I just felt like collecting some of his pearls of wisdom in one place.And if you noticed, he reuses some of those pearls a few times.
- It is more than evident that many members of this forum (I hope not all members) are (1) egghead-wiseacres, (2) payed agents of the official science mafia and (3) ambitious and aggressive ignoramuses. These people either try to manipulate the audience or are not familiar with the basic axioms of theoretical and applied mechanics.
- To those members of this forum who are persons of good will and suitable qualification and experience. Please consider carefully and thoroughly all our previous posts and please answer the following question: If friction is negligible, then what would be the values of V2 and V3 (according to you)? V2 = ? V3 = ? (If you like please carry out the experiments as described in our video and in our additional comments/posts here.) Looking forward to your answer.
- Please have a look at the two links below:
Perpetual motion and reactionless drive - YouTube
Levitating Superconductor on a Möbius strip - YouTube - The second link suggests another possible method (among many others) for reducing of friction (inside the zigzag channels in the first link above) practically to zero. The key component of this method is liquid nitrogen. The latter however proved to be extremely cheap – only $ 2.00 per liter.
Looking forward to your comments. (If we use the method, described in the second link, then the experimental values of V2 and V3 would practically coincide with their theoretical values. Don’t you think so?)
Don’t suppose you can answer a simple conceptual question?
How do you figure that levitating magnets and perpetual motion go hand in hand?
Do you see that white block on the magnet? Have any idea what that is? How it was made? Or what it’s there for? Or (and here’s the rub) how much energy is needed to create that white block?
Not to mention the slight difference between a flat “roadway” and a curving tube, that you are ignoring?
Or how to apply a super magnet to a zig-zag curving tube (as opposed to a nice circle like at CERN) so that it provided equal force to ever square micrometer of that tube?
Oh but we can’t us CERN as an example, it’s not a perpetual motion machine.
When the LHC is up and running the total average power for the whole CERN site will peak at about 200 MW (usually from May to mid-December), which is about a third of the amount of energy used to feed the nearby city of Geneva in Switzerland.
Geneva, CH = modern high energy consumption of about 200,000 citizens.
Talking about Cern. I have proposed a new railway based on the new revolutionary perpetual motion This railway would start at the top of mount Matterhorn and descend all the way to Cern.
I haven’t quite worked out how to get the train back to the top. Maybe by hot-air balloon which also violates the law of conservation of energy, as well as the laws of gravity.
I expect a handsome reward for this entirely new mode of magnetically supported transportation. Any comments in favor of this idea? You can easily test it in you own garage.
Send any contributions to: Box XXX, New Rail City, New USA
To those members of this forum (a) who are persons of good will and suitable qualification and experience and (b) who would like to carry out the experiments as described in the link Perpetual motion and reactionless drive - YouTube and in the related posts of ours in this forum.
Let me share with you some experimental experience of ours.
- Disadvantages of the experiment in PART 1 and in PART 2.
1A) Comparatively short time intervals due to g = 9.81 m/s2. These comparatively short time intervals are not easy to be measured experimentally.
1B) Comparatively high downward variable velocities due to g = 9.81 m/s2. These comparatively high downward variable velocities are not easy to be measured experimentally.
1C) Comparatively large sizes of the experimental device. The blue component’s free fall initial height has to be at least 2 meters long as a minimum. Otherwise it is comparatively difficult to measure experimentally the time intervals and the downward variable velocities mentioned in the above items 1A and 1B. (The bigger the initial free fall height, the easier the experimental measurement of the related time intervals and downward velocities.)
- Advantages of the experiment in PART 1 and in PART 2.
2A) A comparatively small number of moving objects. These are only three in number – the two couples blue rod-blue ball and the T-shaped blue component. (The Π-shaped black component is motionless.)
2B) A comparatively easy practical realization of the experimental device due to previous item 2A.
- Advantages of the experiment in PART 3.
3A) Comparatively long time intervals in the absence of g = 9.81 m/s2. These comparatively long time intervals are comparatively easy to be measured experimentally.
3B) Comparatively low horizontal constant velocities in the absence of g = 9.81 m/s2. These comparatively low horizontal constant velocities are comparatively easy to be measured experimentally.
3C) Comparatively small sizes of the experimental device.
- Disadvantages of the experiment in PART 3.
4A) A comparatively large number of moving objects. These are four in number – the two couples blue rod-blue ball, the T-shaped blue component and the Π-shaped black component.
4B) A comparatively difficult practical realization of the experimental device due to previous item 4A.
- Taking into considerations all pros and cons of the experimental situation we (our team) tend to conclude that it is much better to focus on the experiment described in PART 3 of the video. Because longer time intervals and lower horizontal constant velocities (if compared to shorter time intervals and higher downward variable velocities) are much easier to be registered and measured experimentally.
Looking forward to your comments.
You want comments?
I don’t think you ever explained the purpose of this apparatus.
Nor what the experiment is supposed to prove.
The scientific method ..... Make an observation. ..... Ask a question. ..... Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. ..... Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. ..... Test the prediction. ..... Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
<hr />
About the scientific method. No objections. Perfectly agree with you.
About what this experiment is supposed to prove. Here is the explanation. This experiment proves and illustrates a severe violation of the law of conservation of mechanical energy, which directly follows from the theoretically and experimentally proved inequality 0.005 J > 0.002 J. Everything seems to be clear now, doesn’t it?
Looking forward to your answer.
How can you have experimentally proved anything, when you’ve only created a mind experiment?
One you expect others to build.
Where is the apparatus you got your numbers from?
Not a cartoon of what you envision. I mean an actual physical model.
Everything seems to be clear now, doesn’t it?Exactly in what way does any of this prove a violation of conservation of energy? 0.005 J > is unequal to 0.002 J . 5 is unequal to 2.
Does that prove that different values are unequal? Of course it does . That is mathematics. But that is not what your example proves. You are missing a few important details which are named in Bell’s Inequality Theorem
Bell's theorem proves that quantum physics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories. It was introduced by physicist John Stewart Bell in a 1964 paper titled "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox", referring to a 1935 thought experiment that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen used to argue that quantum physics is an "incomplete" theory.[1][2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
Conservation of Energy
Conservation of energy can be rigorously proven by Noether's theorem as a consequence of continuous time translation symmetry; that is, from the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist, that is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.[4] For systems which do not have time translation symmetry, it may not be possible to define conservation of energy. Examples include curved spacetimes in general relativity[5] or time crystals in condensed matter physics.[6][7][8][9]
For your information I’ve added a little something from Curiosity Stream that seems relevant:
The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines
My bad. Excellent catch W4u, I was still too focused on that silly drawing of his.
Thanks for pointing it out. It’ll be interesting to hear Will’s response:
@write4u: Exactly in what way does any of this prove a violation of conservation of energy? 0.005 J > is unequal to 0.002 J . 5 is unequal to 2.Does that prove that different values are unequal? Of course it does . That is mathematics. But that is not what your example proves. You are missing a few important details which are named in Bell’s Inequality Theorem
To @citizenschallengev3 and to @write4u.
<hr />
It is more than evident for any honest member of good will in this forum that you both are simply in the pay of the official science mafia. You constantly keep trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner (1) by imitating a pathological lack of understanding and/or (2) by constantly distorting my words. How much do your masters pay you? You both are shockingly unworthy persons of no moral sense! Shame on you!
It is more than evident for any honest member of good will in this forum that you both are simply in the pay of the official science mafia. You constantly keep trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner (1) by imitating a pathological lack of understanding and/or (2) by constantly distorting my words. How much do your masters pay you? You both are shockingly unworthy persons of no moral sense! Shame on you!No, I am under the same scientific scrutiny as you are. If I post something stupid, I get called on it also. That is the way of science.
The burden of proof befalls the person making the claim.
Empirical evidence (in science)
In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.
When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#
As a layman myself, I have learned the hard way never to make a casual claim or casually dispute the validity of mainstream science. Every scientific theory has been thoroughly scrubbed by all brilliant and “learned” minds, until there was only an indisputably pure functional version left. And even that is always open to revision. Science never claims 100% certainty. At best it will claim 99.99 % confidence in the theory.
This process is called “peer” review. You may want to consult this excellent scientific reference encyclopedia
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer reviewed academic resource); https://iep.utm.edu/time-req/#
If this encyclopedia does not agree with your proposition, you may want to think about revising it. Never expect anyone interested in good science to accept a controversial proposition without questioning. And be prepared to defend your proposition on scientific grounds.
The common challenge to “prove me wrong” is not the responsibility of the questioner. It is your responsibility to prove yourself right.
We have all looked and marveled at gravity defying magnetic repulsion of like polarities many times. But that phenomenon does not disprove conservation of energy at all, nor does it prove perpetual motion.
Instead of challenging us to build it and prove you right, why don’t you build it and prove science wrong.! That is the scientific way.
While I respect your enthusiasm, you may want to read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Everyone, including myself, has fallen victim to this ego driven belief at one time or another. So don’t be thin-skinned and only present a “new claim” after thorough research and presentation of reliable links in support of that new claim.
I am sure you are aware of the current political “BIG LIE” being blindly accepted by thousands of uninformed people from an anonymous source. a very similar pattern can be found in science, fostered by unscrupulous pseudo-scientists trying to sell a book or a new invention.
Obviously you are interested in science, GREAT!!! Now behave like a scientist and question your own invention to see if it will stand up to the rigors of critical examination!
How much do your masters pay you?And where is my cut?
And where is my cut?I'll pay you only if you believe meeeeeeeee!
@will34ab To @citizenschallengev3 and to @write4u.It is more than evident for any honest member of good will in this forum that you both are simply in the pay of the official science mafia. You constantly keep trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner (1) by imitating a pathological lack of understanding and/or (2) by constantly distorting my words. How much do your masters pay you? You both are shockingly unworthy persons of no moral sense! Shame on you!
This seems apropos:
What is gaslighting?Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse that’s seen in abusive relationships. It’s the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity.
The term “gaslighting” comes from a play and subsequent movie called “Gaslight.” In the movie, the devious husband, played by Charles Boyer, manipulates and torments his wife, played by Ingrid Bergman, to convince her she’s going mad.
Gaslighting, whether intentional or not, is a form of manipulation. Gaslighting can happen in many types of relationships, including those with bosses, friends, and parents. But one of the most devastating forms of gaslighting is when it occurs in a relationship between a couple.
Signs of gaslighting
According to Robin Stern, PhD, author of the book “The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life,” signs that you are a victim of gaslighting include:no longer feeling like the person you used to be
being more anxious and less confident than you used to be
often wondering if you’re being too sensitive
feeling like everything you do is wrong
always thinking it’s your fault when things go wrong
apologizing often
having a sense that something’s wrong, but being unable to identify what it is
often questioning whether your response to your partner is appropriate (e.g., wondering if you were too unreasonable or not loving enough)
making excuses for your partner’s behavior
avoiding giving information to friends or family members to avoid confrontation about your partner
feeling isolated from friends and family
finding it increasingly hard to make decisions
feeling hopeless and taking little or no pleasure in activities you used to enjoy
To @write4u and to @citizenschallengev3.
<hr />
V2 = ? V3 = ? Answer these two simple questions.
Looking forward to your two answers for the 1st time.