The concept of inertia was new physics when it was first proposed. It
eventually supplanted the concept of impetus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_impetus

Harry

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry if i've been unclear - i've already done it.  It's done.  No New
> physics.  No magic.  No possibility of error.  Definitive, conclusive,
> indisputable, unambiguous and unequivocal proof positive, it's in the can,
> it's a wrap, a done-deal, a fait accompli, an actual physical gain, not an
> 'implied' one; 37.8 Joules of gravity*mass*height transforms seamlessly
> into 72.1 Joules of mechanical energy in one second, leaving 34.3 Joules
> free and clear after the weight is re-lifted and the mechanism fully reset
> to its initial conditions, thus an efficiency of 90% OU, or 190% of unity,
> together with a corresponding 1.4 meter drop in the zero momentum frame.
> Buy a free-energy machine, get a free warp drive.  It's here.  Now.  Done
> and dusted.  Ready for deployment.  Trivially easy to replicate, and could
> probably be validated on the back of an envelope.
>
> There's nothing theoretical or speculative about it, both CoM and CoE
> remain inviolable - the results can only be interpreted as evidence of a
> quantum-classical system rather than creation ex nihilo (evidence of such
> being epistemologically impossible), and arguably we all know classical
> systems are inherently quantum-classical anyway;  it is but a question of
> thresholds.
>
> It's just a perfectly normal free-energy warp drive using bog-standard
> mechanics - force, mass and motion - entirely dependent upon the
> immutability of CoM and CoE at every step in the process.
>
> Like i say, there's temporal symmetry to net changes in momentum, and a
> spatial one.  Usually they're hard-coupled due to mass constancy, however
> this is an epiphenomenal symmetry, not a truly fundamental one, and it can
> be broken, and i HAVE broken it, and this spatiotemporal momentum asymmetry
> results in a gain in mechanical energy explicitly caused by the
> bog-standard V^2 multiplier in 1/2mV^2 and 1/2Lw^2 - the normal mechanical
> energy terms.
>
> Starting to think i should maybe bind that explanation to a macro key...
>
>
> The only new aspect is that traditionally, the 'net thermodynamic energy'
> of the universe only takes into account all possible displacements against
> all fundamental force fields (the net work done from bang to bust) -
> whereas the vacuum energy.. well, just Google "vacuum catastrophe".
>
> The interaction i'm demonstrating pulls momentum from whatever the applied
> force field (so gravity, EM, inertial forces (ie. 'G-force'), springs or
> whatever), and mechanical energy (KE or PE or some combination of each)
> from the Higgs field - not by my or Bessler's design, but the universe's..
> so if there's any 'mistake', you're taking it up with the wrong person..
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:20 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it is possible to devise a mathematical/conceptual framework for
>> mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics would exist as a special case but
>> the alternative framework would allow for the construction of a perpetual
>> motion machine . It would be like going back in time to the 17th century
>> and proposing an alternative science of motion to Newton's mechanics
>> without relying on any physics that came after Newton such as EM theory or
>> quantum mechanics. It would require the formulation of some new
>> concept/principle that doesn't currently exist anywhere in physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ..right, just spammed it to Tajmar.  Who could possibly be more
>>> qualified or interested?  Plus he's a Kraut, so there's a good chance he's
>>> already aware of the Bessler case..
>>>
>>> Was really hoping to give UK academia first dibs, but they're apparently
>>> far too sensible..
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.
>>>>
>>>> It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the
>>>> uni's are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you could help refine my template?
>>>>
>>>> "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my
>>>> free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two
>>>> masses around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots,
>>>> and the nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"
>>>>
>>>> The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to
>>>> Imp. College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting
>>>> one...
>>>>
>>>> So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure
>>>> its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a
>>>> 3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not
>>>> deployed in a sensible manner.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how
>>>> to proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just
>>>> rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the barrel's
>>>> long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark
>>>> matter and laser spectroscopy etc.
>>>>
>>>> At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting
>>>> impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously?  I
>>>> seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical
>>>> physics?  Ha..!  Good luck with that eh..
>>>>
>>>> Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some
>>>> way?   A volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi
>>>>> play book, page 1.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. no independent data
>>>>>    2. no independent experiments
>>>>>    3. claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
>>>>>    4.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
>>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>>>>>
>>>>> No, no, no.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Crimes?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
>>>>> 'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
>>>>> who am i to talk..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
>>>>> *pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to