Hello

[Omnibus]

@paulie1968,

Here?s a conclusive proof for the violation of CoE in a device which is a modern rendition of Johannes Taisnierus? device, depicted also in one of your videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec6RgURXQNk&feature=related):

The experiment (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847) proving violation of CoE is presented schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif (if the link doesn?t open hit Reload). Denote the mass of ball by m, the gravitational constant by g, the magnetic potential energy at points A and B respectively by Ma and Mb, the heights to raise the ball from point A to B and from B to C respectively h1 and h2, kinetic (and other) energy by Kc.

If CoE is to be obeyed then only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) of the entire amount (mgh1 + Mb) at B will transform into other energies upon the return of the ball from B back to A. Amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) is the amount of energy imparted to the ball.

In Johannes Taisnierius? device, presented in its modern version in the above links, however, the entire amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) the ball has at point C which is greater than the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is transformed into other energies upon the return of the ball back at A. This is in clear violation of CoE.

[shruggedatlas]

@paulie1968,

Here?s a conclusive proof for the violation of CoE in a device which is a modern rendition of Johannes Taisnierus? device, depicted also in one of your videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec6RgURXQNk&feature=related):

How can this be cited as "conclusive proof?"  First of all, it is an animation.  Second of all, it makes no sense.  If the magnet is strong enough to pull the ball up the curved incline, why does the ball not stay elevated.  The path where the ball travels down is much less steep than where it rises, so it ought to be held in place by the force of the magnet rather than rolling down, as shown.

[Omnibus]

@paulie1968,

Here?s a conclusive proof for the violation of CoE in a device which is a modern rendition of Johannes Taisnierus? device, depicted also in one of your videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec6RgURXQNk&feature=related):

How can this be cited as "conclusive proof?"  First of all, it is an animation.  Second of all, it makes no sense.  If the magnet is strong enough to pull the ball up the curved incline, why does the ball not stay elevated.  The path where the ball travels down is much less steep than where it rises, so it ought to be held in place by the force of the magnet rather than rolling down, as shown.

The animation isn't cited as conclusive proof. The three paragraphs below the mentioned animation, based on an actual experiment (a modern version of Johannes Taisnierius' experiment) cited therein, are the conclusive proof.

[Omnibus]

Here's Johannes Taisnierius' device (circa 1561):

[hansvonlieven]

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.

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