"If perpetual motion kills anyone (imagine a gigantic rolling pin running over an industrial snooper), it is officially an accident, an apocryphal accident. The accident is comparable to the pride of the machine, just as the specific inventor imagines that it's his design"
Previously the author of similar 'Guides' on poetry, young adulthood, and child development, here the author addresses a topic dear to his heart: philosophy. Those unfamiliar with the topic are likely to find many reasons either for or against it in this entertaining and reasonably deep guide to the subject. From the author of the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit, and also inventor of numerous over-unity concepts.
Many scientific observers are concretists on the subject of over-unity. They think its either-or, and some work and some don't, if any work at all. But I find that view is far too simplistic. It's not that nothing works, it's that most examples are too difficult to be easy. Here are some case-examples proving the minimum (or scientific maximum).
The Escher Machine --- My recent case example observes that an object can roll upwards. If the in-between-connecting downwards-slopes are not steep enough for motion, then it doesn't work. If they are steep enough, it does work (the primary slopes are slightly upwards-inclined, with sideways-directed gravity).
Motive Mass Machine --- In Iteration 2 (3?), motion is permitted if the proportionality allows significant motion, and if the vertically-falling mass has enough mass simultaneously to move the partially-supported weight by pulley. This seems possible, but perhaps problems will emerge. I have temporarily stalled building the project because it seems difficult. Actually, I never got very far, except to prove that a free-falling mass can move an equal mass slightly upwards if it rolls.
Tilt Motor --- Motion is possible if leverage can extend slope. My first experiment succeeded, and the next two failed.
Repeat Lever Type 2 --- A cycle is possible if a counterweighted lever can lift a weight 180 degrees, through a cross-sectional loop, through the use of a supporting track. The remainder of the loop consists of a vertical drop, where the mobile weight activates the lever. Some proportions show this may be possible, so long as the mobile weight can be lifted. The length of the lever can be extended as necessary, since reduced altitudes corresponding with longer levers actually reduce resistance to the rising motion.
Modular Trough Leverage ---- There is strong evidence going for the trough principle. In this case, construction must permit each modular unit to end and begin at the same altitude, which simply means that the vertical drop is equal to the differential between the angularity of the lever and the angularity of the track. Collectively, no altitude needs to be gained. Although some of the peculiarities still have to be worked out, there is evidence pointing towards the functionality of this design. My video titled Successful Perpetual Motion Experiment 1 gives evidence that it may be possible to trigger the next modular unit without loss of altitude. As dubious as this evidence may seem, it is at least VERY CLOSE to proving each unit can move from rest to an adequate altitude, and IF THAT IS THE CASE, then perpetual motion IS possible. For that reason, it is a worthwhile experiment. Note, that the levers at the beginning of the tracks can be bent downwards, so that only when the lever is directed downward does it cause motion. From the upwards position, it can be triggered to have greater motion, resulting in greater movement of the mobile weight (in theory).
TWO: THE ESCHER MACHINE The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine. The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine. It does not move randomly! Maybe it is a reality! The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine, The Escher Mahcine, The Escher Machine. The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine. LINK: The escher machine
I saw a pink PE Troll in the sky,
Petroll because of the oily texture
of the sky...
[Oh her chin,
and oh her very long hair!]
and I thought:
That stands for physical energy troll...
And it probably means:
Someone's being dishonest about physical energy...
Which means someone else is right about some contrary principle...
And, It's probably me... Someone's right about energy! It's probably me! Probably me!
Recently I discovered a link to a device very similar to the Semiotic Square. I immediately became interested in disproving the logical device's purported logical validity.
Here is what I wrote in criticism (note especially the second paragraph):
[At Left: The Square of Opposition, which I intend to criticize, and Below: the Categorical Deduction diagram that I mean to defend]. [In reference to the Square of Opposition,] The graphical design alone is one of the simplest symbols in philosophy, logic, symbolics, and semiotics: it simply means 'modifying something', and in my view it is a rather incomplete notion of coherence. For example, if we have the categories they grant of 'None', 'All', 'Some', and 'Some not', we could add 'ambiguously some', 'ambiguously all' 'arbitrarily some' 'arbitrarily all' etc. This shows a clear pattern of incoherence in the formula, since in my view, although arbitrariness and ambiguity might apply to all cases, they are themselves in some sense, opposites. In other words, how do we know that 'some' are not 'all' by qualification, let alone whether ambiguous cases are arbitrated on the level of 'everything' versus on the level of 'nothing'? There is a deep need to find exclusion, a tool the square of opposition does not use well. Where is the logic? It is a little unfair, but I think the answer is categorical deduction, using opposites. On the other hand [still referring to the Square of Opposition as opposed to Categorical Deduction], I can see how the diagram is inspired to create an exclusive set, it's just that it takes a kind of spiral pattern which does not easily return to its point of origin. Performing a categorical deduction on the set, we would conclude that 'Something is not nothing where everything is something' OR 'Something is not something where everything is nothing'. I'm afraid these statements do not hold up, because 1. In the first statement, it is the wrong kind of conservatism. We shouldn't need to prove everything is true to prove SOME things are true. 2. In the second case, instead of being conservative, it is the wrong type of generalization. There is no necessary connection between irrationalist statements of contradiction and the abnegation of all properties. Indeed, irrational properties may exist, under the right semantic conditions. So, the square of opposition rests on two fallacies, namely A. generic assumptions and B. A specific form of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Added to this is the reality that I've virtually invented the complexity of the diagram in order to analyze it. Remember, the categorical deduction diagrams are different, even if they seem more simple, they usually involve more substantive data (i.e. opposite words), and a more coherent---perhaps the only simple and coherent----logical method. Alternate method: Re-arranging the Square of Opposition to fit the standard of categorical deduction arguably yields the order (All, None, Not Some, Some), because the alternate order (All, None, Some, Not Some) yields trivial cases (1. Everything is nothing that is not something, and 2. Everything that is not something is not something,) , and the alternate order (All, Some, Not Some, None) does not complete a cycle, and amounts to quantification (what I call the quantification fallacy, a case in which data cannot return to itself or self-reflect, due in this case to beginning with everything and ending with nothing). Accepting the chosen order, the categorical deduction is different, but I suspect it is equally problematic due to the flawed choices. 1. Everything is nothing when something is not something, and 2. Everything is something when something is not something. Instead of being trivial, this example is purely relativistic, and in a coherent context, that doesn't hold up. The categorical deduction is neither relative, nor trivial, nor problematic, and so it must be the method that is preferred. ----Nathan Coppedge Originally comments on Facebook.com/dimensionism
I don't know for sure, but perhaps I can expect big things on the horizon.
I have not been informed of this new edition in any of my e-mails with my publisher.
Perhaps they are playing semantics? But why would they take a risk on a book that has only sold nine copies, unless they have made a calculated decision?
I'm theorizing that this means that Barnes & Noble will be ordering more copies soon. So far they only order every two months, and the volumes have been in the single digits (actually single digits is almost an exaggeration. As I said earlier, I have only sold about 4 copies in bookstores, including three different titles. But, incidentally How to Write Aphorisms is the title that has sold the most copies in bookstores so far).
Nonetheless, big news seems like the kind of thing to find on my plate just about now.
I can always laugh and say nothing feels quite like perpetual motion!
Even that is mechanics, not euphoria, so it all kind of melts into the dust until I find empirical evidence in front of my eyes.
All of my books are print-on-demand, making it much easier to update everything. Lessons of the Master, by Master Kuo (pseudonym): Completed the life of Master Kuo, from start to finish. I now consider it to be the 3rd Edition.
Story of Master Wu, by Master Kuo: Additional details about the end of Wu's life, spanning an additional 10 or so very short chapters, leaving the book at 200 pages. It is now the 2nd Edition.
Nathan Coppedge's Perpetual Motion Machine Designs & Theory: Has updated sections on theories.
The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit Re-Issued Edition is supposed to now contain several additional methods as well as several possible sections that were accidentally removed. But don't buy the e-book edition if you want the updated version, because there's no guarantee that they updated the e-book version.
The Dimensional Psychologist's Toolkit now has excerpts from the Kirkus review on the back cover.
The Book of Uniques has a number of added images.
Modal Dimensionism had a typo corrected.
One-Page-Classics obviously is in a new edition, from the previous 1-Page-Classics, which was less searchable on Amazon. The new edition has an updated Eternal Song that is less like something from John Milton.
4 sales through expanded distribution (book stores), via my CreateSpace account.
According to this data, bookstores have sold:
2 Copies of How to Write Aphorisms,
1 Copy of Nathan Coppedge's Perpetual Motion Machine Designs & Theory, and
1 Copy of 1-Page-Classics.
Overall, including online sales and e-books, the following books are the most popular:
1. The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (22 copies sold)
2. Nathan Coppedge's Perpetual Motion Machine Designs & Theory (20 copies sold).
3. How to Write Aphorisms (9 copies sold)
Even if these sales look disappointing, I'm doing at least 550% better than last year, so that's a good sign. At this rate, it might count as a career in four years ($87,500 / yr. at that point), assuming a 5X exponential curve.
However, for now, it's only about $140 / year reliably, thanks to my excellent publisher it's not even less.
You have to take into account that I've published 32 books, most of them this year, so:
A. There's a big popularity cushion, assuming people don't think I'm just braining myself.
B. I'm at the very minimum of potential exposure right now.
So, I don't want to call the four years to that much money conservative, but it does seem achievable in ideal conditions, by my estimates.
Meanwhile I may have proven over-unity! But that's another issue. 'Another issue' seems so cruel this way!
For those looking for my Amazon Profile, it can be found there. My e-books are now listed as $0 - $2.99 instead of the previous $4.99 ridiculousness. I have also updated several of my books (actually many of them) with new content.
Mostly records my key accomplishments in over-unity, and interesting science articles. I'm trying to keep it brief (I joined Wordpress thinking that it would attract a lot more traffic, but so far only 2 views. From me, apparently).
Contrast that with this blog, which once got 269 views in a day... Partly bot traffic though.
I am a philosopher, artist, inventor, and poet (in some capacity), and a member of the International Honor Society for Philosophers. My quotes have appeared in Book Forum, the Hartford Courant, and other independent websites. A comment at The Economist cites my possible influence on the economic policy of India. One of my artworks once sold for $1 million off the street but I ended up returning the money. I have written many books on topics such as perpetual motion machines, philosophy systems, and the occult. I live alone in New Haven, CT.