Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

We are not getting anywhere.  Good luck with your theory.

Why are you saying that (that we are not getting anywhere)? I've shown you the errors you make. How is it not getting anywhere?

Perhaps if we had an hour or so in person, we could narrow our differences further, but it would take days of forum participation to accomplish the same, and I am just not up to it.

Anyway, I think the exercise is pointless.  I will never convince you, and since there is no one else who takes your side, there is no one else to convince.  And you will never convince me of this theory, the physics equivalent of 2+2=5, without either (1) a self-sustaining model or (2) independent validation by those qualified in this field.  And I can tell none of those are forthcoming in this lifetime.

No, this isn't the same as claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 because, remember, the "transformation" aspect of CoE is valid and your balance (which expressed as 2 + 2 = 4) is correct. It will be 2 + 2 = 5 if you start unjustified additions of the energy mgh1 (or the energy to lift the ball from the street level to the tenth floor), as I already explained.

As far as convincing me, yes, you can convince me but with sound scientific arguments. So far you have presented none and, therefore, the opposite should have occurred--you should already be convinced. Never mind who else agrees. Science isn't done by sheep in a herd who have to stick together no matter what the arguments are. Truth in science is never established by voting.

[tinu]

Never mind who else agrees. Science isn't done by sheep in a herd who have to stick together no matter what the arguments are.

On the radio: ?We break for an important traffic announcement: on highway x, around km y, a mad person is driving on the wrong way. Watch out, drivers!? Shortly afterwards, the phone rings on that radio station: ?Hi there. You?re wrong! It?s not one mad person. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of them!?

Take good care,
Tinu

You show me in scientific literature one single place where CoE is expressed in terms of ?imparted? (where did you get that?!) and not total energy. Then, since you threw away with various accusations, we can further depart from plain talking and move to some more serious staff in physics (gravitational potentials, vector field equations etc.), to eventually let everyone see your competence and my incompetence. Deal?

[Omnibus]

Never mind who else agrees. Science isn't done by sheep in a herd who have to stick together no matter what the arguments are.

On the radio: ?We break for an important traffic announcement: on highway x, around km y, a mad person is driving on the wrong way. Watch out, drivers!? Shortly afterwards, the phone rings on that radio station: ?Hi there. You?re wrong! It?s not one mad person. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of them!?

Take good care,
Tinu

You show me in scientific literature one single place where CoE is expressed in terms of ?imparted? (where did you get that?!) and not total energy. Then, since you threw away with various accusations, we can further depart from plain talking and move to some more serious staff in physics (gravitational potentials, vector field equations etc.), to eventually let everyone see your competence and my incompetence. Deal?

Somewhere in the introductory lectures of physics101 there's always an example given similar to the example I gave @utilitarian of a ball on a floor raised from the floor and placed on a table at height h from the floor. The total energy discussed in such an example is mgh and it is noted that it is conserved which is a statement of conservation of mechanical energy principle. You may want to look in a standard introductory physics text or maybe search on the net.

[sm0ky2]

@ OMNI

go back and read your own last 10 posts......     i think we need to take away your "virtual-scientist" title...

I'm going to give you a little gift here in a couple of days....

[Omnibus]

@ OMNI

go back and read your own last 10 posts......     i think we need to take away your "virtual-scientist" title...

I'm going to give you a little gift here in a couple of days....

You go back, read them carefully and try to understand them. It will only be to your benefit.

Besides, who are those "we" you're referring to. You are the one saying the above and you're not a royalty to refer to yourself as "we". Therefore, edit your post and replace the "we" with "I".