Hello

[Honk]

Hi Honk, checked my mail, thanks for the info, i'm having a look at it now.

Hi there Paulie.
You haven't downloaded the big file yet? Please do!

[Omnibus]

G?day all,
I am getting sick of this stuff. The ?mathematical proof? offered to support the belief that there is overunity in a SMOT is utter rubbish and flawed right from the beginning. The mathematics are supposed to prove that in a SMOT energy appears out of nothing. Mathematics, as we know it is incapable of proving this because of its very structure.

Oh, you?re getting sick of this stuff, as if the opinion of someone like you who doesn?t understand that what is being proved is not mathematics matters. The quantities mgh1, mgh1, Ma, Mb, Kc used in this proof are physical quantities, not just mathematical symbols. What is being talked about is physics, not mathematics.

Therefore, right at the beginning, you are spewing utter rubbish based on sheer misunderstanding of the nature of physical proofs.

And to further confirm this ridiculousness here?s what ?proof? that individual offers:

Let me explain:

Mathematics, as any other science, is fundamentally based on axioms. For those of you that do not know what an axiom is here is the definition as it applies to mathematics: (Source Wikipedia)

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else they logically follow from.

The fundamental axioms on which mathematics relies upon for its existence are:

The most fundamental axiom:
Ex nihilo nihil fit, or, out of nothing comes nothing. If we denote, as is usual, a nothing as zero, the mathematical statement says:  0 = 0

Following from there is the next  axiom:
A something is more than a nothing. If we assign the number one as representing a something, in mathematics the statement reads:  1 > 0

The next axiom in line is:
Two somethings are more than one something. Mathematically: 1 + 1 > 1

And so it goes on from there. All mathematical formulae, procedures, theorems and propositions are based on these three fundamental axioms. Without them the entire discipline of  mathematics is worthless.

Now, what Omnibus is telling us is that he can prove energy from nothing in a SMOT mathematically.

This is not possible.

Ultimately, what his statement says is that he can prove mathematically that zero is equal to or larger than one.  Or in mathematical notation  0 = > 1

Since this conflicts with one of the most fundamental axioms on which mathematics is based, mathematics cannot be used to arrive at this conclusion.

In other words, his calculations are fatally flawed.
Prove me wrong! ANYBODY!

Hans von Lieven

Reading this stupidity one doesn?t know whether to laugh or to cry because this individual tries to abolish physical facts by blabbering completely out of context mathematical trivialities. I?m really getting sick of this?confused individuals such as @hansvonlieven pushing themselves to express opinions.

[shruggedatlas]

@paulie1982,

You obviously want to ask something and something is whether the second part of your sentence

On one hand i think it is possible( for various reasons) but on the other i am restrained by the cold hard laws of physics that always put you back in your place.

still holds. No, it doesn't. It has already been definitively established that the principle of conservation of energy (CoE) can be violated, that is, one of the coldest, hardest principles of physics is no more a general principle. Furthermore, when a principle in physics loses it's generality, as was discovered regarding the principle of CoE, it cannot be considered a principle any more. What we're doing now is trying to find engineering (practical) applications of that violation of CoE which is a very hard task.

When you post such things, it makes me scratch my head.  You are certainly entitled to your position, but when you use phrases like "it has already been definitively established" and "is no more a general principle" and "as was discovered", you are intentionally misleading the reader.  You are implying that your theory has gained some sort of acceptance and that there are actually scientists out there that "have established" what you are talking about or at least have accepted what you are saying.  The truth is nothing of the sort.  You are the only serious proponent of your theory.

I understand your position that the truth of a theory should speak for itself, and that is true.  However, you should just be honest and say that this is what you believe, and it is your position, and not try to use intentially misleading language like you do.  I suspect you do care about your theory's acceptance by others, or you would not be posting at all, but sitting alone secure in your knowledge.  So if you do care about this, you should at least approach this from an honest standpoint instead of overstating the level of acceptance of your theory.  All you are accomplishing by using such language is provoking heated responses, but that is not a serious or noble thing to do.

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

I'm not implying anything about anybody's acceptance or non-acceptance which I don't care about one bit. I only care about the established truth and it is that violation of CoE has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This also meant that the principle of CoE must not be considered any more as a principle in science. The facts so far show that anybody denying it does that either due to incompetence and confusion or due to outright dishonesty. That's the real truth about this matter. While pushing confusion and lack of competence can only be laughable, to be dishonest in science is a despicable behavior and I'd suggest that you direct your critique towards the individuals (well known so far) who irresponsibly mislead the readership with their conniving, finagling and dishonesty..

[shruggedatlas]

@shruggedatlas,

I'm not implying anything about anybody's acceptance or non-acceptance which I don't care about one bit. I only care about the established truth and it is that violation of CoE has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This also meant that the principle of CoE must not be considered any more as a principle in science. The facts so far show that anybody denying it does that either due to incompetence and confusion or due to outright dishonesty. That's the real truth about this matter. While pushing confusion and lack of competence can only be laughable, to be dishonest in science is a despicable behavior and I'd suggest that you direct your critique towards the individuals (well known so far) who irresponsibly mislead the readership with their conniving, finagling and dishonesty..

Nothing has been "proven" in the traditional sense.  "Proven" necessarily implies some sort of verification by educated peers or real world trials.  You are using a very narrow and unusual definition of "proven," namely that you have a proof and you are convinced beyond all doubt that it is correct.  Real world trials cannot verify your hypothesis and not a single respectable source will give it any credence.   You hide in the harbor of "engineering problems," but in reality, those engineering problems may be akin to getting blood from a turnip, and will remain unsolved long after our sun goes supernova in a few billion years.

But I suppose the last thing we should be debating is the properness of language, but still, you are not helping your cause with this approach.  The fact that you regularly get zero converts here speaks of that, and bear in mind, on this site is the most receptive audience you will find anywhere.  The people here actually allow for the possibility of violation of CoE.  If you cannot get traction here, your chances in the mainstream academic and scientific communities have to be near zero.