Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

@ purepower,

"So, you say you can mentally break down a system to it's thermo, quantum, and magnetic components."

yes i know you don't read.

Afraid i was quoting OU812, if you read it properly and had been following even just one page you would know he said that, and i quoted him, in fact i said right before it, (wait, i would'nt want to misquote you) "

If you read what people actually wrote, rather than what you quickly interpret what they said, you would appear a little less foolish

No, I saw you were quoting him.

I just thought you were taking his words and making them your own to prove a point.

My mistake.

-PurePower

[exxcomm0n]

@exxcomm0n 

Do you really think the twin towers were not destroyed by the planes? Seriously? Ok, I dont want to start anything here, but these conspiracy theories are ludicrous.

Freddy

Freddy,

Yup.

Since it and every other building over a certain height should have been required to be designed to withstand a plane flying into it since WWII when a B-25 bomber collided with the Empire State Building (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml for a still somewhat slanted view of the event and it's comparison to the TT [duo towers]).

Case in point to my previous statements.

You studied the "event" any Freddy?

Some tenured American and other physics professors and physicist have testified both ways about it, and I thought they was supposed to be infallible.
Shows how much I know.

The reason batmans roller has no wall is 'cause it's AWAY (AKA higher) from the arrays, and therefore having a much less significant wall for a such a motive mass.
Don't you notice that it moves much more slowly than other video examples?

Away means MUCH more slowly.

When it's EDIT only1/8th in. plexi between the roller and the array, thing thing rockets into the wall and you have to assume the blur is the magnet because it's definition is THAT skewed by it's speed.
I thought that was evident in the videos I posted, AND it was in defiance of gravity that this effect occurs!

I'm a little in doubt about your critical thinking here Freddy.

I got that one while watching the vid.

[exxcomm0n]

<WAY big snip of assination>

And I never said bikes don't save energy. I said bikes don't save energy due to banked energy. They do make it easier, but not for the reasons exx and shaky described (please, don't see this as an invitation to start the debate again, we were on good terms).
<ditto snip>

I'll do as I damn well please, monkey boy.

But I ain't grinding an organ for you to dance to anymore.

'Cause it seems you have learned how to with your tail.

Dance monkey, dance. It's quite a good show.

[sky]

@PP

I don't see where in your qoute of Archer or in anything written by archer him saying

"f(speed) == torque"   

I see you repeatedly saying that he said it, but I cant find a post from him saying it. Even the qoute you say shows him saying it, does not show him saying it. Perhaps you can put that part in red so I can see it more clearly.

[Fred Flintstone]

@exxcomm0n 

Even though you think the twin towers were detroyed by our own government, I still like you. You are just wrong about that one thing... ha ha..  Anyway, I have studied Batman's vids over and over and over and I really think he has something different. Study Video 8 very closely. I might be wrong but it sure looks like the magnet is leaving the array very fast. And it starts from a stand still. I cannot reproduce this. I have 80 magnets - 1.5" x .5" cylinder and I have them in an array similar to his....well let's see if I can do a video here...

I just setup an account on youtube. Sorry the quality of this first video is so bad...but I was just playing around to see if I could do one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDAnXJa6QQ4

From the video, you can see that I am getting a different result than BATMAN. It has to be the orientation of the magnets at the end of the array. Yes, I have tried quite a few different configurations for many hours. This is just a quick video.

Freddy