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 * >>> >>> >>> >> >
