Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

No, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.

I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.

and ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),

You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.

Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are  or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...

Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.

Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?

Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?

I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).

Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?

Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about  SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
   
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. 

Tinu

This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.

[Omnibus]

As it is not the case that Einstein?s theory is anything else but a compilation of trivial errors. Propaganda of these matters is fierce and the real scientist and the person seeking the truth must be very, very careful not to sink in this propaganda pit.

Wildly off topic, but do you have evidence to bash Einstein?  Which parts do you disagree with?  The Hafele?Keating experiment (explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment) confirmed the principles of special relativity.  Do you have any reason to believe this was performed incorrectly?  Furthermore, the same effect is observed consistently today with GPS systems, where atomic clocks on the ground are compared with the atomic clock of an orbiting satellite (details in http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html).

And do you have an issue with the basic prinicple that gravity is no different than acceleration, that is a person in a rocketship, accelerating at 9.81m/s² would feel no different than if he was standing on Earth.  When you say "full of trivial errors", I am curious to know what trivial errors the great man committed.  As it stands, we know quite a bit about him, but virtually nothing about your work, except for a questionable experiment, so I am going to side with Einstein for the time being.

Back to the SMOT, it is clear why you are not precisely measuring the amount of energy required to move the ball from A to B - it requires an expensive component you do not have onhand.  Unfortunately, without some way to precisely compare total energy in versus total energy out, you will not convince anyone but the choir.

Of course I do. I won't say that if I don't. Also, this isn't bashing. This is uncovering the truth and uncovering the truth is everything else but bashing.

Firstly, as can easily be seen, STR (Einstein's "theory", that is) cannot derive the Lorentz transformations despite the vigorous propaganda that it does. Therefore, no effects following from the Lorentz transformations, including the ones you cite, have anything to do with the STR. Therefore, it's a lie that there have been experimental confirmations of STR. Because the effects which have been experimentally confirmed, if at all (they in fact haven't been), do not even follow from that "theory". STR has never had neither can it have experimental confirmations despite the ugly propaganda that is has had.

Secondly, Lorentz transformations (which as already said have nothing to do with STR), although mathematically consistent, have no physical meaning whatsoever in their own right. All the purported "confirmations" are in error and appear to confirm the Lorentz transformations physical consequences only through unacceptable adjustments to call it mildly.

The whole story with the STR is an outright fraud. Blatant fraud.

As for the SMOT what you're saying is incorrect. What is discussed in my analysis is the energy the ball has. Start from there. This is what is had in mind also in the trivial cases which the student is exposed to when discussing CoE still in high school. You should know at least that.

[tinu]

No, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.

I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.

and ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),

You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.

Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are  or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...

Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.

Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?

Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?

I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).

Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?

Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about  SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
   
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. 

Tinu

This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.

No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?

Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

No, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.

I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.

and ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),

You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.

Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are  or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...

Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.

Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?

Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?

I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).

Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?

Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about  SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
   
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. 

Tinu

This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.

No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?

Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu

Hey, buddy, don't play with the truth or you'll be soory. Arrogance never pays.

[Omnibus]

This is a warning. Not only for @tinu but for anyone who would dare to post crap here. I will not tolerate idiocy to spread its wings in a forum where Science, that is search for the truth, is the goal. What nerve.