DEBATE THREAD

[Low-Q]

@Low-Q,

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

Take a look at my previous post before you discuss problems with me. Maybe it isn't me that is the problem

[Omnibus]

@Low-Q,

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

Take a look at my previous post before you discuss problems with me. Maybe it isn't me that is the problem

@Low-Q,

That is sheer nonsense. Don't continue with this.

[Low-Q]

@omnibus. Here it is again. Take another look at this post, and discuss it with yourself for a while before dressing me down:

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

Cheers, and good night

[shruggedatlas]

Such proof is indeed flawed and it proves my point, not what @DA intended. When I have one apple in my left hand and two apples in my right hand I indeed prove that the number of apples I have in my hands is different by counting them. Same thing in my analysis. When I see that the energy input to the ball is (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) but the ball loses energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) I don?t not need to stare much at it to notice that the two amounts differ. Obviously, @DA wants to prove somehow that 1 equals 2 and that (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) equals (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) but it doesn?t. Therefore, @DA should follow his own advice to know better than that and not foist on us flawed ?proofs?. Once he succeeds he would inevitably recognize that SMOT violates CoE because CoE doesn?t allow such discrepancy between input and lost energy as seen in SMOT.

But for some reason there is not enough of this excess energy to get the ball back to B without the hand.  This contradicts the theory and gives everyone pause.  I realize that it does not daunt you one bit, but assuming you do not want to die as the only person who believes in your theory, I think some next steps are in order.

I think one good thing to do is to get the hand out of the experiment.  Use some kind of electronic or mechanical device to raise the ball from A to B, and then the energy required to do this can be measured.

The second thing is that we need to measure the kinetic energy of the ball as it hits A, on the way back from C.

I realize that these are not the simplest things to do with just things around the house, but if you could somehow accomplish the above two things and let others replicate, you would instantly gain supporters worldwide and become the next great thing in science and I and everyone who argued with you would have to eat crow.

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

As I've said many, many times, the only criterion for whether or not CoE is violated is solely the comparison of the imparted energy and the energy lost by the ball. There are no other criteria. Neither the usefulness of a given energy produced nor whether or not a self-sustaining run can be achieved etc. Nothing else whatsoever. Don't fall into the trap confused and dishonest people are laying out here. There is one undeniable fact--if CoE were obeyed then the only energy that stands to transform into other energies upon ball's return from B back at A is the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball. That's not the case in SMOT. In SMOT the energy imparted to the ball is (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) while the energy which the ball has at C which stands to be converted into other energies when the ball returns back at A is greater--it is (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc). This is in clear violation of CoE because CoE doesn't allow the discrepancy between these two energies (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) and (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc). Learn this somehow once for all and try to avoid the perpetual confusion some dishonest people here are trying to instill in curious people such as you. This question is closed. SMOT violates CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt. As for the practical, engineering applications of this violation, there are lots of discussions going on as we speak and you may try to pay more attention there rather than further entangle yourself in confusion so desired by the mentioned dishonest individuals.