DEBATE THREAD

[Omnibus]

Now, just look at that comparison @DA makes with my proof:

?There is an old "proof" that shows that 1 equals 2.  It looks quite good on paper, until you notice that the result was obtained by dividing by zero.?

Such proof is indeed flawed and it proves my point, not what @DA intended.  . . .

Ok, Omnibus.  After examining your "proof", it is just my opinion that it is worthless.  Just my opinion, no offense intended.  I had hoped you proof was more rigorous.  While I see no way to make it valid, perhaps you will be able to someday. 

To reply to your last line, "You have no idea, what I intend."

I'll end this with one of my favorite Omnibus quotes, I think everyone should copy this down and show it to their science/physics teachers.  Think about what Omnibus said here:

"You're wrong. It has never been nor it will ever be that theory would precede experiment. Absolutely not. You're quite confused about that."

Admit first that the analogy (your 1 equals 2 analogy) you made with my proof is incorrect  and then we'll proceed with the rest.

[psychopath]

I think we are all overlooking a very important fact here, that 1 does indeed equal 2. 

[Low-Q]

@pshycopath. To disprove that SMOT violates CoE, the math should be done right, by basing it on correct conditions. Omnibus has only prooven that the ball firstly is placed incorrectly in point B, secondly that the ball takes a detour which takes respectively longer time to go back to point A. No exess energy is proven yet. Cheers

Stop repeating this nonsense. Repeating it won't make it true. Energy balance of such machines isn't time-dependent as you incorrectly understand and placing it at B is a fact which cannot be disputed. Violation of CoE by SMOT is proven beyond doubt.

No, you're wrong - VERY wrong. It's indeed time depended - as you should know quite well yourself. Virtually you're just standing in front of a steep hill, and are placing the ball at some point beyond the very top of it, so it don't roll the same way back to level A where you are standing. Then the ball are using more time and longer distance by rolling downhill, less steep, on a detour - lets imagine it's a spiral track - downhill till it finally reach level A where you are standing, using your own energy to put the ball back beyound the top of the hill again.

So one of the important points is in fact that YOU decides where B are suppose to be, and you got blind by the mysterious incident, and surprised why the ball didn't roll directly back from B to A. You simply don't see that the ball is placed by YOUR hand. YOU decide where it should be, and YOU have decided that the very natural action, that the ball OFCOURSE selects the least resistant way back to A, is caused by some mysterious supply of energy, coming from nowhere. THE EXCESS ENERGY COMES FROM YOUR OWN HAND, BY YOUR OWN DECISION OF POINT B!!!

GOT IT??

I repeat this "nonsense" because it's already true, and you know it more than very well.

Cheers

[Low-Q]

Now, just look at that comparison @DA makes with my proof:

ââ,¬Å"There is an old "proof" that shows that 1 equals 2.  It looks quite good on paper, until you notice that the result was obtained by dividing by zero.ââ,¬Â

Such proof is indeed flawed and it proves my point, not what @DA intended.  . . .

Ok, Omnibus.  After examining your "proof", it is just my opinion that it is worthless.  Just my opinion, no offense intended.  I had hoped you proof was more rigorous.  While I see no way to make it valid, perhaps you will be able to someday. 

To reply to your last line, "You have no idea, what I intend."

I'll end this with one of my favorite Omnibus quotes, I think everyone should copy this down and show it to their science/physics teachers.  Think about what Omnibus said here:

"You're wrong. It has never been nor it will ever be that theory would precede experiment. Absolutely not. You're quite confused about that."

Admit first that the analogy (your 1 equals 2 analogy) you made with my proof is incorrect  and then we'll proceed with the rest.

What is it to discuss if we all should agree with you?

..................

[Omnibus]

@Low-Q,

Don't say "we". Mind your own problems and confusion.