SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

...SMOT unequivocally violates CoE...

No proof it ever did it. The only one proof would be to loop the smot.
I tried but failed. Did you succeed? We are waiting for this proof, may be we will get it, may be not. The question is still open.

Not only extraordinary claims without extraordinary experimental evidence are parasitic background noise and counterproductive for FE research, but also they discredit the field.
I presume we are here because we are rational people more interested in science even it is a bit borderline, than in religious scriptures promoted by dogmatic preachers or uneducated and blind believers with radical and doubtless wiewpoints.
If I'm right on this point, FE is not a religion so we should keep and carefully apply the scientific method by all checking and verifying again and duplicating by different teams before claiming we got the holy graal.

Absolutely not. Science doesn't divide claims into extraordinary and non-extraordinary. Science has its own strict requirements for proving the reality of phenomena and these requirements are uniform. Your opinions about something being extraordinary or otherwise are exactly that--strictly your opinions of no interest to anybody. As far as violation of CoE goes it is absolutely no requirement for proving its validity to loop a SMOT. Putting forth such requirement indicates that you have no clue as to what a scientific argument is and what science considers as proof.

[tinu]

Who are you to say that? A mediocrity impudently uttering nonsense. Anyone can go back and read the exchange to see the nonsense you've spewed. You have no shame. Learn physics well before allowing yourself to enter into such exchange let alone characterizing people.

At least I?ve said something. When I was wrong (because it happens in life to be wrong from time to time) I?ve admitted and apologized.
But you needed 1.4k posts to BS people here about CoE violation and you keep continuing. God knows how many you disoriented elsewhere because unfortunately there are enough people to buy your nonsense.
It seems like a fixation or something else is wrong with you in connection to the subject; anyway, I am not the right person to make worries about your problems and, generally speaking, I don?t care about yourself. So, you may continue with crap and insults that are almost automatically associated to your name; there is no one else but Stefan to put you to your rightful place. The point is that I will expect nothing but crap since you were not capable of anything else up to now; therefore it is wiser for me to save the time taken for reading your ?precious thoughts?.

As for CoE violation in SMOT, it never happened. All equations were already hereby posted and enough discussion was carried out for any average person to see the truth. You were (and you actually are) not capable to show more than empty words and you can not prove (and you never proved) CoE violation, neither theoretically nor experimentally.

So please keep yelling on your fixation or do whatever you usually do in writing the next 1.4k posts.
I?ll only reserve the right to point the audience toward this very thread once in a while, just for allowing fine members of this forum to be impartially informed on the point already made: Conservation of Energy (CoE) is obeyed in SMOT.

Good luck,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

Who are you to say that? A mediocrity impudently uttering nonsense. Anyone can go back and read the exchange to see the nonsense you've spewed. You have no shame. Learn physics well before allowing yourself to enter into such exchange let alone characterizing people.

At least I?ve said something. When I was wrong (because it happens in life to be wrong from time to time) I?ve admitted and apologized.
But you needed 1.4k posts to BS people here about CoE violation and you keep continuing. God knows how many you disoriented elsewhere because unfortunately there are enough people to buy your nonsense.
It seems like a fixation or something else is wrong with you in connection to the subject; anyway, I am not the right person to make worries about your problems and, generally speaking, I don?t care about yourself. So, you may continue with crap and insults that are almost automatically associated to your name; there is no one else but Stefan to put you to your rightful place. The point is that I will expect nothing but crap since you were not capable of anything else up to now; therefore it is wiser for me to save the time taken for reading your ?precious thoughts?.

As for CoE violation in SMOT, it never happened. All equations were already hereby posted and enough discussion was carried out for any average person to see the truth. You were (and you actually are) not capable to show more than empty words and you can not prove (and you never proved) CoE violation, neither theoretically nor experimentally.

So please keep yelling on your fixation or do whatever you usually do in writing the next 1.4k posts.
I?ll only reserve the right to point the audience toward this very thread once in a while, just for allowing fine members of this forum to be impartially informed on the point already made: Conservation of Energy (CoE) is obeyed in SMOT.

Good luck,
Tinu

You are completely wrong and you must apologize again. I didn't start calling you names. You did. And you should learn at least this from the current exchange--a scientist must be obsessed with the truth and should fight tooth and nail to have truth win. That's a must for a scientist

You are misled by @modervador who was fighting me by various underhanded ways and now sees I'm right but his dishonesty doesn't allow him to admit that.

Thus, to mislead you @modervador introduces Ehand which is in fact (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). Now, since what the ball loses at B, namely the energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) he sneakily replaces by (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb)) + Ma = Ehand + Ma.

And, of course he can do that because the quantity (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) = Ehand which is the input energy is a quantity contained within (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) which is the energy lost. Elost > Ein. Do you see the inequality? This inequality is in violation of CoE.

Because if CoE was not violated Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) would have been equal to Elost = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). Elost = Ein if CoE obeyed.

You can see it this way too--it is known from the condition of the problem that at A the ball only has (Ma). And, indeed, that would be the energy the ball will have at A if CoE were obeyed because the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which was added to (Ma) for the ball to have energy mgh1 + Mb at B will be lost in its entirety if CoE is obeyed when the ball returns from B back to A. (mgh1 + Mb) - (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) = (mgh1 + Mb) - Ehand = Ma. CoE obeyed.

Not so in SMOT.As seen above, in SMOT the energy Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb) = Ehand imparted to the ball to acquire energy (mgh1 + Mb) at C is only part of the energy (mgh1 + mgh1 + other energies) the ball loses. In SMOT the energy (mgh1 + Mb) lost is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) = Ehand imparted.  In SMOT the energy which the ball will have when back at A will be the equivalent to the energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb) + Ma =  Ehand + Ma. This is because of the "transformation" part of CoE which isn't violated in SMOT. I repeat, back at A the ball will have the equivalent of (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) which is the same as (Ma = Ehand) if we want to be facetious and split up energies in such a way to deceive people but the ball will not have energy (Ma) back at A. Energy (Ma + Ehand) at isn't the same as energy (Ma) at A. The ball would've had energy (Ma) back at A should CoE be obeyed. Now that CoE isn't obeyed the ball back at A has amaount of energy greater than (Ma), dishonestly split by @modervador for purposes of deceiving people into (Ma) +Ehand.

Hope this helps.

Now, I'm expecting from @modervador, already very clear as to why SMOT disobeys CoE to open a thread in the Steorn forum and explain to several curious souls there that violation. That's the honorable thing to do.

[Koen1]

Cool. So where's your closed looped SMOT then?

[Low-Q]

If CoE were obeyed, the ball starts at A with energy (Ma) it gains Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)), not other energies. Not other energies. Not other energies, you idiot. And ends up at A losing Ehand, ending up with energy (Ma). CoE isn't violated. This, however, isn't what's happening in SMOT.

We all agree with that. So far, so good.

In SMOT the ball starts at A with energy (Ma), gains energy Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). And ends up at A losing (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). SMOT violates CoE.

The "other energies" part, is quite confusing. By my point of view, "other energies" is confused with "detour". The ball is travelling a longer distance when not going directly from B to A - and the hand is virtually placing the ball slightly beyond the top of a hill so it will not fall back directly to point A. OFCOURSE!!

And as we all know, it does not require energy to move mass angular to gravity or magnetic fields. So the ball is just taking a detour via C before coming back at point A. And the reason why the ball is actually coming back to point A isn't because of "other energies" but because of the energy initially imparted to the ball by hand - namely slightly beyond the top of the hill.

There is no "other energies". CoE is obeyed.

PS! I already know that I'm, by your opinion, cluttering this thread with nonsense and heresy, so you don't need to comment that. WE ALL KNOW IT ALREADY.

Cheers