Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[tinu]

Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source).

HA! In your mind maybe...

Don't bother. Go learn some physics first.

Just relax?
Relax your body long enough until you smash your head on the floor. Then you?ll see how much potential energy is in your head (I hope it won?t floating, will it?!).
Repeat, recover, repeat, recover. Don?t give up and focus on potential energy. Good luck.

Cheers,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source).

HA! In your mind maybe...

Don't bother. Go learn some physics first.

Just relax?
Relax your body long enough until you smash your head on the floor. Then you?ll see how much potential energy is in your head (I hope it won?t floating, will it?!).
Repeat, recover, repeat, recover. Don?t give up and focus on potential energy. Good luck.

Cheers,
Tinu

Don't hang around here. Go learn some physics if you want to participate in the discussion, don't waste time.

[utilitarian]

The energies the machine has at its initial state are never taken into account in this kind of energy balance.

Please show a single other example in the history of modern physics where the initial potential energy of an object "is not taken into account" when calculating the energy balance of a system.  If you are basing your violation of CoE on that, I just don't know what to tell you.  One of the major foundations of our understanding of our universe is wrong, and based on that?

This is madness.  If I had $100 sitting in a bank account, and then I deposit $50, and then I buy a book for $150 on a debit card, and then I return the book for a $150 credit.  Then I look at my balance and say, ZOMG, modern math is so wrong.  I deposited $50 and was able to buy a $150 book, return it, and have $150 in my account.  I was able to spend more than the $50 I put in.  This is earth shattering.  No, the initial $100 did not count.  I do not remember putting that in there, I think my father deposited that check, so that cannot, I repeat cannot, let me stress, CANNOT, be part of the equation.  Money in = $50, money out = $150.  Financial overunity!  I will be rich someday.

Oh, and I keep doing the book buy and return trick but never get ahead.  In fact, I get slapped with a monthly checking account fee.  But trust me folks, making money with my system is purely a logistical problem.  The engineers will figure it out someday.

[Omnibus]

Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 06:36:33 PM
The energies the machine has at its initial state are never taken into account in this kind of energy balance.

Please show a single other example in the history of modern physics where the initial potential energy of an object "is not taken into account" when calculating the energy balance of a system.  If you are basing your violation of CoE on that, I just don't know what to tell you.  One of the major foundations of our understanding of our universe is wrong, and based on that?

Like I said, your own energy balance proves it. As I already said, you?ve written it correctly but obviously you don?t understand its meaning.

Here?s another example. You?re in a room on the tenth floor of a building which is at height H from the street level. You pick a ball which lies on the floor of that room, lift it up and place it on the table in that room which is at height h from the floor. Modern physics says that you have imparted energy mgh to the ball and not energy mg(h + H), as you seem to suggest because the ball on the floor had energy mgH with respect to the street level at the onset.

This is madness.  If I had $100 sitting in a bank account, and then I deposit $50, and then I buy a book for $150 on a debit card, and then I return the book for a $150 credit.  Then I look at my balance and say, ZOMG, modern math is so wrong.  I deposited $50 and was able to buy a $150 book, return it, and have $150 in my account.  I was able to spend more than the $50 I put in.  This is earth shattering.  No, the initial $100 did not count.  I do not remember putting that in there, I think my father deposited that check, so that cannot, I repeat cannot, let me stress, CANNOT, be part of the equation.  Money in = $50, money out = $150.  Financial overunity!  I will be rich someday.

No, this is an incorrect analogy. The correct analogy is as follows. You have $100 sitting in your bank account. You spend $50 out of pocket to buy a book which costs $150. Then you sell the book for $150. Your $100 are still in the bank but you have made a profit of another $100. Now you may take another $50 but this time from your profit (the $100 are in the bank untouched) and buy another book that costs $150, sell it for $150 and so on and so forth.

I strongly recommend, however, that you return from money analogies to the real physical world and experiments. Focus, for instance, on the experiment wih the ball in the apartment on the tenth floor of a building.

Oh, and I keep doing the book buy and return trick but never get ahead.  In fact, I get slapped with a monthly checking account fee.  But trust me folks, making money with my system is purely a logistical problem.  The engineers will figure it out someday.

No, you do get ahead. After every cycle you are $50 richer if you always also put aside $50 to continue the money crunching.



P.S. Oh, and, by the way?thermodynamics isn?t as old as you portray it. The times of Carnot and J.W.Gibbs are not even ancient times where the likes of Johannes Taisnierius have carried out their experiments oblivious of that discipline.

[Omnibus]

It's funny that George Soros himself wrote a book some years ago explaining that the financial system, especially the stock market is a sort of a CoE violation machine. His take was that money on Wall Street is made out of thin air--value of stock mostly not having much to do with the underlying products--and it isn't true that for some to get rich it isn't necessary that others become poor. This may be interesting to discuss but even if the stock market is a perpetuum mobile, it is a man made one. What we're discussing here is violation of CoE inherent in the natural phenomena (not man made), inevitable under the specified conditions as any other physical law.