DEBATE THREAD

[Omnibus]

@DA,

Thanks for posting what really has to be said in this case. But be sure to read what I said and try to have it sink, don't just post it, because it applies to you too. Oh, and don't continue because you'll hear deservedly more of it. For people such as you truth is an insult but that doesn't mean your thinking should set the standard.

[tinu]

One raises a ball from A to B.
Then, by contemplating its free fall from B to A, in a spark of geniality he/she observes that the ball has not only kinetic energy but also a much larger one amounting mc2. Gee! That?s a huge amount of energy! Compared to it, mgh is nothing! So, one puts in mgh but the ball has mgh+mc2. It has to be overunity, right? And CoE violation is thus proved beyond any doubt...

Duh!
Same is with SMOT.
What has the imparted (input) energy to do with total energy?! Absolutely nothing.

Bottom line: When output energy will be properly defined and described by an equation other than Eout=0 (which is correct as shown in the dedicated thread), the subject of CoE violation is SMOT might be worthy to be re-opened again. Alternatively, a relevant experiment will do it as well.

Tinu

[RunningBare]

Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.

[Omnibus]

Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.

That's the wrong thread to post this, isn't it?

[Omnibus]

One raises a ball from A to B.
Then, by contemplating its free fall from B to A, in a spark of geniality he/she observes that the ball has not only kinetic energy but also a much larger one amounting mc2. Gee! That?s a huge amount of energy! Compared to it, mgh is nothing! So, one puts in mgh but the ball has mgh+mc2. It has to be overunity, right? And CoE violation is thus proved beyond any doubt...

Duh!
Same is with SMOT.
What has the imparted (input) energy to do with total energy?! Absolutely nothing.

Bottom line: When output energy will be properly defined and described by an equation other than Eout=0 (which is correct as shown in the dedicated thread), the subject of CoE violation is SMOT might be worthy to be re-opened again. Alternatively, a relevant experiment will do it as well.

Tinu

That's gibberish and gibberish can never serve as scientific proof.