[lyner]

I think you are deceiving yourself actually.

You haven't managed a directly parallel argument to your situation yet.
It's not true to say that you couldn't navigate using a geocentric model. More complex, maybe, because you would need a lot of friggery.
Interestingly enough, the later model is much simpler than the earlier one. Your bolt-on for the present model makes everything else but your PM machine much more complicated.

In any case, Science doesn't rely on past stories of 'hard done by' revolutionary Scientists. It aims, at least, to be evidence based and nothing is ever accepted without proper evidence. You have none so how can you be surprised that no one believes your ideas?
Perhaps you could risk learning some of the evidence which shows how your cursory approach will take you nowhere. Get down to some serious learning; Know your enemy.

Just read your last post. Do you actually know how much the Sun 'wobbles'? Could you actually believe that I didn't know that it does? And is it relevant?

[Bikerman]

This whole line of argument is just silly.
Motion is relative - this much has been know since (and probably before) Galileo. In fact we call such a notion Galilean Relativity.
The notion that the sun wobbles is nothing new and nor is it of any relevance to this particular debate. NASA doesn't do 'maths calculations' as if the earth is the centre of the solar system - they know fine well that it isn't. They simply calculate relative to a 'stationary' earth for motion important relative to earth. This much is obvious. When, however, they come to calculate orbits, then the motion of the earth is (almost) entirely irrelevant. If you want to calculate a trajectory for insertion into Mars orbit, for example, you calculate using Mars as a 'stationary' point. That's one reason we use the word 'relativity'.
None of this has any bearing on this debate. This debate is about whether you can construct a PM system in an inertial frame of reference centred on the earth.
You can't.

[yor_on]

Ok so a PM is defined as being in a closed box?
What defines closed?
Can we ever prove a universe to be closed?
How about instant tunneling, wormholes, kaons, virtual particles, Black holes.
We can define a 'system' as being closed i suppose, same as we can discuss 'two-dimensional' objects in lattices, but do they exist? 

[AB Hammer]

You have none so how can you be surprised that no one believes your ideas?

Curiosity, and doubt, is why this string is still going strong or why are you guys here? To see what doubt may be wrong? Maybe this guy has done something?
Under this case the final evidence is the machine. But I can't show it or them at this time, if I have any at all. A flower is at its best in full bloom.  

Get down to some serious learning; Know your enemy.

 I know my enemy but my enemy, and it is also my friend. It is established thinking inside the box of what we have been tout to the point of almost becoming a religion. Outside the box is our freedom of our minds but never leave good knowledge behind.

 

Just read your last post. Do you actually know how much the Sun 'wobbles'? Could you actually believe that I didn't know that it does? And is it relevant?

(Do you actually know how much the Sun 'wobbles'?)
No.

(Could you actually believe that I didn't know that it does?)
does it really to me mater if you know it or not in this argument?

(And is it relevant?)
More than you can accept at this time without seeing the machine.

[Bikerman]

Ok so a PM is defined as being in a closed box?
What defines closed?
Can we ever prove a universe to be closed?
How about instant tunneling, wormholes, kaons, virtual particles, Black holes.
We can define a 'system' as being closed i suppose, same as we can discuss 'two-dimensional' objects in lattices, but do they exist? 

It is simple. Can we create a system which, without external input, can continue to move ad-infinitum? Such a system would be a 'unity' system, with no energy lost to the 'outside'. (Most PM proponents go beyond this and (as Bessel did) claim that their particular devices are 'over unity' - ie they generate excess energy which can, presumably, be extracted from the system ad-infinitum). The claim was, and is, bogus, as anyone familiar with basic physics can tell you.

Now, if you want to consider more esoteric systems (such as zero point energy) then there is some interesting physics to be done. Zero point energy does not contravene energy conservation on the macro scale of things - it (apparently) does it on the micro scale and only for very small periods of time (in accordance with uncertainty principle). Overall there is a balanced 'budget' of energy since the final sum total must be zero.
Wormholes are speculative and would not, in any case, necessarily be subject to the laws of spacetime that are in 'normal' operation, since they require a 'fracture' or 'folding' of spacetime. I'm pretty sure that no violation of thermodynamic laws would occur in any case.
Black holes seem to obey the laws of energy conservation. You stick mass/energy into a black hole and it increases its mass/energy accordingly.
With the Kaon I presume you are intending to talk about CP violation? That would require a whole new thread to discuss, but let's just say that this would not allow contravention of thermodynamics on any macro scale.
Quantum tunnelling does not violate thermodynamic laws. In fact quantum tunnelling can ONLY occur from a high energy state to a lower energy state, in strict conformance with thermodynamic laws (the fact that it goes 'through' a higher energy 'peak' is another matter).

[lyner]

ABH
If it is so Earth shattering, why are you wasting time on this website?

[AB Hammer]

ABH
If it is so Earth shattering, why are you wasting time on this website?

 I told you I have been sick with pneumonia, and I am just starting to catch up with my armour work and then I can finish constructing of my wheels and there are 3 different designs that pass my pre-test. So if I am correct which I believe I am, you know the rest.

[lyner]

But how can our humble little forum compare in importance with your fantastic field of research?
If you have the energy to bicker with us then why not use it to investigate a bit more theory and speed your success?

[Bikerman]

I told you I have been sick with pneumonia, and I am just starting to catch up with my armour work and then I can finish constructing of my wheels and there are 3 different designs that pass my pre-test. So if I am correct which I believe I am, you know the rest.

But the simple fact is that you either don't know, or can't/won't communicate the theory behind your invention.
If you can't/won't tell us the theory then why post? All you have posted to date is a lot of nonsense which anyone with a basic education in Newtonian physics can dismiss instantly.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have none.

[lyner]

Perhaps it's just attention seeking.

[AB Hammer]

Greetings all

 When I found this forum I was stick in the house, and bored out of my gourd sick with pneumonia. Now I am still restricted to good weather since my shop has to much weather exposure being a blacksmith. At home I did allot of drawing design adjustments ect. Tried a few magnet arraignments trying to manipulate the field with only moderate improvement for a magnet design. Due to my sickness I am also looking for a better shop set up to fight against weather exposure. Today was heavy moister so I was limited in how long I was aloud to be out. I do not want a relapse, my lungs hurt to much.

 It is plain as day the patronizing, and I learned along time ago to ignore it. As for showing my designs. Only a fool shows his/her hand before the bet is made. If you want I'll show you some other designs that I have posted on other forums if you wish and we can discuss why, or how it won't work or possibly can.

 I tell you what I will post my anti buoyancy devices. This should make for good fun.

[lyner]

Are you 'avin a larf?

[Pumblechook]

I am.

[Bored chemist]

AB Hammer,
Do you realise that, if you turn those devices upside down they look like the perpetual waterwheels that were shown not to work in the middle ages?
Of course these "new" versions won't work for the same reason.

Anyway, I wish you a speedy return to full health so that you can go and  make these designs of yours. It's clear that nothing, apart from their failure, is going to convince you that they will not work.

[AB Hammer]

sophiecentaur ,Pumblechook
 Ha Ha do you even understand it?

It is real simple "if" you can get the bubbles you reduce the buoyancy in the channel tube. Even myth busters proved this about air bubbles and buoyancy. The air line feed back is valved to keep the air feed from filling up with water to be pumped out. A while back I use to work with vacuum cleaners doing repair work. And as a black smith I am well knowledgeable about blowers and compressors. The second version is the best of the 2. The trick is "if" you can get the bubbles it will work. It all depends on the source for the bubbles. Once the bubbles are added will the buoyancy side have enough lift to run the blower/compressor, "if" it can, we have a winner, "if we can't we have another design for the museum of unworkable devices. The other thing to look at, is in what other ways we can use the basics of the design.

PS. again I don't post my best designs, even though this one has a slim possibility.


Bored chemist

Well it is a new approach despite the similarities. No one had tried to reduce the buoyancy before.

[lyner]

And how do the bubbles get down under the water? Energy is needed to displace the water. Whether you can spot it or not, there is a net loss of energy when any fluid flows.
What's revolutionary in your design which eliminates this energy loss?

[yor_on]

Ok, good answers Bikerman. And yes, it was 'cp violations'
(On the other hand, on this site I don't expect anything less:)
Than good answers I mean, or, at least 'imaginative answers'
And when I get both at the same time:)
That's a real 'kick'

Ah, 'zero point energy' do sounds like a way to get 'free' energy.
M..m.aybe???

[AB Hammer]

And how do the bubbles get down under the water? Energy is needed to displace the water. Whether you can spot it or not, there is a net loss of energy when any fluid flows.
What's revolutionary in your design which eliminates this energy loss?

 How do you think they got air down to a deep sea diver, and I am only talking about 3 feet. The depth will depend on how strong the pump mechanism needs to be.

[yor_on]

AB
Somehow any CP machine needs to 'produce' more energy than it uses.
(as compared to being in a equilibrium I mean:)

Do you think this one will?

------
Btw: where would you say that this 'extra energy' would come from?
And how does it gets replaced?

To have a true CP you can't allow the energy in the universe to 'run down' can you:)

[AB Hammer]

AB
Somehow any CP machine needs to 'produce' more energy than it uses.
Do you think this one will?

 If I can get enough bubbles. When designing you try for any possibility and then put it to the test grid to check to see if it can be provable. The anti buoyancy design can't be tested with the grids of displacement. Also you look for thing that haven't been tried, or at least look to see what you came up with has been tried by someone else. While I was in the US Coast Guard I observed a river harbor tugboat get pulled down into the Mississippi river due to it's loss of buoyancy due to bubbles. So on this design I am running on experience and what I know. Will it work? that will remain to be seen until I finish my projects on hand that show a 20%+ gain, according to the grids. The grids are my design that uses math in all angles to determine the effects expected. The grids have been tested with other machines with so far 99% accuracy on what would happen. The grids are for regular gravity effects only.