Big try at gravity wheel

[Grimer]

What momentum are you talking about? First derivative, second, third, fourth....nth?


This is something I posted in Fizzx some years ago:


"The the two conservation laws, momentum and kinetic (2nd derv) energy, are simply the same law at different levels.


Using a multi-storey building as an analogy the we see the conservation of momentum when we are on the same floor, the 10th say, as the action taking place. It is a conservation between batches. When the action takes place on the 9th floor we see it as a conservation of energy because we have not changed our viewpoint. If we move to the 9th floor and thus change our viewpoint to within batches then we see that the conservation of energy is simply a conservation of momentum within batches.


The floor below that, the 8th floor, is the jerk floor. If we move to it we will see the within component variance as momentum which is conserved. However, seen from the 10th floor it is the conservation of Jerk. Jerk has to be conserved because it is only the momentum lamb in wolf's clothing. "

[Grimer]

...
And we know what we know about the Keenie device.... well, let's just politely say "through hearsay only" and rule it inadmissible as evidence.
...

That's not so.


We know it through written testimony as we know about the Bessler wheel through written testimony, an awful lot of written testimony as you will find if you read John's book.


But you will probably dismiss it as myth. You probably dismiss the whole of the new and old testament as myth too. You should have been named Didymus.

[Grimer]

But... but.... if there is no motion, either inside or outside, then there is no work. Nobody has seen the RAR device move at all;

That's not true. There are reports of people seeing it. But you won't believe it moves till your feet are crushed by those outboard weights.

[Grimer]

This is something else I posted on Fizzx which is appropriate here:




=========================================
The conservation of Jerk is simply D'Alembert's Principle of Least Action applied to the third derivative of position with respect to time as opposed to the second.


Force, Jerk, Snap, Crackle and Pop are simple convenient names applied to higher and higher derivatives of position with respect to time.


It is the derivatives that are important, not the names.


It is clear that D'Alembert's principle of Least Action applies to all these derivatives, all these actions, not simply the second. It not only applies to the action of Force (i.e. 2nd derv). It also applies to the actions of Jerk, Snap, Crackle, Pop and higher actions.


It also explains something which has been bugging me since the sixties. The ubiquity of power laws in material science.


I could see that these laws must be the ratio of large integrals but could not understand why the constants of integration disappeared at each step. In the light of D'Alembert's principle of Least Action it is clear that the quasi-Fluid (phase in tension) and quasi-Solid (phase in compression) components of a material which have vast numbers of independent particles are simple exhibiting D'Alembert's Principle of Least Action, a principle which applies to all actions, not simply force.


So more specifically we have:


D'Alembert's principle of Least momentum


D'Alembert's principle of Least acceleration


D'Alembert's principle of Least Jerk


D'Alembert's principle of Least Snap


..... and so on and so forth.


(I've not included Crackle and Pop since they are not officially recognised names for the 6th and 7th derivatives.

=========================================

[Marsing]

The fact that nobody, nowhere, has ever been able to demonstrate any kind of working gravity motor doesn't deter you at all.

i am doubt this.  just wait ,  time will prove.