nay sayers ... 100,000 Euro's Bonus payment

[Ernst]

The prof replies

DEAR FRIEND,

I THOUGHT YOU DID NOT WANT ME TO ANSWER AND THIS THEREASON FOR I DID NOT ANSWER INSTANTLY AND I LEFT FOR MY SUMMER HOUSE WHERE THERE IS NO INTERNET.

THERE IS NO CHANCE FOR YOU TO SAY SOMETHING CORRECT AND ME NOT TO BE AWARE OF


QUALITATIVE ARGUMENTS SO FAR WITH NO QUANTITATIV VALUE, MTHEMTICAL VALUE.

REGARDS

PTP

I will not pursue this any further. If anyone else can translate this reasoning into mathematical formula's and provide the prof with the results, go ahead. I warned him

As for the inertial reference frames, he is still chewing on that one.

Ernst.

[tachyon]

dude seriously by the same reasoning the electron decellerates, when you guide the electron 45 degrees outwards to the negative plate and closer to the positive plate there's the same amount of +/- acceleration going in and going out... now the real problem is how to make it enter in an angle all the time... but that can be fixed by defining a path for the electron and make a spiralling pattern of capacitor plates... NOW TELL ME THAT I'M WRONG

[tachyon]

width of the capacitor plates should be :

w=sqrt( (m*(sqrt(2e/m)(sqrtVc+sqrtVg))^2)/(Vc*e))

Vc voltage of the capacitor plates
Vg voltage of the electron gun

height of capacitor must be greater or equal to width

actually this is wrong for this to gain more energy it has to NOT FOLLOW A CIRCULAR PATH but a different one which accelerates more downwards towards to the positive plate gaining more speed in the y direction than the one it went in with.. got no time now

[Duncan]

So Build it .. why don't ya?

It seems the merits (or not) of Professor Dr P.T Pappas's Posit are starting to rage across a few forums Ernst … In much the nature of farmhand (and quite understandable) a considerable thrust is aimed at .. spend the money to build it and show us! Well obviously before I opened the thread I did a little research on PTP in the hope of not looking quite as silly as I sometimes do .. I had a look at his association with John Hutchinson , his Medical work and I also noted the list of intimidation and Murder that has gone on around him and like minded researchers in his Bailiwick.
It seems if you search through the information that the concepts were experimentally tested a considerable time ago.
So when the gutter challenge”build it “ comes from the baying hounds In what fashion ? As Mayer did? Or perhaps Professor Eugene Mallove, Dr. Paul M. Brown, or Dr. Chernetsky ?
You know perfectly well I could fill this page with notable academics and successful amateur builders who have been snuffed or just disappeared … and it wouldn't take me very long at all.
Professor P.T Pappas has watched all that .. He's seen close friends and associates murdered .. (check his sites)
I suggest building the contraption would have absolutely no impact on the status quo what so ever .. and as from a personal stand point, he knows already! However to issue a challenge in this way .. and in this spirit ultimately invites perhaps thousands of academics and technical people (people who have the nous and acumen to understand what he is communicating) to think deeply, (and sanely)
whilst they may not rush into the garage and start with hammer and nails I'm sure that's not what the prof intends.
To open a little ***** in the veil and let a little light in, To arouse the curiosity and understanding of clever men to the fact that there may well be another answer, and then … to point at it!
What happens with the “build it” thing … is well covered , In fact there may well be a mass grave or two !
I suggest PTP is nobodies fool .. His life is obviously a little difficult with strokes and the possibility of another.
He has all he wants or needs … at least as far as finance is concerned . He has seen a close friend and fellow researcher murdered and much other unpleasantness.
I surmise PTP being a professor of mathematics (amongst other things) will have almost certainly have calculated the odds and probabilities of his actions .. and I think he knows the score and probably the inevitable result.
He has the money the escrow is open for inspection, he has the impressive academic “bona fides” which allow him to legitimately issue this challenge to his peers (of which I am not one) .. and he's done so.
Its novel , Its tongue in cheek, and its audacious because of it clever men are starting to look and think .
Could it possibly be ? … and as we all know from little acorn's come huge Oak tree's
Its not easy to comprehend (at least for me) although the Substitution of the force laws is just in my grasp . He hasn't flighted this arrow at me though has he ?
I'm quietly confident that in due course what this man says and what he is portraying is going to have a big impact. ... PS C.Rack in the veil what's wrong with it = ***** or is that wrong too Its even Knocked my alternative which was .. C,hink = c,hink of light .. what's wrong with this forum and the English language ?

[tachyon]

well I was wrong .. it will conserve energy even if you guide it through an angle... as long as what errnst says is correct but I doubt it

[Duncan]

width of the capacitor plates should be :

w=sqrt( (m*(sqrt(2e/m)(sqrtVc+sqrtVg))^2)/(Vc*e))

Vc voltage of the capacitor plates
Vg voltage of the electron gun

height of capacitor must be greater or equal to width

actually this is wrong for this to gain more energy it has to NOT FOLLOW A CIRCULAR PATH but a different one which accelerates more downwards towards to the positive plate gaining more speed in the y direction than the one it went in with.. got no time now

I don't know tachyon .. things get a bit stressed for me around caps (no pun intended) … there seems an unmapped bit of action in there .. this is an example of it I just saw posted on another thread .. I can sort of follow the reasoning but not join the dots.
The C-Stack by Cris Paltenghe
sort of makes sense but....

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

Yep, I already thought so. You do come from a different reality.

Why thank you, this has been my goal for a very long time because as Einstein himself implied, if our reality does not work then we must change it. Such a simple concept and yet somewhere along the way the message has been lost but the result is apparent ... what we are doing is not working. If you need proof simply watch the news for a couple of hours.

So the question remains, should we continue to do what we know does not work or take the left turn at Albuquerque?, I chose the left turn.

You see we all have choices and we can blindly follow others and hope someone somewhere must know what they are doing or we can take matters into our own hands. In any case you are quoting textbook theory using textbook logic and I have been down this road hundreds of times. Thus I already know what you will say before you have said it and the thinking behind it. As such I already know the result and generally choose not to participate because the result is obvious. Our debate will end right back where it started coming full circle as it always does.

AC

[Allcanadian]

@Duncan

I'm quietly confident that in due course what this man says and what he is portraying is going to have a big impact.

I would agree and the whole scenario is quite comical.

Consider that his intent was never to prove anything but simply to make one think.
Now we see very intelligent people who consider this as a challenge to their intellect and hope to disprove it in order to prove themselves. The problem here is that they may be very intelligent but still thinking like the layman.

Does a truly intelligent person need to prove everyone else wrong in order to prove themselves right, tit for tat?. No, I believe the truly intelligent person does not need to prove anything to anyone but simply makes their case and moves on.

I have always found this odd, that seemingly intelligent and responsible adults would need to degrade others to prove themselves. These are not the actions nor thinking of a responsible adult but more that of a child.

In any case I took the Prof's paper as a thought experiment and little more. It was interesting and it made me think and for that I am grateful.

I should also note I find your thoughts refreshing relative to the noise we hear in the forums.

AC

[Allcanadian]

Now on to more constructive thoughts.

The slingshot effect is due to the fact that an inward acting force (gravity) may hold an object in a partial orbit. The object may change direction with no change in it's energy state but cannot change velocity without work being performed. The work component which may accelerate the object is due to the fact that the field is changing and the field in question changes because it is attached to a planet which is moving.

Now if the object is an electron and the applied force is due to charged plates then theoretically we may induce a change in direction but not a change in velocity by the same rules. However this is only true if the field is not changing and generally speaking we have three options, the field is changing in itself in some way or the object associated with the field is moving or both.

So we are left with the question, are the plates free to move and can the field change ... or is it something else we have not fully considered?.

Edit: I should note I have no interest in debating why it cannot work but rather how it could in reality.

AC

[Duncan]

Now on to more constructive thoughts.

The slingshot effect is due to the fact that an inward acting force (gravity) may hold an object in a partial orbit. The object may change direction with no change in it's energy state but cannot change velocity without work being performed. The work component which may accelerate the object is due to the fact that the field is changing and the field in question changes because it is attached to a planet which is moving.

Now if the object is an electron and the applied force is due to charged plates then theoretically we may induce a change in direction but not a change in velocity by the same rules. However this is only true if the field is not changing and generally speaking we have three options, the field is changing in itself in some way or the object associated with the field is moving or both.

So we are left with the question, are the plates free to move and can the field change ... or is it something else we have not fully considered?.

Edit: I should note I have no interest in debating why it cannot work but rather how it could in reality.

AC

Well Thank you AC . I don’t fully grasp the concept but then I am a jobbing electrician and to expand the mathematics of these things you cite and take as accepted I find hard to swallow .. for instance the gravity as pointed out “accepted proved” Then this by extension and cause and effect brings us to the simple pendulum .. This each and every one of us has been taught .. from maxima to minima to the circle the sine wave and so forward to infinitesimal calculus and Integration on which the rest hinges .. This then is the foundation stone of your trade .. you accept it as “proven” To be quite honest with you looking at a simple pendulum even today makes me feel a little queasy .. for kinetic energy to transform into potential energy in Zero time does not fit well with me. In fact for anything to occur in zero time is not a possibility in this particular reality .. is it?
So viewed in that light the possibility of huge and unexpected flaws being exposed in the unproven reality being forced upon us all becomes very viable.
The tools we are using are flawed before ever we get them out of the box.
However as a simple user of this I rely on the “condensed” stuff presented in text books and the like to be accurate and most of the time it is but now and again in practice the totally unexpected happens .. despite the so called “principles” being applied. Things like this for instance..
Explosion - YouTube
luckily everything's all right as long as you wear ear protection … still No electrician is partial to racking those things .. despite the engineering.
What I point out here is rather than depend on the theory and mathematics most artisans learn to use the books and theory with a healthy amount of “monkey see monkey do” and cause and effect .
So the question you ask AC is .. what is the probability of there being a moving field betwixt those charged plates .. by my very simple view of things I would say Its almost certain. And not only that very fast .. For reasons I have already pointed out standard maths may not be an option here. But probability and possible example may well be. So keeping in mind I am no atomic physicist In the spirit of a blind man picking up a big blunt axe and taking a huge swing at a giant oak .. Ill give her a go!
Is it liable that the plates move .. no not as PTP portrays . How then could you possibly determine if there was a moving field between the plates ?
Surly if you could release the constraint of one plate relative to the other …. and it moved that would prove to most that this field was dynamic?
I rather think you posted this projection your self some where AC or perhaps I did and you questioned it .. But in order to visualise the Idea replace the electrostatic plates with magnets
Indeed make a pendulum .. “The Bob” of which is a magnet say North pointing down. At the Nadir of its swing place another magnet North pointing up … This of course is a classic physics experiment with the answers well mapped and so I really don't want to go into endless bone headed rubbish about how much energy it takes to energise the magnet … or make it … The possibility (and only that) is presented here that in theory you are now imagining a case of a/ perpetual motion and b/ endless energy however that's not what you asked AC you asked was there a moving field between the plates ? Well the action of this simple experiment has been plotted and the conclusion is yes .. and the field results in “chaotic movement” but having said that it must be a constantly moving field. I suggest the same could well apply to this electrostatic example.
So possibly, whilst not directly relating, in my mind there's a very big possibility that what Professor Dr P.T Pappas says he has tried, and the proof he offers is in all likely hood quite correct however to proove or disproove the actual physical event with mathematics
is a horse of a very different colour that my 10 Cents

[Allcanadian]

@Duncan

This then is the foundation stone of your trade .. you accept it as “proven” To be quite honest with you looking at a simple pendulum even today makes me feel a little queasy .. for kinetic energy to transform into potential energy in Zero time does not fit well with me. In fact for anything to occur in zero time is not a possibility in this particular reality .. is it?

I guess a gravitational slingshot could apply to a pendulum if the shaft replaced the force of gravity and a moving fulcrum the planet.

One thing to consider is that many base their arguement on the most basic examples. We can have a standard fixed support pendulum and the forces and range of motion are known. Now we could use your example with a pendulum with two repelling magnets and the forces and range of motion become more complex. Then we could replace the fixed support of your two magnet pendulum with a flexible wire and with the extra degree of freedom it is said there is no super computer known to mankind that could even remotely predict it's path... one too many variables.

Now we have a problem, the experts say this must happen in this simple case then we add another degree of freedom to the system and nobody can predict what will happen. This is one of the reasons why as a scientific type person I have revisited many simple concepts I believe have been taken for granted. The devil is in the details.

On a side note most all the experts dismissed the notion of a "rogue wave" for centuries and it was only recently that remote ocean sensors were able to prove they existed. Waves of up to 35m (115')have been recorded and to this day they still cannot agree how they form.

I'm not about to jump to any conclusions concerning the claim made by Pappas however it is fun to speculate as to how it could work.

AC

[Ernst]

Anyone who wants to know more about PTP, read his site.

I must admit that he does have a few good points.
It is only the way he tries to explain it, that I can not agree on.

I am not going to spend more time on this, and I do not believe anyone will ever get money from this man even if you do proof him wrong.
Good luck to anyone who would like to give it a try!

Ernst.


-------------
I felt the need to soften this post a little bit.
PTP pi$$ed me off, but I believe now it may have been a communication problem.
I will leave it here. There are more important things for me at the moment.

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

I am not going to spend more time on this, and I do not believe anyone will ever get money from this man even if you do proof him wrong.
Good luck to anyone who would like to give it a try!

That is a very familar line of thought, trying to take money from another person by trying to prove them wrong and degrade them in the process. As well I can see why a person should dismiss everything when there is no money to be made. I believe if we had more people just like you the world would be a much better place.

Don't get me wrong, I like money as well as anyone I'm just not willing to sell my soul or integrity to get it.

AC

[Ernst]

@AC,
Pretty sure that one "like me" is more than enough!


Ernst.

[tachyon]

well I found a way to make more energy.. by using a magnetic field and extending movement of the particle in the third dimension... it's no doubt it will make more energy.. when the particles is on the way out of the capacitor the magnetic field will exert a force enough to seperate it from the positive plate more in the z direction