This blog is copied from one I posted on 14th March 2016. I still think it’s a valid viewpoint, ten years on.
I return to this subject from time to time, always seeking clarification. I know that gravity cannot be a source of energy, I've been told so more times than I can remember. But it does seem as though Johann Bessler thought that the 'heaviness', i.e 'ponderousness' or as they say in Latin the 'gravitas' of the weights inside his machine gave the wheel the necessary energy to continually rotate.
Notice that there is a subtle difference between what we know as 'gravity', which is some kind of force field which attracts other things of mass - and a thing's inherent 'heaviness'. Is there a difference? Bessler believed that it was the 'heaviness' of the weights in his machine which gave it the power to turn continuously, but we always take one step further back in the process, i.e. was it the thing that caused the 'heavinesss' in his weights which he did not know of and which we call 'gravity’, that caused them to move?
Can it be that this whole apparently pointless enterprise, making a wheel turn continuously simply by constructing a clever configuration of weights, has been doomed to failure because man sought the source of the 'heaviness' when it did not matter where it came from, he should have just been glad it was and is there?
We accept several different forms of energy which we can turn to our advantage in one way or another but the fact that we know from where it originates and how it works and how we can best make use of it, is not neccessarily something we need to know. People have sailed ships using the wind as an energy source for millenia. Same for windmills for grinding corn etc. Others learned how to use water wheels in a similar way. Clock makers even used 'heaviness' to drive their weight-driven clocks, long before Sir Isaac Newton called 'gravity'. Just because no one seems to have discovered how to manipulate weights to rotate a wheel continuously does not mean it can't be done. I'm certain that Johann Bessler knew and yet he never mentions the word gravity in any of his publications, because it wasn't known about for many years after Sir Isaac Newton descibed it in Latin as 'gravity'.
My point is this, weights are inherently heavy, we know it is the effect of gravity but we don't actually need to know that to use them. Gravity is not a source of energy but it does create the conditions which can lead to a device being able to exploit the heaviness which gravity gives to an object of mass.
So when Bessler said, " NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity." That is what he meant; the heaviness in the weights, not some remote force called gravity.
Interestingly he used the word ''gravium', at the end of the sentence above which I have translated as, 'centre of gravity', but I subsequently learned that the word ,'gravium', is the genitive plural of 'gravis' which I learned means 'heaviness', so Bessler uses the phrase 'centre of heaviness', which means the same thing but when you put it into the correct context of his time, you can see that he is not referring to the same thing as we are when we use the phrase 'centre of gravity'. He is simply stating that the centre of heaviness is at a certain point but has nothing to do with the force of gravity. We on the other hand, mean that the centre of gravity refers to the action of gravity on the whole structure and identifies the balancing point between both sides affected by the fore of gravity as the central point.
In the second paragraph I suggested that we habitually looked at the conditions prior to the use of weights, or what gravity did to the weights, whereas we should be looking at the weights themselves as they were at the time of their use. We have been looking one step back and ignoring the evidence in front of our eyes.
All we need to know is that the weights are always heavy just as long as gravity is affecting them. Gravity enables the wheels to move and it’s up to us the determine the correct configuration to obtain continuous rotation.
We know Bessler’s wheel worked; we know the weights themselves were the source of the wheel’s rotation. There is therefore, definitely a configuration which works, but we haven’t found it yet despite all the abundance of Bessler’s clues.
PS. Today, 1st September 2026, I’m currently building a wheel which I think will work, I’ll keep you notified of the results of a test.
JC
Decade old REHASH?! Maybe you should also have copied and pasted the comments from that ancient blog too? The veteran members here, which are probably about 99% of the daily visits, want to see NEW content and not rehashed content. Do you have any CURRENT drawings, photos, or videos of what you CLAIM you are now working on? One can waste so much time endlessly debating the nature of gravity and energy. That will do nothing to get us a working Bessler wheel duplicate today. 😒
ReplyDeleteI posted this latest blog to answer the old question which asked for answers to “where did the energy come from in Bessler's wheel?”
DeleteI will post images of my current model when it’s finished and tested. Since this is probably going to be my last attempt at replicating Bessler’s wheel, I will be sharing some clues I’ve not shared for many years and some which I’ve put together in a new way.
JC
JC writes: "I will post images of my current model when it’s finished and tested."
DeleteTranslation: "Don't expect to see anything THIS year!""
@anon 00:13...if you're looking for new clues go back two blogs and read all of the comments...you wont believe what's being discovered back there!
DeleteJC: "Since this is probably going to be my last attempt at replicating Bessler’s wheel...".
DeleteSounds like he's finally reached the end of the line when it comes to building and testing anything. Of course, everyone knew this is how it would end if he did not find his runner which it does not look like he will. Nothing to be ashamed of, though. We all have to face harsh reality sooner or later. The only people who never fail are those who never try anything new. However, I'm wondering if he will officially announce his "retirement" from active Bessler pm wheel chasing before this coming Christmas or after it in the New Year? Also, what will happen to this blog when he retires?
Suppose we can finally build working Bessler wheels. Then someone takes one of them far out into space aboard a rocket. The rocket comes to a stop between two galaxies in "deep space". Next, the Bessler wheel, which is motionless at that time, is mounted inside of a large centrifuge inside of the rocket that begins rotating around fast enough so that each of the lead weights inside of the Bessler wheel has a centrifugal force applied to it that is equal to the gravitational force it would feel IF the wheel was back on planet Earth and resting on the floor of some building. The Bessler wheel aboard the rocket then starts to rotate and increases its speed until it reaches whatever the maximum speed would be for such a wheel running freely which means with nothing attached to its axle. Since there is no normal planetary gravity field present, WHERE is the energy coming from that the Bessler wheel outputs? 🤔
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming that the Bessler wheel inside of the rocket's turning centrifuge would start running. It might not. Also, you wouldn't need to go out into space to test the Bessler wheel. You could get NASA to mount it inside of one of those big centrifuges they use to train astronauts and then give it a spin. The wheel would be mounted with the plane of its drum tangent to the surface of the Earth so that the Earth's gravity would apply no forces to the weights in the plane of the wheel's drum. However, if a Bessler wheel did run inside of a centrifuge that would pose an interesting question: where does the energy it generate come from? Good luck trying to figure that out.
DeleteIt would still be a runner inside a centrifuge or spinning space station as has been often discussed for decades. Y of Y do you not see lol.
DeleteThis would actually be a very good experiment.
DeleteTake a working Bessler wheel far away from any significant gravitational field and place it inside a large rotating spacecraft or centrifuge. Adjust the rotation until the weights inside the wheel experience approximately the same acceleration they would experience on Earth.
Would the wheel start?
My prediction is yes — but not necessarily at just any centrifuge speed.
If the mechanism is dynamically tuned to gravity, then changing the artificial gravity also changes the timing of the internal motions. A wheel designed around approximately 1 g may therefore have a preferred operating RPM and a limited operating window. With weaker artificial gravity the internal motions become slower; with stronger artificial gravity they become faster. Move far enough away from the correct relationship and the phase between the wheel and its internal mechanism may be lost completely.
So the first interesting result would not simply be RUN or STOP.
It would be the relationship between artificial (g), wheel RPM, load and stability.
Now the interesting question becomes: where does the energy come from?
If the centrifuge is driven by a motor and its RPM is held constant, I would predict that the motor must begin supplying additional energy.
But suppose the complete centrifuge or spacecraft is allowed to rotate freely.
Then my prediction is that the small wheel cannot continue delivering useful work without something measurable happening to the larger rotating system. Its rotational state must change. If the spacecraft was originally spun up with thrusters, then the energy being extracted can ultimately be traced back to the rocket fuel used to create that rotation.
And this is where the space experiment becomes much more interesting than simply demonstrating a rotating wheel.
On Earth, there is no obvious fuel tank to watch. Gravity is simply present, continuously, and even if a wheel really does rotate and lift a load, showing the rotation is only the easy part.
The difficult part is showing how, from where and to where the energy moves.
Without that, a real machine could still look like just another hidden motor or clever fraud.
But in the freely rotating spacecraft experiment there is somewhere else to look.
If the small wheel keeps doing work, watch the big wheel.
If a reproducible relationship appears between artificial gravity, phase, RPM, load and the energy lost by the larger rotating system, then the question begins to change.
Perhaps we are no longer looking at a “perpetual-motion machine” at all.
Perhaps we are looking at a tuned, quasi-periodic nonlinear dynamically self-regulating mechanical oscillator with a resonance and phase-locking window and a load-dependent attractor. .)
PLMKRN
If Bessler's wheel was just an overbalanced wheel which he claimed it was, then it should turn regardless of the strength of a planet's gravity field or the strength of the centrifugal forces that its weights experience aboard a spinning space station or planet located centrifuge. If the wheel outputs energy, then that energy must come from some source. It either somehow comes from the planet's rotational or orbital kinetic energy or the rotational kinetic energy of the space station or planet located centrifuge which will gradually cause them to slow down or...from the wheel's weights themselves. My vote is that it comes from the wheel's weights. As the wheel outputs energy, those weights, over long periods of time, will gradually lose mass which, according to modern physics is equivalent to mass via the famous E=mc^2 equation. But, trying to prove this, which will only be possible after we finally get working Bessler pm wheels, won't be an easy matter. Seems like nothing in advanced physics ever is.
DeleteI think this is exactly where our predictions begin to differ.
DeleteIf the wheel really is nothing more than a static overbalance mechanism, then I agree that changing the strength of gravity should mainly change the magnitude of the available torque. But I am not yet convinced that “overbalance” is the correct description of the complete working system. It may describe what one sees geometrically while missing the dynamical part of the process.
The more interesting disagreement, however, is the energy source.
Your prediction is that the energy ultimately comes from the wheel’s own weights and that their mass would therefore decrease according to (E=mc^2).
Mine is different.
I would first look for an energy transfer between the wheel and the larger rotating system.
(E=mc^2) certainly tells us that a system losing energy also loses an equivalent amount of mass. But that does not by itself tell us that the rest mass of the lead weights is being converted into mechanical work. It is an accounting relationship, not yet a mechanism.
That distinction gives us a very clean experimental choice.
If your interpretation is correct, the wheel should be able to keep extracting energy while the surrounding centrifuge or spacecraft remains essentially unaffected, apart from ordinary mechanical reactions, and the missing energy should eventually be traceable to a loss of mass in the wheel.
If my interpretation is correct, the wheel is dynamically coupled to the larger rotating system, and useful output from the small wheel must leave a corresponding energetic signature there.
That is why I would measure the big system before trying to measure an unimaginably small change in the mass of the weights.
And there is a broader reason for doing it this way.
One weight is not necessarily the whole energy account. Its motion may be only one line in the bookkeeping of a larger coupled system.
So perhaps the most useful question is not yet:
“Which part of the wheel is the fuel?”
It is:
“Where should the equal and opposite change appear when useful work leaves the system?”
That question is measurable.
And if the answer turns out to be the larger rotating system, then we may have been calling the machine by the wrong name from the beginning.
PLMKRN
Ken B claims that Bessler's wheels were not "perpetual" in the strictest definition of the word. He promotes the idea that their outputted mechanical energy was derived from the rest masses of the subatomic particles in the atoms of their lead weights. Since the total mass of the lead weights in Bessler's wheels would have been finite, that means that they could only output a finite amount of energy and, after a great length of time, would have outputted all of the energy content of the lead atoms and then the wheel would have to finally come to a stop.
DeleteThe problem with his concept is that it implies that, eventually, one could have lead weights that were massless! I cannot say that is impossible, but I also cannot imagine such a material existing. If one was to remove a massless lead weight from an "exhausted" Bessler wheel, take it outside and then release it, it would immediately rise to the top of Earth's atmosphere where the solar wind from our Sun would blow it right out of our solar system!
I think what would happen if one just let a Bessler wheel keep running is that the subatomic particles in its lead atoms would, once their rest masses dropped below a certain critical amount, somehow start stealing mass from their environment...maybe taking mass from other parts of the wheel like the atoms in its wooden parts...or maybe even from the building materials in the floor, ceiling, or walls of the room containing the wheel. Trying to measure all of this would be a real challenge for the physicists of the future.
Interesting ideas. I think we may simply be at very different stages with our models of what the wheel actually was.
DeleteHow different, I’m not quite sure.
Perhaps only a few steps.
Perhaps a few light-years.
PLMKRN
I'm in my late 70's now and hoping to see working Bessler pm wheels being made before I finally drop dead. ⚰️ That means within the next decade. I'm convinced it will happen. We all just have to keep the faith 🙏 and keep our fingers crossed.🤞
DeleteAmen!
DeletePLMKRN
Think the world just can't wait to turn to pm machine generated electrical power? Think again!
ReplyDeletehttps://principia-scientific.com/five-companies-picked-to-build-nuclear-microreactors-on-us-army-bases/
Considering that the USS Nautilus was the world's first nuclear-powered boat, nuclear-powered submarine, and the first submarine to complete a submerged transit of the North Pole on August 3rd, 1958, I'm surprised we weren't using compact nuclear reactors or "CNR" for civilian electrical power generation decades ago. IIRC, the Nautilus (named after the fictional electric powered submarine in the 19th century Jules Verne sci-fi novel) had a 60 megawatt nuclear power plant built into it. It was completely safe to use despite the crew being in such close proximity to it. Assuming that at any time a typical home is using 1 kilowatt of power on average, that's enough power for 60,000 homes! I think in the future they could even be making a large nuclear battery about the size of a water heater that will just plug into an outlet on the side of your house and it will electrify your home for a decade or more until it needs to be replaced with a fresh battery.
DeleteI had a plastic model of the USS Nautilus as a kid that I loved putting together. Half of the hull could be removed to show all of the levels inside including where the nuclear power plant was located. You got a chart that identified everything and told you what color to paint them. The Kellogg company even put a miniature toy version of this submarine into their cereal boxes and I had several of them. You would put some baking soda inside of it and then place in into a fish tank. The sub would sink to the bottom, but then the baking soda would react with the water and make little bubbles of carbon dioxide. They then made the sub rise up to the top of the water. Once there the bubbles dissipated and the sub dove back down again. After a minute or so, enough additional bubbles were made by the remaining baking soda in the toy sub to cause it to rise and repeat the action. It was a great toy for a kid to play with and fantasize about and free with every box of cereal!
Here's a nice drawing someone made showing an accurate cutaway view of the USS Nautilus:
https://conceptbunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/uss_nautilus.jpg
Amazing how much time this blog wastes talking about everything EXCEPT Bessler's wheels! 😒
DeleteAnon 21:57 wrote "Half of the hull could be removed to show all of the levels inside including where the nuclear power plant was located. You got a chart that identified everything..."
DeleteGreat idea! That saved the Soviet and Chinese communist militaries some time as they proceeded to copy our secret atomic sub design for possible future warfare with the US! Were the Soviets and Chinese selling us models of their latest military technology? No because they had too much brains to do stupid things like that!
anon 3:13 just the usual garbage
DeleteDid Bessler not invent a submarine .
DeleteBessler mentioned somewhere that he had a design for some sort of floating thing that would contain the most valuable part of a ship's cargo and could be ejected from the ship in case of a storm that was strong enough to sink the ship. The idea was to save a valuable cargo so it would not be lost at sea. We don't have any drawings of it only a vague description. Imo, the most valuable part is the crew and passengers! They should come first ahead of some capitalist's investment!
DeleteYears ago, I recall someone linked us to an interesting drawing showing what he thought a Bessler pm wheel powered submarine might look like. Its hull contained a long wooden axle that ran almost the entire length of the hull. Mounted on the axle were a dozen or so small Bessler wheels. A long steel pivot at the back end of the axle was attached to a big propeller outside of the back of the hull. There was a large strong glass window in the front of the hull for the pilot to look out of and he had hand controls that could be used to adjust a rudder near the back propeller and dive planes on the sides of the hull. I didn't save the image, but maybe someone else here did and can link to it for us?
IIRC, that possible version of the Bessler pm wheel powered sub did not have ballast tanks like modern subs do that are flooded to submerge the sub by making it heavier and later have compressed air released into them to push the water back out again so that the sub is lightened up enough to rise again. Instead, the weight of the occupants would cause it to sink until the upper hatch was only a foot or so above the outside surface of the water. At that time the rear propeller was fully submerged. Once the axle carrying the small Bessler wheels was started, the sub would begin moving forward and the side dive planes would be slightly angled downward to make it submerge. The nice thing about that suggested design was that, if something went wrong and the propeller stopped running, the sub would just slowly rise back to the water's surface.
It was basically another version of an actual navigable submarine that as built by an inventor named Cornelis Drebbel in the early 17th century. His sub could submerge to a depth of about 20 feet or so before the increasing water pressure might cause internal leaks to start in its wooden hull. Around 1620 Drebbel actually talked the English king James I into taking a dive in it under the Thames River!
Unlike the suggested design for the Bessler sub, Drebbel's was powered by several human rowers and the sub could only stay submerged for a short time before the CO2 in it built up too much and it needed to surface and its upper water tight hatch opened to let in some fresh air. But, considering it was built almost 400 years before modern military submarines, it was a remarkable achievement. I'm sure Bessler read all about it and was amazed by Drebbel's invention.
Reading about the achievements of earlier inventors can inspire newbie inventors to get to work on their own inventions. Bessler would have read everything he could find on mechanics as he began his pm chase. Sadly, a lot of pm chasers today never bother to do that since they automatically assume that they already know everything they need to in order to achieve quick success. Then, years later they wonder why nothing they've ever built could complete even a single turn! 🤨❔❔❔
@anon 21:57
DeleteI had one of those Kellogg's cereal toy Nautilus submarines too! I had a lot of fun with it. You can still get one, but they are now rare collector's items and command a hefty price. Here's a photo I found of one made in 1955:
https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/1113/12/vintage-1955-kelloggs-cereal-premium_1_c5f3c9da66b44f556bde57eb5d4c911f.jpg
It was only a few inches in length and was actually hollow inside. The top of the conning tower popped off so you could put some baking soda into a compartment there. The compartment was not water tight and would let some water reach the baking soda. Then you put it in the water and let it sink. After a minute or so, the carbon dioxide bubbles would build up inside of the clear plastic part and make it rise back to the surface. Once there the bubbles could leave the clear plastic part and be replaced by water and down it went again. Whoever designed it was a genius, imo! Here's view of the bottom of this toy. Once in the water the clear plastic part, which acted like a ballast weight to keep the sub level, was practically invisible.
https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images3/1/1113/12/vintage-1955-kelloggs-cereal-premium_1_c5f3c9da66b44f556bde57eb5d4c911f.jpg
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, guys! I didn't have the Kellogg sub (I wish I had though!), but I had a similar toy they put into their cereal boxes years later. They were little toy scuba divers which they called "frogmen" back then. I think they were supposed to be navy divers. There was a pop off metal cap on a plastic base at the end of one of their feet which you had to remove to put some baking soda into the base. Then you replaced the metal cap and dropped the frogman into the water. He would immediately sink and then when the carbon dioxide bubbles built up enough, he would slowly float back up to the surface again which kind of simulated the slow ascent real divers have to make so they did not get "the bends". IIRC, the toy diver did not sink back down again unless you lifted him out of the water to remove the carbon dioxide bubbles and then placed him back into the water again. They came in several different colored plastics. I had a collection of about 4 or 5 of them with different colors and one time I had them all diving into our bath tub at once. My mother kept wondering why all of her baking soda kept disappearing!
DeleteI read somewhere recently that after more than a decade, Kellogg is finally going to start putting little plastic toys back into their kids' cereal boxes again. They will be made to look like various characters from Disney and Pixar movies. A step in the right direction, imo. But, I think kids really want toys that actually do something and are not just collectibles. However, Kellogg has to be careful with toys that "do something" so that the something does not injure the kid and result in a lawsuit. Most of the toys I played with and enjoyed as a kid like BB guns, slingshots, and "Lawn Darts" are now considered way too dangerous to let kids play with! Sometimes I wonder how any of us survived childhood without losing a eye, fracturing our skulls, or breaking our necks! 🤕
@anon 20:38
DeleteI found this photo of some of those '50's Kellog cereal box subs and frogmen. These must be early versions because the subs don't have that clear plastic piece yet shown in anon 19:20's photos. There were three types of frogmen and they each came in three different colors. One of the frogmen is holding some disc shaped thing over his head. Not sure what that is. Maybe some sort of mine to attach to an enemy ship's hull?
https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0221/12/vtg-1950s-kelloggs-plastic-frogmen_1_6eee8a0424fb9ba91cd21444e1510222.jpg
@anon 17:18
DeleteI found some comments from May 15th, 2020 blog that discussed Drebbel's submarine of 1620. It did contain ballast tanks...sort of. There were leather bags inside of the hull that could fill with water to make it sink and would then be squeezed out later to make it surface. The wooden hull was wrapped in leather that had been greased to make it water resistant. It towed a barrel with snorkel pipes and hoses attached to it that would let it stay submerged for hours. His sub could go down tens of feet. It could carry a crew of 16, 12 of whom had to work the oars. The oars are not correct in the artist's version of it. They had flaps at the ends that would open when they were pushing water toward the rear of the hull, but fold flat when they moved forward again. Here's the artist's drawing of it:
https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/c0150217/800wm/C0150217-Cornelius_Drebbel_s_submarine,_artwork.jpg
He does provide any way for the pilot to see outside after the hatch is closed and sealed. Most likely Drebbel would have included a small viewing window somewhere in the forward part of the hull.
I also remember that design for a possible Bessler pm wheel powered sub that some anon made for us and linked to, but I cannot find the link anywhere and I didn't bother to save a copy of the drawing in my image folder for this blog. Now I know why people save and collect the images here...for situations like this! 😞
Correction: "He does provide any way for the pilot to see outside..." should have been "He does NOT provide any way for the pilot to see outside..."
Delete@anon 20:38
DeleteThose idiots at worthpoint.com are blocking your hot link to that Kellog cereal box toys photo on their site. I found it on Google images and uploaded it to postimages.org so everyone one here can finally see it. Here it is:
https://i.postimg.cc/j5WHYgVd/u-https-tse3-mm-bing-net-th-id-OIP.jpg
Why doesn't anyone question the morality of enticing little kids with "free" toys to buy and consume a "food" product that is loaded with refined sugar? They eventually turn into teenagers suffering from cavities, obesity, hearth disease, diabetes, and mental problems. Dropping out of secondary school is the next step. This results in an adult who is unhealthy and needs lifelong medication which, of course, makes Big Pharma richer. The therapists and psychiatrists also cash in on it along the way.
DeleteWhen his/her disability gets bad enough, the victim will become unemployable and live a life on welfare. He/she will never have any kind of normal social life like with a spouse and family, etc. Never own a home unless they inherit one from mom and pop before some nursing home grabs it away from them. Never drive or do any traveling and just spend their lives eating snacks and scrolling the day away on social media sites as a substitute. But everyone continues to applaud the kiddie breakfast cereal companies for being so thoughtful to put a one cent piece of molded plastic at the bottom of a box of their cr*p and then sell it all for many times its actual worth. This situation shows us how really stupid the masses can be and how the capitalists make sure they stay that way because it's "good for business"! 🤬✊
Sounds exactly like what happened to me, anon 18:54. Except I wound up in my parents cellar working on pm wheels all of my life. Now, decades later, they're both gone, but I'm still here and still working on my wheels without any hint of success of course. But, I'm happy and will continue as I have until my neighbors eventually call the police because they've noticed a putrid smell coming from my house and they come and finally remove my decaying corpse from the cellar. I crossed the line a long time ago and this is my new "normal". I have no other choice nor do I want one. Please do not pity me. I think many would probably envy me!
DeleteI both pity and envy you! If you finally do find success, all of your deficiencies and past failures will all be quickly forgotten or will just be used to make some colorful content for the biographies written about you. If, however, you do not find success, you will just be another nobody for an undertaker to make a quick buck off of. The cemeteries of the world are filled with failed pm wheel chasers. You'll just be another one to add to them unless your relatives or the state decides to cremate you to cut their costs.
DeleteYou made your bed now lie in it. No one held a gun to you head.
DeleteAnon 18:54's point was that Big Cereal makes the beds and pushes kids into them at the earliest age possible. I tend to agree. Kids will always go for the sweetest beverages and foods they can get. If their parents don't know any better, which they usually don't, then they will make sure their kids get plenty of them so they will "be happy". Big Cereal knows how this works and wants to keep it going just like it is to keep their profits rolling in. If anyone tries to take the candy machines out of schools, for example, they will start screaming that it's an infringement of a kid's right to eat whatever he wants and start taking legal actions. Taking gym classes in secondary schools used to be required. Now it's optional because most of the students get a note from the drs. treating them saying they are unfit for any kind of exercise! The drs. know exactly what is going on, but go along with it because they are raking in the $$$ treating all of those sick kids. They are in no rush to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs for them.
DeleteGrow up. Everything eats something else. There are only predators and prey in this world. If you recognize this you get to decide which you are going to be. It's the parents job to protect and nurture their children until they are adults and can make informed decisions for themselves. Some never grow up and always blame others which is what you are doing.
DeleteUnfortunately, a lot parents are clueless when it comes to raising their kids. They let the schools, tv, and the internet do it for them. The "values" a kid acquires then become programmed into him by advertisers who tell him what he should be doing at each stage of his youth if he wants to "fit in" and even have status inside of his "peer group". Coincidentally, those "values" are all designed to make the companies sponsoring the ads richer.
DeleteYou are right. There are only predators and prey in this world. The capital class are the predators and the labor class are the prey! Capitalists HATE unions because it puts the labor class in a stronger position. All predators prefer weak prey which are easier to subdue and suck the life out of. Everything going on in human society can also be found happening in the realm of insects. Consider how flies caught in a web get treated by the spider who spun that web! 🕷️🕸️🪰...help!
Just when John thought he could relax and play with his pentagonal wheel's pivots and strings, now he's got something new to worry about...possible STARVATION! Read the scary details here:
ReplyDeletehttps://principia-scientific.com/stock-up-on-food-because-of-el-nino-says-british-minister
Food may be the least of John's problems. I recently saw a news report that said Putin is getting VERY annoyed that the British are now supplying the Ukrainians with drones and parts for drone which they are using to blow up Russian military equipment and kill Russian troops. Putin said if it does not stop SOON he is going to start blowing up factories INSIDE of Great Britain which I assume would be done using sea launched missiles from submarines.
DeleteMy question is what will the British do if that happens? Technically, it would be an attack on a NATO member that then triggers "Article 5" of the NATO treaty which says an attack against one is considered an attack against all of the members.
Maybe the British and other NATO members would then send troops to help the Ukrainians fight the Russian troops and drive them out of any Ukrainian territories they now occupy?
Putin is also said to be seriously considering using tactical NUCLEAR weapons to blow up Ukrainian military and other targets. These weapons are not as powerful and the ones that US military used to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But, even with only about 1 THOUSAND tons of TNT explosive energy, one such weapon could completely wipe out an entire military base...or an electrical power plant...or a railway hub.
Everyone says that this war is probably going to be over by early next year after Putin gets tired of all of the sanctions ruining the Russian economy. I however have a more negative view and think we are still only at the beginning of a much longer war that could end up with the Russians and European nations routinely lobbing tactical nuclear weapons at each other with the casualties climbing into the millions. As the situation grows more desperate for Putin, he might decide to escalate to using hydrogen bombs with the explosive energy of 25 MILLION tons of TNT!
And the US is still part of NATO. Would we start drafting our young men to go over and fight Russians on the ground. Suppose the president of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, turns to Trump and says "Excuse me, Mr. President, but could you please provide us with a few dozen of those tactical nuclear weapons so we can use them on Russia?"
Oh yes...we live in very interesting and slowly getting much more dangerous times, imo. Right now the only way I see this war ending is if Putin is assassinated and his replacement decides to withdraw all Russian troops from any occupied Ukrainian territories. But, that is probably not going to happen because Putin probably has the highest level of protection any human on this planet has ever had. He spends all of his time in an apartment in the Kremlin that is heavily guarded and he can probably immediately do down into a bomb shelter about 1,000 or more feet below the Kremlin at the first sign of an incoming attack.
I think what a lot of people in the west don't understand yet is that the Russians consider tactical nukes to just be another battlefield weapon. It is no big deal to them to use them and they have plenty of them that they can use. But how Putin uses them will make a big difference. If he just blows up military bases then that is one thing. However, if he starts using them on populated towns to produce mass casualties that is something else and far more serious. The Nato countries will view that as a definite threat to them and they will immediately ban together to join in on the Russia/Ukraine war. It will not matter that the Ukraine is not officially part of Nato. With a single conference call they could be voted into Nato in minutes if necessary! I agree with anon 07:02 that this thing has the potential to get a LOT worse before it gets better.
DeletePutin knows that the Ukrainian air defense is currently weak otherwise Zelensky wouldn't be begging Trump for those expensive American made "Patriot" missiles. That means that the near future before he gets them is the best time for Putin to start hitting the Ukrainians with his tactical nukes. I predict that as the religious holidays approach in the later part of this year, atheist Putin will start using his little nukes to destroy the electrical power plants in the Ukraine to shut off the lights and heat there and do as much as he can to demoralize the people and force them to give Putin whatever he wants for some peace.
Putin's total casualties are estimated to be about 1.2 million so far with about 400,000 of them dead. The population in Russia is beginning to slowly wake up to how expensive and disastrous Putin's "war of choice" has been for them and Ukrainian drones are even starting to hit targets inside of Moscow! He's getting more desperate for a quick win as each month with little progress goes by. Every day the use of those nukes looks like a better and better idea to him. I think right now it's just a matter of him telling his generals to start using them on a list of targets they've already made up. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has already secretly shipped a few dozen little nukes over to the Ukraine so they can start installing them in their homemade drones to used on Russian targets!
When Hitler's war against Europe and Russia turned into a looming defeat for Germany, his top military people started planning to assassinate him, but unfortunately he managed to survive all of their attempts until he finally suicided at the very end with the Soviet troops only a few hundred feet from the entrance to his underground bunker. I bet that the same thing is happening over in the Kremlin right now. Some of Putin's top people are already considering having him have an "accident" or "heart attack" that removes him from power. They have all sorts of drugs that can give one a fatal heart attack within minutes of swallowing it. I bet Putin doesn't eat or drink anything unless he has someone taste it minutes before he does just to make sure it's safe. All of those billion dollar homes he had built for himself all over Russia won't mean anything to him if he's dead! He probably has to wear a bullet resistant vest at all times!
DeletePutin is savvy at social engineering and retaining power. He offers a pardon to people in the overflowing jails for serious crime , if they do military service at the front line. He is in no hurry to win the war because it literally kills two birds with one stone and solves two problems at the same time.
DeleteGod help us all in the future...🙏✝️⛪
DeleteThe predators became the prey.
DeleteHere's a film made of a 1 kiloton atomic bomb detonated at a height of 1100 feet above the desert floor in 1952. It produces a lot of damage at ground level and could easily destroy a single military installation. Both Russia and the US have thousands of these little nukes in storage.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSi2IRXrhSo
At six seconds into the film clip notice that the expanding fireball looks black. That's because it is so bright that it is actually burning the portions of the film's emulsion where the light from the fireball is reaching. Looking at that blast without wearing protective glasses could permanently blind a person!
Omg! I looked at that video of the nuke test and forgot to put on my protective glasses! Now I'm almost completely blind! What do I do now?? 😵
DeleteTry putting several drops of horse urine in each eye, anon 02:25. It will help repair the damage to your retinas and your vision should slowly return over the next week or two. And, most importantly, the next time you watch a nuke test make sure you're wearing your "atomic goggles"! 😎
DeleteAs usual you guys are missing the gravity of the topic.
Deleteexcellent repartee 0h54
ReplyDelete