The premise of Euclidean geometry is that two parallel lines never intersect. Non-Eulerian geometry has at it's premise the lines do indeed intersect. There are practical applications of both geometries.
I don't think there's any doubt physicists can understand anything they examine to an incredible degree of precision. I also think there are simple things they've yet to examine.
What are your thoughts along these lines? If any.
Bessler
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 25, 2008, 04:25:35 AM
The premise of Euclidean geometry is that two parallel lines never intersect. Non-Eulerian geometry has at it's premise the lines do indeed intersect. What are your thoughts along these lines? If any.
Your 'basically' describing Longitudinal and Latitudinal lines found on any globe/map. (Longitudinal Lines meet at the Poles. Latitudinal Lines run parallel.)
What's the purpose of this thread related to the free energy forum(s)?
- Schpankme
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 25, 2008, 04:25:35 AM
What are your thoughts along these lines?
Good One ;D
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 25, 2008, 04:25:35 AM
If any.
Another Good One!
I see you've been promoted. Congratulations!
Why not leave us where we are with free energy research and just say Euclidean geometry is a good approximation?
BTW: Which Non-Euclidean geometry are you thinking about? If you throw out the fifth postulate the lines may intersect or curve away from each other.
Don't bother stirring the flatlander masses. When I announced there was no such thing as a straight line the torches were all lit.
What does it have to do with free energy forums? Sheez...
Hello Bep,
Sheesh? :) Well in reality there isn't as mass moves, but theoretically there are straight lines. The point of citing different geometries is this: changing one of the axioms creates an entirely different mathematics.
This idea has nothing to do with the idea of free energy of, for example, that which is obtained by the wind to power a sail boat. Any other example would do. Also it has nothing to do with the idea of the overunity a sailboat has as it expends less energy to manage the energy from the wind.
What prompted this thread is the supposition there could exist a physics that would describe motion between the quantum and cosmic levels and would explain possibilities between Newtonian and quantum physics.
As I've examined a model of the motion of a particular mechanical system I've noticed the premise of Newtonian physics stating force is the product of mass and acceleration breaks down. Knowing there can exist different geometries based on different axioms (parallel lines do or don't intersect) I am postulating there can be different physics. Maybe something explaining motion between Newtonian and quantum physics.
The ramification is a closed system can create energy. It's just an idea I'm looking at. What do you think?
The promotion's great. Rather than catching military hops I can order a helicopter any time I want.
Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib, HQ
I think the final reality, and the math to quantify it, is beyond us right now. Too many things are based upon mathematical constructs. Straight lines, field lines, time, just to name a few. In the interim they serve well to aid in our understandings. We are beyond the need for measuring how much wheat can be produced in a given area and how many stones are required to build a pyramid. Folks are still trying to put the sphere in our imaginary square hole.
It is time to ream the hole out.
When a geometry is devised that shows parallel lines do indeed intersect, in all cases, even if they start out as going away from each other, then we will be up one more rung. I still donââ,¬â,,¢t see the end of the ladder.
Iââ,¬â,,¢m just tired of being categorized because I question century and millenium old over generalized ideas.
"Newtonian physics stating force is the product of mass and acceleration breaks down" -- And folks wonder why an accelerating mag motor will only run for a short time even when the magnets don't loose there magnetism ???
BTW: Someone in your chain of command is shafting you. The upper echelons donââ,¬â,,¢t use choppers anymore. The energy saving intiative you know :)
Quote from: BEP on January 27, 2008, 08:13:11 AM
When a geometry is devised that shows parallel lines do indeed intersect, in all cases, even if they start out as going away from each other, then we will be up one more rung. I still don?t see the end of the ladder.
So you guys are serious about needing a theory that shows parallel lines 'can intersect'. My suggestion would be T'ai Chi Ch'uan, and plenty of fresh air.
- Schpankme
We do still use the black helicopters but they're not only stealth to radar they move so fast you can't see them with the unaided eye. I was going to say "naked eye" but I'm trying to clean up my act.
A little while ago I simulated a model that in 4/200 of a second was moving 21 kilos at 6700 mph (approximate values). The simulator calculated the motion using what I presume to be Newtonian physics. I termed it the ICBC, short for Intercontinental Ballistic Catapult.
What I've attempted to do over the last 5 months or so is to understand what was happening. One conclusion I've come to is the idea of "power management" creating an imbalance of power. I could cite that observation or you could take my word for it. In the attempt to understand this model I've de-constructed it into what I consider to be the principles causing this acceleration. In that process I've managed to add complications that are giving me a headache.
It hasn't been easy. Maybe I do need some fresh air. My premise is this model demonstrates Newton's third law is not always true. I think the model was about 6 meters tall.
Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Quote from: Schpankme on January 25, 2008, 04:20:49 PM
. . .
What's the purpose of this thread related to the free energy forum(s)?
- Schpankme
"Turtles all the way down" refers to an infinite regression belief about cosmology, the nature of the universe.
I'm speculating there is a turtle between Newtonian and quantum physics that can be seen and also that can be harnessed and put to work.
Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 27, 2008, 03:37:20 PM
"Turtles all the way down" refers to an infinite regression belief about cosmology, the nature of the universe.
My ol' gran-daddy use to say:
Boy, If a cow wonders off from the herd, it?s best to stop them before they get too far. Once they have gone beyond a certain point it is pointless to pursue them further and leave the rest of the herd unmanaged.
Yep,
- Schpankme
Sounds like yer ol' gran daddy was a smart man.
No one ever accused me of being part of the herd. I gave up trying to lead them to water a long time ago. It is always better to make your own tracks and just leave the rest to be milked.
The only problem with making your own tracks is you always wind up intersecting with another path maker. Straight line or not, parallel or not, the paths always cross and sometimes the other has been out in the sun too long.
The good thing is you have a different frame of reference. After all, everything is relative, straight lines, zero voltage or current, the center of the universe. Shoot, the center of the universe for most is the herd.
I have better things to do right now so I'll leave you folks to use your frame of reference.
Quote from: BEP on January 27, 2008, 05:38:19 PMNo one ever accused me of being part of the herd.
Hey BEP,
I'm reminded of something refreshing you said a few days back; I've made some changes to your original words, but the message is still the same.
Three Main Reasons To Watch and Listen:1. It?s amazing to learn something new.
2. It?s fantastic seeing unbelievable results, and trying to understand it for myself.
3. It?s humorous watching the knuckle whackers (Dawn-Man) who haven't tried the idea, spouting scripture from whichever book they prefer, or associating an action with something similar they heard about.
- Schpankme
- It?s humorous watching the knuckle whackers (Dawn-Man) who haven't tried the idea, spouting scripture from whichever book they prefer, or associating an action with something similar they heard about.
This is very funny. Associating a fiction to what you see because it sounds like the fiction is practically the height of absurdity. The absolute height is when someone guilty of this fallacy refers to others as the knuckle whackers. Too funny.
Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
edit:
the paths always cross and sometimes the other has been out in the sun too long.
If you cross paths with others that sometimes have been out in the sun too long it's only a matter of time before some fresh stray notices the same about you. Would that mean it's better to stay out of the sun and suck on a bull's teat? The bulls don't seem to be producing any milk. Maybe if you suck harder .... Is that possible? :)
Well, I guess developing a new physics might be a little easier thanks to Dave Roberts:
Quote
Good morning everyone. I have solved the principle used in Bessler's Wheel. I am willing to share this with everyone, just asking that I get credit for solving and revealing it. This is the end result of literally thousands of hours of effort.
This could be the breakthrough everyone in the free energy/overunity community has been looking for.
Read about it here:
www.besslerwheel.com/forum
Look at General Discussion>The Solution To Bessler's Wheel
The emboldened is an incredible claim considering we have no idea what was in Bessler's wheel. Could have been well trained mice or maybe a wound up contraption like Wagnors. This should be an interesting development.
Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Quote from: Schpankme on January 27, 2008, 06:01:25 PM
. . .
3. It?s humorous watching the knuckle whackers (Dawn-Man) who haven't tried the idea, spouting scripture from whichever book they prefer,
or associating an action with something similar they heard about.- Schpankme
It's hard to know what someone's thinking if they won't be specific but if you're emboldened point above was a response to my previous point:
What I've attempted to do over the last 5 months or so is to understand what was happening. One conclusion I've come to is the idea of "power management" creating an imbalance of power. I could cite that observation or you could take my word for it.
Here is the quote:
Quote
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:05 pm
www.besslerwheel.com/forum
Forum Index -> Community Buzz> new thoughts
Doc,
Although I see the idea of a transmission in your wheel it wasn't your wheel that caused me to think about the idea of an imbalance of power in rotation.
You have to be a member and log on to see threads in Community Buzz. They're a little occultish at Bessler Wheel.
As I said it's hard to know where you're coming from since you weren't specific. It's also hard to know if handyguy was influenced by reading the idea but I think it's obvious my mention of it predates the start of their thread.
I've been trying to understand how the Newtonian physics of wm2d could accelerate 21 kilos to over 6k mph in way less than a second for some time now; even before I posted on Doc's thread.
- Power ratio over one
? on: January 03, 2008, 02:33:54 PM ?
Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 28, 2008, 12:02:15 AM
It's hard to know what someone's thinking if they won't be specific but if you're emboldened point above was a response to my previous point:
Bessler,
My comment about the Dawn-Man was not related to you, it was my compliment to BEP, for writing something which caught my attention.
I applauded you for taking on Johann Bessler's Wheel; extracting Energy from a Gravity Wheel would be remarkable.
- Schpankme
I'm not sure what "taking on Johann Bessler's Wheel means. There is no indication Bessler had a working wheel. The only facts are his claim to having one. Any witness to the wheel (not having seen the actual cause of its rotation) could only testify to it having turned.
People that witnessed Wagnor's wheel would say the same of it with a slight difference. They knew for sure what powered Wagnor's wheel. We can only guess and "have faith" Bessler wasn't a master magician. There is another difference. People today can examine Wagnor's wheel. They can't do that with the magician Bessler's wheel. The answer just disappeared in a puff of smoke.
Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Quote from: Schpankme on January 28, 2008, 01:07:50 AM
I applauded you for taking on Johann Bessler's Wheel; extracting Energy from a Gravity Wheel would be remarkable.
- Schpankme
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 25, 2008, 04:25:35 AM
The premise of Euclidean geometry is that two parallel lines never intersect. Non-Eulerian geometry has at it's premise the lines do indeed intersect. There are practical applications of both geometries.
I don't think there's any doubt physicists can understand anything they examine to an incredible degree of precision. I also think there are simple things they've yet to examine.
What are your thoughts along these lines? If any.
Bessler
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
To me, geometry is already a far advanced concept.
One still needs a continuum space to get to it. Well, is the space continuum at micro level?! I wouldn?t bet much on it for now.
Then, to go along a ?line? (Euclidian or not) one still needs some time. Time is a dimension, according to what I was taught in school. And it makes together with space a space-time continuum. Nice fit, isn?t it?! ;)
Let alone the ?continuum? space-time issue, if time in itself is a dimension (it actually has to be, based on our current understanding), it has to have a thickness, isn?t it? Otherwise it can not be measurable. Think of some implications?
See, I?m still with a,b,c.
I suppose I can?t help for now along the original question?
Cheers,
Tinu
Hello tinu,
The example of different geometries points to the idea a different geometry could arise by taking a fundamental premise and assuming the opposite.
The assumption of the dimensions of time and space being a fabric, in my opinion, attempts to put the observer on a pedestal they really shouldn't think is possible. One conclusion the relativist makes as they sit at their point is: Their clock is perfectly accurate but the clock of the one they're observing is either running slower or faster.
Suppose there is absolute time. If there is then both the clocks of the relativist and the one which they observe could be wrong. The value in declaring they have the accurate clock is the math works out for them as you see things. This of course is just from their perspective.
Now deconstruct the time/space continuum with this example. If you have a board in your back yard you can go out back any time you want and measure its dimensions. Or can you? You can't go out a week ago and take a measurement. This simple example points to the key difference between the dimensions of time and space.
- At any moment you can measure space but you can't measure space at any moment you choose. You have to measure ?now?.
When time and space are combined into a fabric, space is a little warped. The combination is essential as man attempts to put their mind around the infinite. My conjecture is man should understand his limitations and stop attempting to warp space by combining time with it so that they can have an accurate perspective.
I think the physics I'm looking for is simply a level of complexity. At some degree of complexity and within some ranges Newtonian physics breaks down. The creation of energy happens within that window of space no matter what time anyone thinks it is.
Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
It's very useful to think out loud. I think I've found the turtle between Newtonian and quantum physics. My supposition is a digital simulation can only approximate the instantaneous values being crunched by the analog computer of an actual model.
I guess it's time to make some turtle soup.
Bessler007