Roll on the 20th June

[Rolo]

The phenomenon we call "gravity" is the result of the curvature of spacetime.  Matter and energy curve spacetime. 

Thanks, that really clears it up.
So next question, what is spacetime and how is it curved by matter and energy?

Everything you just explained to me like I was a physics major sounds like a lot of theory and not much application.

My point again is that we have created an elaborate structure to explain the way we perceive the universe without any actual understanding of it.  This is how science works, theorise, test, observe.  One day someone will propose an alternate theory based on further understandings and observations and this will become the next explanation and so on until the Grand Unified Theory of Everything occurs so somebody.

It seems to me that gravity is one of the most basic and fundamental phenomena?s we know of and yet, while we understand its observable qualities we are still only theorising why or how it works.

Until we have this basic understanding, I believe there is far more for us to yet know than is already known about the universe.
Unless you can fill me in over a few paragraphs.

[badassdjbynight]

Archer.. every time you post one of those ravenous attacks on us you basically come off as totally insane.  So foaming at the mouth that your not making sense and don't even go back and correct your own typos.  I agree with the guy who gave the advice to stop wasting energy debating with the debunkers and just show us a working machine.

FYI: I joined this forum a) because I saw a blog on Engadget where they called you crazy and I thought it was wrong for them to do it, and b) because I was curious.  I wouldn't be here wasting my time if I didn't think there was a slight ray of hope.  But that does not mean that I'm a blind follower.  Simple common sense tells me what will and won't work.  YOU aren't using any science or math or historical laws of physics - and said yourself that you just KNOW how to do stuff.

I invented a wheel I like to call the "faith wheel".  As long as you believe it will turn it does.  If you can draw it on paper or do a computer animation of it, it turns even faster.  Here forward it shall be called the badassdjbynightwheel.

While this is an interesting idea, it's not a very constructive attitude.  So I thought I would switch sides for a while.  Join the "crazies" and for a few days assume that the device CAN work.  But my way will be to embrace math and physics and common sense.  I'm not a scientist so anyone who is better in this area can join me to try as hard as we can to decipher the concentric circle drawings and code-word posts of AQ and try proving that it can work.  IF AQ attacks us for taking this approach he truly is troubled and someone needs to get him some clinical help.

Let's begin...  If AQ's device is to work it seems to me that it will work because of precision and tolerances.  Meaning that it will have to be constructed exactly right so that there is just enough magnetic force to push the magnet/weight up but not so much that it repels it from entering the field to begin with.  And it's possible that it will have to be jump started (hand spun) so that momentum will keep it rolling.

I seems like AQ's original idea was to borrow the concept of the orbiting satellite.  There's no magic in the satellites.  They are placed in an orbit at a speed fast enough that their "horizontal" movement outraces the rate at which they are falling due to gravity.  His approach is to use magnets to simulate the gravitational pull.  But I think maybe that was just a parable because the magnet wheel other posters are drawing is more of a push pull thing.

Second we've all got up in arms about the 1 ton water wheel with the 100kg man on it, and that it DOES NOT mean 1 ton of torque.  I'm no expert on torque, but maybe AQ has a good idea but is just explaining it wrong.  I think he tends to under exaggerate things to try to prove his point, which ends up getting people like me saying.. no that won't work.  But once a heavy wheel starts moving common sense tells me that it would have more momentum than a lighter wheel.  I'm not sure if this is critical to his wheel design or not.  But let's think about it anyway.  If the 100kg guy steps on the top of the 1 ton wheel and rides it down - assuming his weight was enough to overcome friction in the axel - do you think it will be harder to stop than say a lighter wheel?  This was also his argument about a few guys pushing a train over a man on the track.. the man will be hurting by the weight of the whole train, not just the weight of the guys who pushed it..  wait, what?  sorry apples and oranges.  let's get back on track.

What do you think?  Will a heavier wheel be more apt to "stay in motion" than a lighter wheel?  If so AQ might even be agreeing with Newton.

s'all i got in me.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

I have finalised the site, there is now a complete answer for all mankind, all other pages are gone, the magnetic wheel is too complex for most and time is of the essence. so a full understanding of what the egyptians and likely Bessler knew is now on, one ton with one gram.

I have no doubt you will in time realise the magnetic wheel is quite simple to get going, and that coils on the front insted of a generatpr simply facing a plate with north south magnetic ring is frictionless power and that one arm on a single axle will show you the truth. but the site is able to end the energy problem, and it should be your priority now.

Best of luck. my mail is now off..

Archer Quinn

[tbnz]

Er ... um ... so the complete answer is nothing? The index page on your site now only has a big red note that says the rest is gone, so i guess that's that then eh, it all ends with nothing?

[badassdjbynight]

no, he also left the "physics truth" and "screw you" pages up.

Wow!  What a waste.