here these days. It does seem applicable though, does it not, John?

      THE PROBLEM IS, however, that Establishment Physics asserts with great stride, puffery and near-righteous assuredness that BOTH cannot be so, that is that their Laws are what they are, and are effectively immutable AND (plus), that on this very account do disallow any and all exceptions to them to existence such as, well yes, mechanical per se motivation.

      This fact cannot be gotten around without resorting to dependable old savior, irrationality.

      If self enactment is observed as having been achieved by dependence upon Natural laws for it's very operation, then SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE!!

      Someone(s), somewhere, somehow gets A BLOODY NOSE!!

      I have spoken to a few of these (one being an MIT head of division, and another a mere Stanford U. physics major), and they agree! How could they not?

      This is the mortal fear that they - the Scientism Oh-So Smart-Set - carry with them to their graves.

      Continued below:

      Delete
    3. (It is a system of BELIEF, all masqueraded and painted up nicely as IF pure and dispassionate search for reality, as cleaved of all else. BS! It is all too human, money- and rep- and approbation-seeking, and weak as to ultimate and necessary, potentially self-abnegating rigor! For instance, twenty years dedication to a found FAILED proposition should be taken ideally as A LESSON LEARNED for progress while thrown-out, rather than finessed into some sort of false positive reality as too many do and have done. This is a vital act of which most are incapable, short of being saints. Which ever were? My pick would be James Clerk Maxwell. I'd vote him as saint-likely any day.)

      So, what might be the possibilities remaining to them, POST observation of a manifested, perpetuum mobile horror?

      1. That energy CAN be created from nothing, after all. Yes, but this is worse-still than any discovered, merely flawed Natural laws! Indeed. How to explain that one, and have them survive still? Seems dicey.

      2. That such a new energy comes from Netheregions utterly inaccessible to our own realm of reality, a limiting glue into which we are all stuck. Ha! Even worse-still on top of the first.

      Well heck. Let's just call it "The Twilight Zone" rather than the far, far more scary 'supernatural,' this being likely way-easier on our atheist/agnostic friends, and Heaven knows we DO wish that for them. (No?)

      3. Some establishmenteer darlings postulate that such "Netherregions" do exist and, that their energies may be had for use by some means but only presently not known. (I.e. zero-point and the like.)

      Why, our very own cuddly and favored "Vibe" himself has spoken ad nauseam of these, even though not one of us could ever, likely so, comprehend on such a high pay-grade of mind-fineness, as his displays prominently/dependably, and most impressively always.

      So, there seem to be three, at least; that last appearing the least unpalatable of all to Scientism's great, ever-pronouncing pooh-bahs. Ones such as The RC's own high Lord Kelvin, certainly would have done better as more silent than he was. (Need we review here the famous quotes?)

      Which brings me to the last sharp point which now has become evident: whichever of these the actual matter proves, perpetual motion (or, motion that is 'perpetual enough') will NOT have come from laboratories nor the Scientism Cult itself which is, always has been and shall be, I say, 'till cold-cocked by pesky reality onto their pompous, ever-parading asses. (To the very few exceptions to this generality, I offer my most sincere pre-apologies.)

      Rather, it will in fact have originated from common and unsophisticated work benches, and those mostly of organ builder's.

      (And, JUST as powered, heavier-that-air flight was demonstrated by lowly bicycle repairmen. One would think that The Pronouncers of Nay would learn to keep shut their mouths 'till evidence is had and confirmed roundly, but they don't. For the usual reasons as to why likely-not, all can quite easily imagine, so I suppose.)

      "Houston, we have a problem!"

      Developing . . .

      J.M.

      Delete
    4. I prefer "Postulates of Newtonian Physics" vs "Laws of Newtonian Physics". To me, a Law implies certainty based on measurable and calculated mathematics, not an assumption based on observation or lack there of.

      Delete
    5. Thank you James’s for your excellent discourse. I do believe it was possibly four times the length of my blog, but nevertheless welcome as usual.

      I do like anonymous’s correction of the word “Laws” to “Postulates”, so much more accurate.

      JC

      Delete
    6. A Law is called a Law because its predictive abilities do have certainty. When and if a "Law" fails to be fully predictive and accurate, for all circumstances, then it will be summarily dethroned. The onus is to prove that there are exceptional circumstances disproving the "Law" before impeachment can start.

      Delete
    7. Gees! Thanks, John! You're right, it grew too long. Am catching a bit of that old Behrendt fever, so it seems. In the future I'll see to it that any do not.

      The Anonymous (whichever or whoever these various lurkers might be) contribute much food for good thought and further reflecting. These should have our thanks, and do here.

      (Mightn't they or he or she be one of THEM? Meaning, part of the mighty and feared S-S-S itself? I suspect it a good possibility. I know, or at least am sure, that the younger ones of their number truly are keen to access authentic reality, as separated-out from that fake or existing 'of necessity,' and this wherever or at those chips might fall. Here would be the actual good part of the all-pervading and cussedly overbearing, S-S-S.)

      As according with what I have observed and experienced thus far, Bessler's successfully operating wheel wholly depended upon Newton's and the later Thermo laws as established, for it's very operation. The great difficulty here, or so it would seem to myself, is that those very laws (as I understand them to be as far as a non- S-S-S member might be able) act to forbid it, even tho all the while acting as enablement! They (the two members I know) affirm and reaffirm their disallowance, and therefor on account we have apparent nasty paradox with which to deal.

      I say "apparent" as I think it ONLY that and, that there is something else happening that accounts for the nice result, which operation up to that point is 100% S-S-S approved.

      Long ago, over at the BWF, I posed a question "IS it or, is it NOT?" as to whether gravity might be a form of energy or no. Being at that time accepted there by The Great Ones Themselves, one response reporting back was (so I thought and do still) particularly fine.

      It was written from far off Fiji and by no less than Fletcher! I could not then nor can I still now imagine a better, more useful response.

      It can be accessed here for review: http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5485&highlight=law+levers

      I suggest that all truly interested in the subject go there and read what he put and copy it, and archive it for future reference. Also, any of such might begin with my own humble opus preceding, that served to spark it.

      One of the various of possible suggestions found within (this for accounting of such anomalousness as was the operation of Bessler's Wheel) was suggested as being due to some misunderstanding exsiting somewhere as to the action of "the law of levers" or at very least, a thus far INCOMPLETE APPLICATION of them. It is this last that I now am coming to believe the actual case.

      Well, whatever the case-actual proves as, something somewhere is 'going to GET it!' and come up the worse for wear and posture. It cannot be but otherwise, being ordained by immutable power.

      (Nature Herself prevents utterly all creatures and things from being anywhere near of an 'equal' state. Only in birth and death are we all; everything in-between being up-for-grabs, and an anxiety ridden crap-shoot 'till the end. Futile efforts to counter Her are the hopeless result of intelligent will-worship gone all wrong.)

      In my previous admittedly too-long screed I mentioned three possibilities as being accountable for Besslerian action, each successively more horrifying to precious accepted belief systems (paradigm and totem-pole position comfort) than those preceding. There might be more. Any thoughts on this?

      Anyway, must cut it short apropos my promise.

      J.

      Delete
  3. "I think Newtonian laws are robust enough all of the time, and I suspect that the unique mechanical context which Bessler found will prove to have been predictable within those laws, once their design is known."

    I agree John. Newtonian laws probably will suffice in general terms of description for a weight driven wheel. They are a subset of the Laws of Thermodynamics which may take a licking and require a covenant.

    And then a working example of a net 'g' force zero closed system with excess energy of motion could well toss the Work Energy Duality Theorem on its ear and question the nature of gravity as a Conservative Field of Potential verses a continuum of usable energy.

    And that's just for starters, not even bringing Einstein's theories or quantum physics into the fray.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We know it worked.

    We know that means it had excess mechanical energy.

    That's KE, and/or PE.

    PE is essentially just force times displacement - a battery or spring contains the same energy no matter what speed it's travelling at. As such, you can't have 'excess' PE.

    But KE is a direct function of speed. And 'speed' is a function of a given frame of reference to something 'stationary'.

    Excess KE thus means that this FoR is either being accelerated with the mass in question, or else, the mass has excess speed for some other reason.

    But the only other physical quantity that KE is a function of is mass - and that's invariant.

    So exces KE can only be embodied as excess velocity.

    And that can only mean an effective violation of Newton's 3rd, and thus 1st, laws of motion.

    That can only mean a gravitationally augmented inertial interaction - an asymmetric accumulation of momentum, from an otherwise conservative inertial interaction, caused by the artful deployment of gravity.


    This is the only alternative to 'magic' or fraud..

    So we know how it worked..!

    Just a matter of isolating the exploit..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's back!

      In part he offers thusly:

      "That can only mean a gravitationally augmented inertial interaction - an asymmetric accumulation of momentum, from an otherwise conservative inertial interaction, caused by the artful deployment of gravity."

      and

      "So we know how it worked..!"

      Finally! We would NOW seem to!

      With breaths but barely abated, we await the inevitable, tangible results . . .

      Delete
  5. John, are there any plans for a post about Bessler's death? The anniversary is 3 days away you know :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ll see what I can do, yellow. Thank you

      JC

      Delete
  6. The laws of physics are not broken in the Besslerwheel.

    ReplyDelete

Was Bessler Prescient About the Year 2019?

Here we are on the brink of 2019 and, as I have done every year since I don’t know when, I think that this coming year we will succeed in r...