DEBATE THREAD

[Localjoe]

@Supersam

Although  my NON SEQUITOR comment could have been touted towards omnibus it wasn't, just a little cultural humor for the day. The real question is did romans wear sandals?

[supersam]

@LOCALJOE,

the question still remains to you or anyone else, can you start to fill in the blanks, with ral numbers?  the blanks being the variables in the equation, that is not equal in omnibus's proof of the violation of coe?  i don't think it will be to hard, just think before you comment and then you will not look like that other thing.  i dare you to actually figure out just how much force the ball has!  chicken?

lol
sam

ps: scared say scared obviously omnibus is!

[Bessler007]

OmniBusted is a skeptic engaging in parody not too unlike the BS Lawrence leads out with.  There are many facets of the crank they object to as seen by their style.  They act as if they can't distinguish between the person and the idea.  The manner OmniBusted reiterates that ?misconception? makes it very clear it's an act.  Dude, you have jumped the shark with:

• Your idle threats and directing them at anyone that disagrees with your points.
  
• The terms you use.  When you call someone ?semi educated?, you aren't describing anyone's rejection of the ?lame proof offered for the SMOT?.  These are your honest assessments of your skeptical  opinion of anyone looking for ?free energy? and ?overunity?.
• Your incessant insistence an overunity toy is really a violation of CoE.
• Your algebraic proof that ignores the calculus of the dynamics of changing forces in a SMOT.  It  falls way short of the mathematics actually describing this overunity toy.
• Further your lame proof overlooks the idiosyncrasies inherent in various applications of a SMOT.

In conclusions, no one could be as stupid  as OmniBusted acts.  If they were they'd need to be on life support being too stupid to know when to breath.  The parody is this skeptics portrayal of their impression of a crank's reasoning.  This skeptic is giving back to the crank their picture of the crank in this act.

It is an act.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

[Localjoe]

@sam

I know better than to actually debate i this thread, You folks will go around in circles because of the mentality and lack of happy problem solving.... i just saw a friend being harassed improperly so i figured id spice it up a bit for you.  Im actually busy with my oscillator right now and dont have time to endeavor to the smot region.  This omnibus character sure seems to create a stir tho .  Weird how folks feel the need to get mad to get their point across... sadly i laugh when i see that and make i guess silly comments like calling someone a little bitch.. Take a joke and realize that i already apologized for my non sequitor/ stupid comment.  Have a great one
                                                                                                                    Joe

[hansvonlieven]

@ supersam,

The way I see it, the flaw in Omnibus' "proof of violation of CoE" is not in the numbers or equations he uses but in what he uses as a starting point and an endpoint.

If you drop a brick from a ten story building and in assessing the forces at play you only look at the distance traveled between floor 9 and floor 1 you get violation of CoE. You have acceleration out of nothing. By ignoring how the brick got to the 10th floor in the first place and by ignoring how it comes to a complete halt when it hits the ground you have clear evidence of a CoE violation.

In order to find out what is really going on you must look at the complete cycle, not just a part of it.

Hans von Lieven