I agree. I hope you are successful.
>
>>
>> --snip examples of independent researchers--
>>
>> Well, you certaintly came up with a lot! I guess it is obvious that many
>> important discoveries have been made without the sponsorship of academic,
>> industrial, or governmental institutions.
>>
>> What still worries me most, though, is that many of the posters on keelynet
>> don't seem to have a grasp of basic physics. I don't mean to pick on
>> anyone, but the most recent update,
>
>> http://www.keelynet.com/energy/tomi2.htm ,
>
>> claims that perpetual motion can
>> be achieved by placing a magnetic wheel between two oppositely aligned
>> concentric circular bar magnets. This is, frankly, silly, since the net
>> effect of the magnets next to one another is simply to sum up to one big
>> magnet, and there is no perpetual effect.
>
>Now, that is not fair. He said 'it is believed' based on
>his own experiment with the device. Have you built a TOMI?
No.
>
>I have as have many others, it works AS CLAIMED, the roller
>magnet MOVES UP THE RAMP by simply placing it at the
>entrance and it drops off the edge, then rolls up the next
>ramp ON ITS OWN and drops off.
>
>If there were multiple ramps, the 'theory of magnetic
>instability' TOMI would continue to roll up and fall off, to
>reload itself each time, like dominoes falling...spend the
>$20 to build a dual ramp, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I don't have the time to build this device during the school year, but I
will be able to tackle it over the summer. However, everything I've
learned about magnetism tells me that this device will not work. For
example, because the wheel cannot rotate except around its natural axis,
there is a magnetic potential energy that depends only on the position of
the magnet in the loop, so if the magnet were to complete a loop, it would
have exactly the same energy potential as before it began. It gets worse:
because the wheel magnet is moving past the fixed magnets, it is causing a
changing magnetic field, which will create eddy currents in the fixed
magnets which get dissipated as heat; the energy for those currents must
come from the wheel magnet's kinetic energy. So at best your wheel magnet
will be moving more slowly than when you started the loop, even if you
neglect friction.
It's possible I'm wrong, but until those doubts of mine are put to rest, I
won't invest the effort required. I believe that for something to work in
practice, it must work in theory as well.
>
>About the misnomer 'perpetual'....is that term really
>something a human can comprehend? I wish it wasn't even in
>the language.
Perhaps we can't comprehend it intuitively, but our mathematics can handle
it nicely, and that's all we need. We don't need to understand an answer
to arrive at it and have it be correct.
>
>Do you KNOW why the planets orbit the sun?
What does it mean to know things in science? We observe that the planets
orbit the sun, and we have relatively simple theories, such as gravity and
conservation of momentum, whose predictions match up with experiments.
What more can you ask of scientists, except to make simpler, more
comprehensive theories that model what we observe more accurately?
>
>Do you KNOW why electrons orbit or for that matter what
>causes all matter to VIBRATE?
I know the names for the phenomena, and I know the mathematics and
explanations behind the model. That is as much as we can know, and all we
can hope to do is develop better mathematics and better models.
>
>Is it beyond your scope to imagine that any human could EVER
>figure out HOW TO TAP INTO THOSE FORCES and USE them?
Haven't we? When we light a match, we are using the energy inherent in the
orbits of the electron. When we microwave a cup of water, we are using the
vibrations of the water molecules as a mechanism to heat up the water.
When we slingshot a space shuttle around Jupiter, we are using the energy
inherent in the gravity of the sun as well as in the rotation of the planet
itself. It seems to me that we tap into and use these forces every day.
>
>> Are there examples in science where someone has overturned the existing
>> theories without at least a basic understanding of those theories?
>
>Neither you, I or anyone BUT the DISCOVERER could KNOW that
>because only they would know how much advice or instruction
>they had received.
I don't agree. When we read a paper describing a new theory, usually the
author tries to demonstrate how it's better than the old theory, thereby
revealing his knowledge of that theory. It should be possible to develop a
new theory without understanding the currently accepted theory, but I doubt
it ever happens in practice. Einstein had an excellent understanding of
Newtonian mechanics before he developed relativity. Shrodinger and
Heisenberg had an excellent understanding of the Bohr model of the atom
before they wrote the Shrodinger equation and developed quantum mechanics.
Perhaps our disagreement stems from differences in our goals. It seems
like most members of keelynet have as a goal to create a working model of
something...something physical. After all, as you say, it's easy for the
scientific establishment to brush off a theory, but next to impossible to
brush off a device that's easy for anyone build that demostrates
never-before-seen phenomena. I, on the other hand, am more interested in
the theory; I don't believe it's worthwhile trying to create a device
before you have the theory of why and how it should work.
> I have read it time and again that, I
>did it because I didn't KNOW IT COULDN'T BE DONE!
I believe that the greatest scientists, engineers, and inventors don't work
on new theories out of naivete, but out of a knowledge of the weakest
points of existing theories. In other words, they did it because they knew
(or strongly believed) it could be done, not because they didn't know it
couldn't.
>
>Good, EXCELLENT...keep thinking like that....laws change and
>most of the people here expect and look forward to the new
>'laws' of physics....
>
>We never flew before because we didn't have wings, but the
>Wrights and others watched birds and KNEW that the 'law' was
>in error....etc...they were considered crazy and half-backed
>by their 'peers' too. But you can believe their 'peers'
>jumped all over it once they realized there was money to be
>made.
That's for sure. Of course, we never hear about the thousands of theories
that are labeled crazy and half backed because they are. For every correct
(by correct I mean "better than the existing") revolutionary theory, there
are dozens of hundreds of incorrect ones.
>
>There is always the safety and comfort of your 'laws' to
>lean on, but now you know, there is a growing cadre of
>physics LAWBREAKERS...ready and working to correct and add
>to 'mainstream' science, to expand it to the next level.
Very true! And those people can be found not only on keelynet but in
universities as well. I aspire, like any scientist, to do that myself
someday. My strategy, though, is to climb to the top of the currently
known laws so that I can get a better view of the next ones.
>Never said we'd be NEXT, but to my view, aether tapping and
>all its resultant phenomena is as inevitable as night
>follows day.
One of my favorite quotes is "Anything not forbidden is mandatory." If it
is possible to tap the aether, then it is inevitable, but that "if" is a
huge one in my mind.
>
>Some of us are working to make it so in our lifetimes, even
>though it requires our own meager resources...while many of
>you guys get grants, labs and support to allow you to do it
>fulltime, yet you get 'stuck' in 'laws', completely
>oblivious and disparaging of what you can't yet measure,
>even the ideas.
How can we theorize about things that we can't measure? What's the point
(aside from entertainment) of thinking of ideas that can't be tested?
>...puzzling...while we discuss and correlate
>and some of us do simple table top experiments to at least
>TRY to discover the secrets.
Something that strikes me as odd is that I've never seen anyone on keelynet
say to another member "No, you're wrong." There are lots of aether
theories, and many of them are certaintly mutually inconsistent, yet what I
sense is cooperation, not competition. You can't all be right, folks!
>I know, get a PhD and join the herd...I'll pass...don't like
>what I've experienced and peer pressure as well as threat of
>cancelling funding if I DARED to investigate anything not
>approved as orthodox...don't upset the applecart, the worms
>might get out...<g>...
It's tragic that funding is not available where it can be best put to use.
Apply for a grant to build a DNA computer, and you're likely to get
ignored; mumble something about "anti-cancer" and you've got a much better
shot. That said, I think that public institutions that offer grants should
not pursue tremendously ambititious projects with an extremely slim chance
of success (which is where I currently place any project that attempts to
tap the aether, since the aether hasn't even really been detected yet).
>
>Such a simple experiment the TOMI is...cheap, simple to
>construct, full details of the first TOMI by the inventor
>are at;
>
>http://www.keelynet.com/energy/tomibild.htm
>
Here is what the link says to me, with some analagous ideas substituted and
a lot of paraphrasing.
"Take a pendulum, and hold it horizontal. Release it. Gravity will pull
it towards the area of least potential energy, which is straight down.
When it reaches that area, its momentum and inertia will make it continue
all the way around, back to the starting area, where the whole process
repeats, except faster."
This is clearly false; there is no point where you can drop a pendulum so
that it will rotate all the way around. I believe that the TOMI suffers
from the same flaw.
>build it and you'll see...one of several things that just
>don't 'fit' 'laws'...
>
It sure doesn't.
-Peter
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------