SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

This thread should be closed. Enough with this exercise in mediocrity and confusion. Violation of CoE by SMOT has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and exchanges with people who don't know what they're talking about won't contribute anything to it.

[tinu]

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.

Of course it?s not in violation of CoE and it?s time for you to shut up instead of talking utter nonsense.

The ball starts at A with energy (Ma), it gains ?other energies?=Ehand and it ends up at A with energy (Ma+'other energies'= Ma+Ehand). Not only this is not in violation of CoE but THIS IS EXACTLY CoE, you ?genius?.

[Low-Q]

@Omnibus:

What to you mean by that? I want to start over, and let my own and anyones mistakes now be history. How you deal with this is your own business. I'm done.

Vidar

I don't want to start over. To start over what? Fighting obvious nonsense. Thanks but no, thanks. You have to do something about your gaps in understanding physics instead of trying to push it on others. That's counterproductive and wasteful.

I give up!! You win! LOL

[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.

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.

No, it won't. A simple incline won't violate CoE. Because the energy imparted to the ball to reach the apex of the incline will be exactly equal to the energy the ball loses when back to where it was lifted from.

Translated in our case: CoE will not be violated if the energy (mgh1 + (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is equal to the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) the ball loses when back at A. This isn't the case in SMOT.

In SMOT, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is not equal to the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball loses when back at A. SMOT violates CoE.

You must be a complete idiot not to see this.

[tinu]

The answer on the above was already posted. I quote it:

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.

Of course itÃ,’s not in violation of CoE and itÃ,’s time for you to shut up instead of talking utter nonsense.

The ball starts at A with energy (Ma), it gains Ã,‘other energiesÃ,’=Ehand and it ends up at A with energy (Ma+'other energies'= Ma+Ehand). Not only this is not in violation of CoE but THIS IS EXACTLY CoE, you Ã,‘geniusÃ,’.

If you still don?t get it, unless you?re very old and mentally senile, I don?t think one can be that moron and still be alive.
So, I assume you have a hidden agenda.