Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Counter Intuitive  (Read 9547 times)

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: Counter Intuitive
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2008, 01:01:00 AM »
I'm not sure what "taking on Johann Bessler's Wheel means.  There is no indication Bessler had a working wheel.  The only facts are his claim to having one.  Any witness to the wheel (not having seen the actual cause of its rotation) could only testify to it having turned. 

People that witnessed Wagnor's wheel would say the same of it with a slight difference.  They knew for sure what powered Wagnor's wheel.  We can only guess and "have faith" Bessler wasn't a master magician.  There is another difference.  People today can examine Wagnor's wheel.  They can't do that with the magician Bessler's wheel.  The answer just disappeared in a puff of smoke.



Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ



I applauded you for taking on Johann Bessler's Wheel; extracting Energy from a Gravity Wheel would be remarkable.

- Schpankme

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Counter Intuitive
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2008, 10:35:19 AM »
The premise of Euclidean geometry is that two parallel lines never intersect.  Non-Eulerian geometry has at it's premise the lines do indeed intersect.  There are practical applications of both geometries.

I don't think there's any doubt physicists can understand anything they examine to an incredible degree of precision.  I also think there are simple things they've yet to examine.

What are  your thoughts along these lines?  If any.


Bessler
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

To me, geometry is already a far advanced concept.
One still needs a continuum space to get to it. Well, is the space continuum at micro level?! I wouldn?t bet much on it for now.
Then, to go along a ?line? (Euclidian or not) one still needs some time. Time is a dimension, according to what I was taught in school. And it makes together with space a space-time continuum. Nice fit, isn?t it?!  ;)
Let alone the ?continuum? space-time issue, if time in itself is a dimension (it actually has to be, based on our current understanding), it has to have a thickness, isn?t it? Otherwise it can not be measurable. Think of some implications?

See, I?m still with a,b,c.
I suppose I can?t help for now along the original question?

Cheers,
Tinu

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: Counter Intuitive
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2008, 07:54:05 PM »
Hello tinu,

The example of different geometries points to the idea a different geometry could arise by taking a fundamental premise and assuming the opposite.

The assumption of the dimensions of time and space being a fabric, in my opinion, attempts to put the observer on a pedestal they really shouldn't think is possible.  One conclusion the relativist makes as they sit at their point is: Their clock is perfectly accurate but the clock of the one they're observing is either running slower or faster.

Suppose there is absolute time.  If there is then both the clocks of the relativist and the one which they observe could be wrong.  The value in declaring they have the accurate clock is the math works out for them as you see things.  This of course is just from their perspective.

Now deconstruct the time/space continuum with this example.  If you have a board in your back yard you can go out back any time you want and measure its dimensions.  Or can you?  You can't go out a week ago and take a measurement.  This simple example points to the key difference between the dimensions of time and space. 

At any moment you can measure space but you can't measure space at any moment you choose.  You have to measure ?now?.

When time and space are combined into a fabric, space is a little warped.  The combination is  essential as man attempts to put their mind around the infinite.  My conjecture is man should understand his limitations and stop attempting to warp space by combining time with it so that they can have an accurate perspective.

I think the physics I'm looking for is simply a level of complexity.  At some degree of complexity and within some ranges Newtonian physics breaks down.  The creation of energy happens within that window of space no matter what time anyone thinks it is.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: Counter Intuitive
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2008, 08:21:25 PM »
It's very useful to think out loud.  I think I've found the turtle between Newtonian and quantum physics.  My supposition is a digital simulation can only approximate the instantaneous values being crunched by the analog computer of an actual model.

I guess it's time to make some turtle soup.


Bessler007