One thing a chess player would know is that moving 1 piece changes the entire position. The value of all other pieces changes dramatically. One can sacrifice a horse to capture a bishop. One may argue the game is still balanced as neither player has an advantage in material. (The equivalent of energy conservation.) But to the "expert" nothing could be further from the truth. The new position on the board means the trade granted one of the players an advantage. At best it makes it more difficult for both players. Even if the exchange ends the game in a draw one of the players clearly has the advantage given previous position. Any move not building towards a common goal will make the goal harder to reach. Useless trades do not exist, they are either bad or good moves. Finding the best move may be extremely hard. In contrast, pointing out the 3 or 4 candidates is remarkably easy. This means it's remarkably easy to discard the moves that rate far below best.

What in earths name I'm talking about? If you ducktape a hand full of magnets into a box with alternators, reed switches, coils, flywheels, bearings topped off with a several meters of whirling cable.... And you move 1 magnet, energise the coil, spin the flywheel or even so much as touch  the wire.... Then that changed the whole system!! It's short sighted to argue there is just a coil and a pm interacting. Any ever so slight movement of either current or mass in the system will affect the whole system.

Assuming you have all the Popsicle sticks and rubber bands in the right spot we have: action > reaction  Now it's time for our next move.  action > reaction > action >reaction etc etc, this we must learn to anticipate. We did make the assumption you had a workable position in the box. This is of course far from the truth. You will need to make actions to build such things, those actions will trigger reactions. You will try and learn something that doesn't work, you will try to correct which may eventually end~you~up playing one of those good moves. One good move doesn't win you the game tho. We did make the assumption you invested your best of efforts in it. This is of course another lie on my behalf. You will need to make the right actions triggering the right reactions eventually obtaining the right motivation.

Here we have the full metaphysical craziness of the open system. One person moving one object in the box may trigger global reactions affecting all other researchers, their work and everything else.

Some peeps want to argue the game is lost but physics says I can lift the same 100 tons an infinite number of times using the same energy. How fast it goes round seems to be an important factor for some people? You can use the energy as fast as you like? lol? You can drive up and down the hill as often as you desire not using any extra energy. Wax on > Wax off

No wonder the game looks lost if you treat the rest of the pieces on the board like friction. Cars use petrol to push away air while sailing is probably a 10 000++ year old tech.

You can thus drive up and down the hill and have energy left to power the house. There is no doubt about it. Just the solar panels can drive the thing uphill.

A car powered by friction is remarkably easy to engineer, all you have to do is stop calling the rest of the galaxy friction and anticipate the responses to your moves.

If David hamel can play the game up to flying crafts then you must surely be able to get a vehicle to move. Or are you still thinking about thinking about it? I think you better spend your time thinking about it, nothing can show you better if it's worth thinking about as thinking about it.

 

Both E and T played the game with skill of historical importance. It seems however the audience is much to focused on the product of their accomplishments. Victor Schauberger managed to zoom out in the same way Einstein zoomed into things.

Einsteins findings where so much more complicated we couldn't even see if it was right anymore. Victors findings where so much more practical and realistic as anything Einstein ever came up with. E was a patent clerk but he didn't own a single patent.

Victor Schauberger was a hundred times the scientist Einstein was. But Victor was obliviated by the quandary. Why? What did he invent? It's not important I think? It's how did they manage to see things that where invisible to others?

Einstein knew his vision was just a projection of his thoughts. He knew much to be improved upon remained in his work. Einstein never said "all other peoples inventions that do not agree with my theory should be ignored and the inventors should be slandered until they accept the truth of my hypothesis for a fact" lol

But some how people interpret his work like this?  It shows how out of touch they are with the creative process that lurks behind the tool they are using. If everything that isn't established knowledge should be right out dismissed Einstein would have never made it onto the stage.
 

note:
Anyone who still wants to claim his findings where actually real should write a paper about it. Peeps seem to have waited for years for the first functional math doodle to appear. lol

http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/

The hoax has been exposed but we stil have no clue how the game works.