So, what's new ?

[nicbordeaux]

Must be a year since I last looked at the forum, maybe less, who knows. So, has anybody invented a perpetual motion device yet ? As in "built", not "dreamed it up" ?

I have a nice device, but haven't got round to measuring exact lift and drop of mass yet, and will probably never do so.

Tell you what though, I'm getting another Wurlitzer theater organ tommorow, it has a Leslie Wheel on it. That's a scoop running in front of a speaker, not a revolving speaker. Gives nice "tremolo". Maybe if I hit the right combination of notes, the speakers will start pumping air, the Leslie Wheel will start be pushing air, and all of a sudden the power draw on the Leslie motor will fall to 0 because ther is a vacuum or something cool. Resonant frequencies. Harmonics. Temp gradient. Lift. Gyroscopics. Centrifugal.

No kidding, I'm going to get a friend put in something to measure rpm on the Wheel, and power draw, and if there is any improvement at any point, I'll be screaming "overunity".

This organ has 2x 50 watts. If there are no good results, a pal has a subwoofer that pushes close to 1 k of sound, and I have a Leslie assembly from a defunct organ to stick in front of it.

Distinct probability Pink Floyd got OU but didn't recognize it. Their guitar player was using a 15 inch speaker in his Leslie cabinet. "Us and Them" might well break the laws of physics.

BTW, all the greenie point system appears to have been reset, that's correct ? No big matter, just wondering.

[Gill Simo]

Same old is what's new...of course.
The green dot thingy threw a wobbler & had to be reset because most everyone had gone clear off the scale...of course.
In fairness though....nothing can be built until it's first dreamt up...& this forum is here expressly to facilitate the dreaming.....if it had been built then likely as not you'd of been posting to yourself.
As to the use/quality of the dreaming here...then perhaps `Several species of small, furry, animals, gathered together in a cave & grooving with a Pict` nails it best....of course.
Happy 2017 to ya.

[Grimer]

Why don't you read the threads, you lazy bugger. ;-)
You'll soon find out what's new.
I think it's called DYOR.

[Grimer]

On the subject of greenies, I was away from the forum for some months and got quite a shock when I returned and found I was down to one. I soon realised that most other people were too.

Of course, if one really took them seriously you could PM around and form a secret cabal where you agreed to vote each other up.

[WaltzCee]

I think it would go a long way if you wouldn't rub the fact you're a former member of the SRE (Scientific Research Establishment) in our faces. We don't really like scientists. We do like science though. We'd rather do some experiments or simulations or geometric constructions (getting analytical at times) before we jump to conclusions. It also is a big help to work from established terms and only make up new ones when something new is seen. That way when the idea happens everyone will be on the same page and we won't come across as flat earthers. Also it's a bit of theft to take old concepts, rename them and act as if you've found something new. It's intellectually dishonest.

Having said all that, I'm going to hit your green.

A personal perspective from Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize Laureate)
Covert Censorship by the Physics Preprint Archive
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-c ... ureate.htm

[Grimer]

LOL You "don't really like scientists". Believe you me you can't possibly dislike them as much as I do. You didn't have to work alongside them for 38 years - well 36 if you knock off my 2 years gardening leave. :-)

Nearly all of them are bloody atheists for a start.
"The fool in his heart says there is no God" ...
... and when I look that one up thanks to the miracle of Google, what do I find.

"Psalm 14:1-3 says: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.� They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God."

If they want to discover how the universe works why don't they read the manual. To give Bessler his due, he wasn't an atheist. Whether or not he sold his soul to the devil there's no doubt he believed in God. A person doesn't commit the appalling blasphemy of stealing consecrated hosts (the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ) for people to swear oaths on, without believing in God.

Bessler certainly read the manual. How many forum members read it?

And being atheists scientists make science their religion - and scientific "laws" their dogma which may not be contradicted on pain of excommunication.

If you write a paper showing that relativity is false you will not be able to get it published it any of the main science journals. You will get a little note back saying we can't accept your paper because relativity is not false. You might as well try to get the MSM to publish an article saying Killary is a satanist.

Search for the name, Hotson, on this forum and see what happened to him.

Look up Dr Eugene Mallove who left MIT in disgust at the flagrant manipulation of cold fusion results to found Infinite Energy Magazine and find out what happened to him.

A random killing by two robbers? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. His publication of papers which were gnawing at scientific orthodoxy obviously got up the nose of the high priests and they decided he must be offed so that their kingdom would not be taken away from them.

But I've already said enough to alienate a lot of the forum including JC who is an avowed atheist (ironic that his initials are those of Our Lord and Saviour) so I'd better stop there.

[Grimer]

And now I've got around to reading the link you give at the end of your post. Thanks for the link. It sums the situation up rather well.

From the signature at the end of your post I see that you at least are no atheist. :-)

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)

"Hell is Truth Seen Too Late."
(Thomas Hobbes)

A very appropriate way he ended that link.

[Silvertiger]

Wasn't it Renee Descartes who proved that believing in God is mathematically safer and more sound than not? Wasn't it the data taken from three satellites from the 1970's to 2013, 200 years' worth of failed experiments, and an ad-hoc creation of contraction of length to hide it, that shows the earth to be at perfect rest at the gravitational center of the universe? Are Joshua's Pillars NOT on both sides of the Red Sea. Are Rameses' chariots not at the bottom of it? Are Jericho's walls NOT one level beneath the city intact? Einstein was an atheist...until his own work convinced him otherwise to which he confessed on his death bed. :)

[agor95]

@nicbordeaux

It's chance events like yours that may make a difference.

@Silvertiger

Renee Descartes prime point was he exists because he thinks.
Reality after that was another issue.

He did recommend it is best to live your life as if GOD could
judge you later. Have a good live and treat others well.

Regards

[Silvertiger]

His argument was from a Catholic perspective, mind you. Modern Catholic views of purgatory and hell in part came from 400+ years of cultural "blending" as nomadic Christians had frequent run-ins with Germanic Barbarian Tribes such as the Celts and the Franks (after the collapse of the Roman Empire into the Dark Ages.) His reasoning stemmed from more than the notion that God was a perfect supreme being: that inherently it is mathematically (probabilistically) more favorable to choose God and be saved from such a fate than to NOT choose Him and be wrong. Undoubtedly the argument was geared towards atheists and not polytheists or monotheists who served a singular god other than that supreme being, The God of Israel, to which he was referring.

[ME]

I personally think JC (the NT-bible-guy) is the most misunderstood appearance in the whole human history.
With words clear as day yet misused for literally God knows how many different aspects: The saddest irony...

[WaltzCee]

• Wasn't it Renee Descartes who proved that believing in God is mathematically safer and more sound than not?
  • Silvertiger

You're thinking of Pavlov's wager.

• scientists make science their religion - and scientific "laws" their dogma which may not be contradicted on pain of excommunication.
  • Grimer

A lot of people would agree with this, Frank. Not to mention my client's boy, but John Lackland who penned this gem:

• John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou,
  to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all
  his bailiffs and faithful subjects, greeting.
  John Lackland

And the many well devoted persons who were moved, and stirred up, to give and bestow, sundry gifts, legacies, lands, and revenues for the advancement of all good literature, arts, and sciences at Oxford. They'd agree. One comes to mind, The Reverend Henry Lucas. Not the American convicted serial killer but the politician.

The benefactor of modern man can be traced back through all these mighty souls to one of the most misunderstood appearance in the whole human history. Wonder why that is?

[Silvertiger]

Blaise Pascal, my bad...I knew it was one of them. Never heard of Pavlov though lol.

[ME]

Wonder why that is?

I wonder who dares to attempt to answer this question (despite being meant as a rhetorical one).