DEBATE THREAD

[psychopath]

I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.

[RunningBare]

I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.

Over 20 years since the first SMOT and still no free energy from it?, I know I know, its an on going engineering problem

[psychopath]

I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.

Over 20 years since the first SMOT and still no free energy from it?, I know I know, its an on going engineering problem

What? Guess what, people were trying to fly for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it was "impossible". That's not a logical argument.

If you want to say that smots don't work, then provide proof. I am not saying that if you don't provide proof that the smot works, I'm saying that without proof that it doesn't work, you can't say it doesn't work.

Where is your proof?

[Omnibus]

Well said.

Recall that that has also been the ?logic? behind the proposal of the 26 year old Helmholts, a neophyte medical doctor with no physics background, for the impossibility to produce energy out of nothing (excess energy), namely, that no device has been created up until then which can produce excess energy, therefore, creating of such device is impossible. Ridiculous ?logic? isn?t it? No wonder that no serious journal during his time has accepted for publication Helmholtz? paper containing that bogus thesis and we only know of it due to a series of lectures he delivered at some meeting. Obviously, that was to the liking of the powers that be promoting this idea as a general principle and proclaiming its proponent as one of the most important scientists of all time. How unfortunate ? Of course, we now know that it is possible to produce energy out of nothing and therefore CoE cannot be considered a general principle. The first time this was shown rigorously is in connection with the SMOT which produces excess energy discontinuously. Now, knowing that, it?s only a matter of time to have a working self-sustaining device constructed, producing excess energy continuously. This is only a matter of skillful engineering efforts which sooner or later will emerge and will bring such device to the fore. It should be noted that even if we don?t have such device created, possibility to violate CoE is firmly established and that is unconnected with whether or not such self-sustaining device exists.

[hoptoad]

[
What? Guess what, people were trying to fly for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it was "impossible". That's not a logical argument.

If you want to say that smots don't work, then provide proof. I am not saying that if you don't provide proof that the smot works, I'm saying that without proof that it doesn't work, you can't say it doesn't work.
Where is your proof?

@ Psychopath

The majority of forum members who enter into discussions with Omni-bullshit are open minded to the possibility that a SMOT may one day be enabled to work, given the correct ingredients of theory and experimental results on which to base an engineered outcome. For the record I am not one of them, but I have never made claims that it is impossible. If a working SMOT loop should suddenly appear, I will gladly eat humble pie and admit that I backed the wrong horse!

Most forum members (though not all) do not make "claims" that it cannot or will not ever work. The issue regarding SMOT, is Omni-bullshits insistence that he has indisputable "proof" that it can, will and does work.

When challenged to produce a working model based on his erroneous theory, he simply resorts to semantic evasions, and proffers the excuse that it is not necessary for him to offer a practical working model, in spite of the fact that he expects this from others as shown by the following quote from another thread in which Omni-bullshit says: - "The one and only thing that really matters in such a case is actually building the device in flesh and blood and demonstrating that it really works."

Omni-bullshit fails to practice what he preaches at every level of discussion.

It is not incumbent on anybody to "disprove" something if they have made no claims, but it is incumbent on those who make "claims" to back them up with proof. In this regard, Omni-bullshit has failed miserably, but instead of admitting it, he resorts to insults and bullying.

If you don't think that a claim should be backed up with proof, then consider this: I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, just send me a cheque for a million dollars and this knowledge can be yours! Yours truly, the tooth fairy.