Means to an End

I'd like to address this comment in part:

WOW! This sounds like the ramblings of a bitter man. Is the end going justify the means?

It is impossible to address the vague generalization of the first sentence other than to say it's a typical tactic of crank leadership to shift a topic to a personal attack. Yes, the plastic Peter method of making a point.

The question though is a valid one. Does the method or means of pointing out substantiated facts have any justification by the result or end? I suppose that to be the case but there's no real way to know the future or end.

I noticed Jim Mitch has posted a thread entitled 50 clues with his comments. It could be coincidental to my challenge of asking for a material fact connecting any solution to perpetual motion (how ever improbable a solution is) to any claim made by Bessler. Coincidental or not there is nothing in the clues that would point to a material fact that Bessler's wheel was anything other than a cleverly concealed fraud. The clues could easily be thought of as Bessler's best guess as to how a wheel might work if he could have actually produced one.

If in the end more are inclined to spend the time understanding their ideas with the descriptive language of mathematics or any sort of tool of analysis rather than what's encouraged at the cult of Bessler I think that end would justify the means.

An interesting fact about the leadership of this cult is they encourage people to press on in ignorance (I hate math and math hates me) and build. Supposing, I imagine, where the genius of the past (da Vinci, Newton, Einstein, etc.) failed to grasp a solution they might find it.

If the ignorant are leading the ignorant I don't think they could find their arse with two hands, a map and a compass. I suppose we'll see. I know there have been recent promises of a solution before Christmas. Christmas has come and gone. Have we been lied to? Again?




Copyright © 2007-2009 bessler007