SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

Everyone can go back in this thread and read your incoherent blabber. What nerve. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Egain=0 is indeed a genial proof of CoE violation.
What a nullity!

As was seen, Egain = 0 doesn't apply to SMOT. Learn physics well before engaging in such discussions.

Was seen where? And by whom?
Don?t bother to answer but crap. It?s already obvious.
(hmmm?maybe I should have said cretinism instead of nullity in the above?)

Cretinism. Stefan and everyone else should take note who's starting it. The cretin calling others cretins.

Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.

If CoE were not violated the energy of the hand (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) must have been the only energy lost when the ball is back at A.

In SMOT when back at A the ball has (Ma + other energies) which is greater than just the energy (Ma) which the ball would've had at A if CoE were obeyed.

This was proved and explained many, many times and only a cretin such as you won't get it. Physics isn't for cretins, especially cretins such as you calling other people cretins. What a shame.

[tinu]

Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.

Yes it is. Who said the opposite?! 
But this is not in violation of CoE in any way, you mediocre high-school physicist.
It?s just your limited understanding.
Go ask one of your pupils and come back.

[Omnibus]

Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.

Yes it is. Who said the opposite?! 
But this is not in violation of CoE in any way, you mediocre high-school physicist.
It?s just your limited understanding.
Go ask one of your pupils and come back.

What isn't in violation of CoE? The fact that when back at A the ball has energy  (Ma + other energies) and not the energy Ma it had at the onset? Now, yours is really cretinism. What high school physics? You're not fit for grade school even, you moron.

[tinu]

Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.

Yes it is. Who said the opposite?! 
But this is not in violation of CoE in any way, you mediocre high-school physicist.
It?s just your limited understanding.
Go ask one of your pupils and come back.

What isn't in violation of CoE? The fact that when back at A the ball has energy  (Ma + other energies) and not the energy Ma it had at the onset? Now, yours is really cretinism. What high school physics? You're not fit for grade school even, you moron.

Come on. You are really idiot now and it seems you don?t even realize it.
Is it your understanding of CoE that the ball in A should have the same onset energy?!
Wow, then a simple incline would violate CoE also.
You really need to work on your knowledge before talking such stupidities.

[Omnibus]

Again, for everyone to see:

The ball starts at A with energy (Ma) and ends up at A with energy (Ma + other energies) and that's claimed not to be in violation of CoE! Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. Unbelievable.