Ghideon

I don't know how the cat got entangled in this topic so here is my interpretation: Before I read the first post in this thread there were a possibility that the ideas presented were correct / incorrect (similar to the cat being dead / alive before the box is opened in Schrödinger's thought experiment) Now that I have read the ideas and compared them to documented scientific observations (opened the box / performed an observation Schrödinger's thought experiment) I've found that the presented ideas are wrong. This fact is independent of Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation or other variants; the claims regarding time and movement are incorrect and refuted by (for instance) particle decay at absolute zero. This threads state is similar to the cat; if the cat is dead when the box is opened the cat will stay dead until new physics (or, maybe in this case, progress in animal health care & resurrection) emerge. Just as the presented ideas will be stay wrong until supported by discoveries, theories and observations. Attempts to avoid the questions and arguments presented by asking me to "solve" Schrödinger's does not count as scientific evidence.

Ok. You brought Schrodinger Cat into the discussion but let's remove it from the discussion again. That does not change the fact that particle decay contradicts your claims. Would you mind addressing that instead of brining in unrelated topics?

Thanks for your reply, it does not answer the question how faster than light signalling is possible but raise more questions. I'm also curious why there is no example of evolution resulting in some more efficient or competitive use of this phenomenon you describe. Some questions: Per your idea, how does for instance kidney donation work? How do the particles of a kidney "transfer" from one human consciousness to another? Do conjoined twins, according to you, have a single consciousness or separate ones?

As far as I know there are no established models allowing faster than light* communication. What mechanism do you propose? *) Faster than speed of light in vacuum, c

I do not see a connection to the discussion about your claims and how they are incompatible with observations, sorry.

I am waiting for a reply* about particle decay where your claims are contradicted by scientific observations. *) direct link https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127439-a-time-experiment/?do=findComment&comment=1213500

I'd say quite the opposite; accurate predictions about rate of decay can be made regardless of movement. Decay is stochastic, you need a sample that is large enough to make predictions, not movement. Movement does not add accuracy. ( We can't predict when one specific particle will decay, nuclei half-life allows for good approximations for large samples on average. I think a detailed explanation is off topic.)

Let's assume a sample of a radioactive isotope at rest at a temperature of 0 K*. The half-life of the isotope depends on time, as far as I know, not any movement. This seems to contradict your claims above, can you clarify? *) Absolute zero. The isotope could for instance be sodium-26

That introduces even more contradictions (easily observed or logically concluded). Since your are learning I'll give you some time to reason and spot the problems before I post an explanation, this is speculations section after all...

I am referring to mainstream science* where charged balloons repel each other, and neutral balloons do not. Your statements contradicts simple observations of how balloons behave**. Without a new model for physics (and chemistry) and supporting evidence I'm arguing in favour of established explanations. *) There is no evidence supporting the claims of the OP **) Just to be unnecessarily clear: When filled with air, handled at room temperature as part of an experiment or for use as a toy or decoration or other purposes.

That seems to contradict trivial observations when handling balloons or performing typical simple experiments with balloons and static electricity.

Sorry, I don't see any explanations, just more and more contradictions. The neutral balloon that becomes negatively charged in the case above for instance contradicts the title "No material can have a net negative charge".

Can you provide a description of the ions in regular table salt (NaCl)? Also please explain what happens (per your ideas) in a static electricity balloon experiments, I was under the assumption that a balloon, when rubbed against someone's hair, acquires a net negative charge. That seems to contradict your statements.

Hello @retrodynamic and I do not understand the connection between Newtonian physics and Thermodynamics in your opening post. Can you clarify? Where does that quote come from, where and when did Albert Einstein say that? Possibly the "Mathematical symbol" you are looking for is the Lagrangian of the thing you wish to describe? You may want to look into Lagrangian mechanics*. in some cases it may be simpler to work with energies instead of forces, depending on the geometry of a problem or device. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

@WAMF have you read about the ideas about electric universe or plasma cosmology*? It may be helpful to compare your ideas against these rejected cosmological models to learn more about issues raised by other members? *) Wikipedia may serve as a starting point and there are links to various papers in the references section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

An album cover, a work of art, might not be the best staring point when trying to reject established physics. As far as I know Goethe was a poet and intended to "portrait" rather than "explain". Stockholm may be worth a visit even without being offered a prize. But I'll have to admit that there are better times of the year than November...

But their visit here was not completely without friction, so the cycles may be slowing down and the motion eventually come to a halt?

Before my curiosity regarding the wheel in the opening post is completely gone, can @JamesL provide an answer to the questions below? Please stay on topic and please do not post massive amounts unrelated material. Per your ideas, are the following statements true for the wheel you show in the video* in the opening post? 1: The wheel will periodically return to the same configuration where all parts are at the same position as at some time before, for instance once every 360 degrees of rotation. 2: The wheel will slow down and stop if there is no gravity, for instance if the wheel is in free fall or taken far from any source of gravity. 3: In gravity greater than earth gravity the wheel will speed up. *) Let's pretend for the sake of discussion that the wheel actually works; meaning, as far as I can tell from the descriptions, that once the wheel is started it continues to rotate without any source of power, but there has to be gravity. It does not matter at this time how it is supposed to work or that it can't work according to known laws of physics, that may be covered later.

Let's try another approach for this discussion: Assume for a while that the wheel works*; meaning, as far as I can tell from the descriptions, that once the wheel is started it continues to rotate without any source of power, but there has to be gravity. Per your idea, are the following statements true? "Yes" or "no" for each question will be enough for now. 1: The wheel will periodically return to the same configuration where all parts are at the same position as at some time before, for instance once for every 360 degrees of rotation. 2: The wheel will slow down and stop if there is no gravity, for instance if the wheel is in free fall or taken far from any source of gravity. 3: In gravity greater than earth gravity the wheel will speed up. *) It does not matter at this time how it is supposed to work, that may be covered later. This is just to improve the discussion and allow for further analysis.

I did not intend to say that at all*. Example from my area of work; I would for instance try to improve resilience in an IT architecture by starting from a geo redundant and diversified cloud based infrastructure. Not by using a (non-working) copy of Carles Babbage's difference engine. Or, in the context of this thread: I would start from contemporary science instead of a 300 year old device that was considered a fraud**. I asked if you are familiar with Noethers theorem, it is connected to the mathematics of classical mechanics and laws of conservation and hence Newtonian mechanics, forces and perpetual motion. *) Also I (have to) approach to my area of profession by trying to learn new things and adopt to them continuously; in computer science and engineering there's progress all the time. Standing still, relying only on current knowledge is not a suitable approach. (Not in computer science and also not in life in general) **)https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.p

I'm sorry to say but I can't understand what you try to explain, your post does not clarify anything regarding my questions. Do you have an open mind for the possibility that you have misinterpreted the established laws of physics? If so, this forum is a good place to post questions and ask for help! Physics has come a long way since Newton (and Bessler), are you for instance familiar with Noether's theorem?

I got curious and checked your first source: Emphasis mine, source https://www.uu.nl/en/utrecht-university-library-special-collections/collections/early-printed-books/scientific-works/das-triumphirende-perpetuum-mobile-orffyreanum-by-johann-bessler Questions: How do we know that what you intend to build is Bessler's design? Where did you get hold of the details of Bessler's work? (I'm also expecting a response to my earlier questions)

and for example Sorry, I have some trouble to follow your argumentation and description. To avoid confusion and to allow for discussion: -Are you claiming the device you are building will actually perform perpetual motion; breaking established laws of physics? Or: -Is this a mechanics/engineering project where you want to repeat the any fraud committed by Bessler to make his wheel look like perpetual motion? For instance by hiding springs, batteries, motors or other devices. That generalisation that does not apply to me.

Nice build. Bessler did not construct any device that displayed perpetual motion; such devices does not work*. I think any current discussion is more about whether a deliberate fraud was committed or not. Here is a paper you may find interesting: Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.p (Johann Ernst Elias Bessler was known as Orffyreus) *) according to currently established laws of physics; supported by observations and theories.

Thanks! This helps identifying where I need more reading / studying, I'm of course aware of perfect or ideal processes. My world view though is biased by working with software and models that can be assumed to be 'ideal' but are deployed in a 'non ideal' physical reality where computation and storage/retrieval/transmissions of (logical) information is affected by faulty components, neglected maintenance, lost documentation, power surges, bad decisions, miscommunications and what not. I think I should to approach this topic more in terms of ideal physics & thermodynamics. +1 for the helpful comment.