No EM energy asymmetry alone can even speak to the issue of CoM - apples to
oranges.  CoM is not energy-dependent - it doesn't matter how much energy
we throw at it, nor its provenance.

The time-dependent variable you propose here is just a causality violation
- photons by definition propagate at C, ie. either the fields are
interacting, and hence powering on the second electro-magnet presents as a
load upon the first one's energy supply via Lenz's law and thus complying
with Newton's 3rd, or else there is never any time for a force to be in
effect between them, and so no mechanical acceleration.  Likewise, if a
magnetic sample is being propelled by an applied field, then either it is
accelerating and so applying back-EMF, or else we're invoking an
unsupported N3 violation again.

You CAN leverage time-dependent mechanical energy asymmetries via the
processes i've described, however.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:30 PM, John Berry <> wrote:

> John, there might be the odd exception.
> I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it isn't
> practical.  Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a photos
> that explains the propulsive effects...  But I doubt it.
> Now, the easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work
> without switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets
> to affect Inertial mass positively or negatively)  this is if you have an
> electromagnet establish a field, a large field
> And then you have a second electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is
> attracted or repelled.
> Then, before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect
> the first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.
> So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has
> experienced no forces.
> As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet,
> or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves
> deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field,
> so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other
> finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the
> other magnet.
> By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and
> therefore the CoE...
> And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields,
> near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would
> consider a blow.
> This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that
> momentum in the opposite direction.
> I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for
> the photon to be coming from.
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM, John Shop <> wrote:
>> On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>> .  .  .
>> The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its
>> ostensible purpose.  Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc.
>> If you make it out of clear perspex with the minimum steel parts like
>> bearings, springs, etc then there is nowhere to hide batteries.
>> .  .  .  you've still no idea what the putative gain mechanism is.
>> Since it requires new physics, this is unavoidable until the new physics
>> mechanism that provides the gain can be guessed at.
>> Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the
>> thing has its entire guts out.  You can see the values of everything, in
>> every field.  Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas
>> that can be manually checked by anyone.  So you can independently calculate
>> the input and output work integrals, from their respective dependent
>> variables, which are also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself
>> that everything is being presented accurately.  You can immediately
>> replicate the results on the back of an envelope, from first principles.
>> Since all physics calculations and simulations are FOUNDED on
>> conservation of energy, such simulations CANNOT produce "overunity".  If
>> they do seem to produce it then you know you have a BUG in your code and by
>> checking "the input and output work integrals" you can pin down which
>> formula you have entered incorrectly, by finding the exact process in which
>> excess energy appears (or disappears).  It is only when you get a perfect
>> energy balance throughout (as well as CoM, etc) that you know your code is
>> finally working.
>> On 4/06/2018 1:03 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>> .  .  . i've already done it.  .  .  No New physics.
>> Sorry, if there is "No New physics" then you can't have done it.  You
>> have simply made a mistake.  I suggest you find a friend who is good at
>> physics to check your equations for the term(s) which you must have
>> neglected or included in error.  Even if the person does not understand
>> what you tell them, you can often discover the mistake yourself while
>> trying to explain it to someone else at a detailed enough level.
>> If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler
>> did), then you could be right and you could have made an amazing
>> (re)discovery that would require all the basic physics text books to need
>> correcting with the NEW PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated.
>> But if it is just maths and simulation applied to standard known physics,
>> then everybody who knows this stuff KNOWS that you must have made a
>> mistake.  . . .  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
>> Consider an illustration that might help.  Supposing you started with a
>> litre of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very
>> complicated transformation processes.  So you might boil it to a vapour,
>> condense it in a fractional distillation column, run fractions through
>> filters of various sorts, freeze some and grind it to a paste, and so on,
>> ad nauseum.  In the end, no matter what you did to it, you will not have
>> managed to increase or decrease the number of molecules of water through
>> any of these processes.  The amount of water at the end would be just the
>> same as what you started with - and almost all well educated people would
>> refuse to believe otherwise.  Without NEW CHEMISTRY you cannot ever get an
>> overunity production of water molecules.
>> Well the same is true of energy.  You can transform it in far more ways
>> than you can molecules, but through all these processes, the number of
>> joules (just as the number of molecules) remains constant.  Physicists know
>> this and CANNOT believe otherwise.  Unless you can propose some NEW PHYSICS
>> to explain how the extra joules came to appear within the system, it is
>> simply not possible to believe.  All the physics equations that we have are
>> based on the conservation of energy because we have never had a system in
>> captivity to study that breaks this law.

Reply via email to