The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Koen1]

Hehe, although it has as much to do with the discussion as Elvis has to do with elephant dung,
I'd still like to reply. Useless though it may be.

The Sunday Sermon was interesting.  It was teaching the Christians on the eating of meat sacrificed to the Pagan gods.

How many "pagan gods" are there in China that require the sacrifice of flesh in their rituals?? I thought the predominant
religious and metaphysical trends were buddhism, taoism, and to a much lesser degree the other so-called "major religions"...
As far as I know, none of those sacrifice meat to their gods...
And as a second point: after meat has been sacrificed to said gods, it has been offered up to these gods, right?
So the meat is a gift to the gods. That means that you cannot consume it.
If the life of the animal and its blood were sacrificed, then meat could be left that could be eaten by the people.
But if the meat itself is sacrificed, there is no meat left afterward, and it cannot be eaten. Very simple.
So either you have a very confused priest, or you misunderstood what was said.

The preacher made the following points:

(1)   There is only one God, the scarifying ceremony to Pagan gods is meaningless.  It would not make the meat better or worst.

Ok, I'll assume you are not talking about the ritual butchering of the animal and not of the actual sacrificing of the meat of the animal,
because as I have expalined above, you can not eat meat that is no longer there becasue it has just been sacrificed. So you are not talking
about sacrificing meat, you are talking about butchering/slaughtering animals according to a religious ritual after which meat is left
that can be eaten. Obviously, if there is only one god, either these "pagans" are performing meaningless rituals for a non-existant god which
does not make the meat less good to eat, or they are in fact performing rituals to the greater glory of that one god, but they just call that
god by a different name. Which also does not at all make the meat any less good. Either way, no harm done.
I personally would even like to go further and say that even if no religious ritual is applied, the act of butchery is still done with the intent
of feeding and preserving the circle of life, which in a way has a metaphysical element embedded even if you never think about it,
and as such is always performed to the greater glory of Life. As long as it is done for the purpose of sustaining life, and not for the
sole pupose of destroying life. Yes, that is a more radical view that could be interpreted as: "sacrificing is meaningless, period."

(2)   God has given every one of us a conscience.  However, your conscience and my conscience may not be the same.  I may view that a man with no wife having  adult relationship with a prostitute is normal and is acceptable. Another person may view that as a sin. 

I don't see what business it is of anyone what another man does, as long as no crimes or injustice is committed. But in Christianity there are certain things that are clearly defined as not allowable, and contained
in the ten commandments. A believer in Christianity should have moral standards that accord with these, and cannot for example say to himself "well I personally do
not see a problem with sleeping with my neighbours wife".

(3)   So it is quite all right to eat meat sacrificed to Pagan gods if your conscience allows it.  It would not make you better or worse.

Has nothing to do with conscience and personal morality. Is simple logic. See point 1.
But if your conscience allows you to eat human flesh for example, then you are pagan, so why should you care what a priest or preacher says
about it? No, that point does not make much sense.

(4)   However, one has to set an example for others.  If the eating of that meat were equated by society as equivalent of adoring the Pagan God, a Christian should not eat that meat.

perhaps, but only because eating the meat would be considered partaking in the worship of another
god, and that is not allowed according to the priest/preacher again. It is more of a social rule to avoid religious conflicts in a community than it
is a rule based on metaphysical reasoning or morality. Not divinely inspired at all.

(5) So having  with adult relationship with a prostitute is not a sin.  Just do not make it an example to tempt others.  Just go to a Country (or Las Vegas) where that is regarded as a normal and legal activity.

You have a strange fascination with prostitutes... I don't recall prostitution to be specifically named as a sin in the sections of the bible that mention social conduct in the community, except perhaps a couple of remarks in passages relating to the enemy cities of Babylon etc,
and there the "jezebels" mentioned actually mean the priestesses of babylon who performed fertility rituals including ritual copulation in the name of the gods... so even there it is not really prostitution itself that is condemned, but rather the worship of the deity Baal.
Obviously, prostitution is considered unhonourable, undignified, dirty, and immoral by many people today as it has been in centuries past. But not necessarily a sin.

It was something new for me.  As Chinese, we traditionally offer our meals to our ancestors in the many festivities before we eat.  Some Chinese Christians regard that as a sin.  So some automatically accepted customs by some may be viewed as sins by others.

Right.
Like... the offering of prostitutes to your ancestors before you eat them? I'm just trying to find a line in your sermon talk...

This gives a good teaching to ?Great truths begin as Blasphemies?! It is no surprise that a perfectly simple Slide 3 which obeys all the mathematics or physics laws is regarded as Blasphemies by some.

Ah yes, this follows the lucid expose above perfectly... ?
So what you're saying is that, because the preacher told you something that you interpret as a license to visit prostitutes,
that magically turns your crackpot theory into Holy Scripture?
... I'd lay off the chasing of the dragon for a while dude...

In this World, we have to accept different points of view - even in science!!!

Err... Nope.
We have to accept different ways to look at the same scientific points of view. But they're the same points.

The Earth may be round.  But if forcing that fact on others could ruin their careers, refraining may be the right move.

Bullshit. By allowing these people to delude themselves and think the earth may be flat, we are depriving them of truth!

[Top Gun]

Any way, I will go ahead with pointing "Obvious" mistakes in your pendulum08.jpg

If you look closely, your knot has moved in perfectly horizontal plane as shown by you. Your length from support to knot is constant.

Dear Kul_ash,

The knot clearly goes up by dH.

I have reproduced your pendulum08.jpg. Show me where have you shown the vertical displacement of knot?
If the knot has gone up then how come string pulling is still at the same elevation like before? Shouldn't it be inclined also?

Dear Kul_ash,

Thank you for pointing out the obvious mistake.  I have edited the previous posts related to Pendulum08 and others to clearly show that the knot went up.

In the presentation, I was relying on slide 4 to provide the detailed displacement information.  See below.

Sorry that Pendulum08.jpg caused you confusion.  Many thanks.

[Koen1]

@Bill: hehe yeah, it is indeed a form of the classical liars paradox.
My favorite version of that is:  "This statement is not true".
Eternal loop error

@TopGun/Tseung: Typical. First you insist your drawings etc are correct,
even insult Kul_ash for pointing out they're not, and then you need to be
shown where the flaw is becasue you don't see it.
Now Kul_ash has pointed it out, all of a sudden you agree the mistake
was obvious? Well, apparently what is obvious to most here is
only obvious to you after it has been pointed out?

Why can you not perform this reality check yourself?
Why do we need to point out to you where the flaws are?
If it's so obvious and you are so great, why can't you do it yourself?

And so far I still have not seen any excess energy produced in the
pendulum, still no proof of any gravity being "lead out".
All I see so far is you, TopGun/Tseung, being unable to even properly
describe a simple pendulum.

Apparently it is extremely difficult to just tell us where you're getting the
magical "lead out" energy, how you extract that exactly, and why you still have
not built a demonstration version if it really is all that simple.

[chrisC]

Dear Kul_ash,

Thank you for pointing out the obvious mistake.  I have edited the previous posts related to Pendulum08 and others to clearly show that the knot went up.

In the presentation, I was relying on slide 4 to provide the detailed displacement information.  See below.

Sorry that Pendulum08.jpg caused you confusion.  Many thanks.

OK. How many more of these "obvious mistakes" are there? Hmm...Top Gun making elementary mistakes? Can't be that good, are you?

@Kul-Ash

Thanks for your patience and dedication in exposing this con. Physics and Mathematics really don't lie. It's only the liars!

cheers
chrisC

[Kul_ash]

Any way, I will go ahead with pointing "Obvious" mistakes in your pendulum08.jpg

If you look closely, your knot has moved in perfectly horizontal plane as shown by you. Your length from support to knot is constant.

Dear Kul_ash,

The knot clearly goes up by dH.

I have reproduced your pendulum08.jpg. Show me where have you shown the vertical displacement of knot?
If the knot has gone up then how come string pulling is still at the same elevation like before? Shouldn't it be inclined also?

Dear Kul_ash,

Thank you for pointing out the obvious mistake.  I have edited the previous posts related to Pendulum08 and others to clearly show that the knot went up.

In the presentation, I was relying on slide 4 to provide the detailed displacement information.  See below.

Sorry that Pendulum08.jpg caused you confusion.  Many thanks.

Good. At least I educated you in some thing. So let me summerize! Pendulum08.jpg was wrongly drawn. Pendulum14.jpg and pendulum21.jpg clearly showed "mechanism" for vertical lift. So now we are back to your new pendulum08.jpg which shows vertical movement of knot. Great!!
Now let me point you to the obvious mistake in your new pendulum08.jpg. I have reproduced it here.
It clearly shows applied external force has also moved up "vertically". How is that a constant horizontal force now? It tells me that it has moved vertically as well as horizontally, in other words resultant force is inclined similar to your pendulum14.jpg. So it clearly shows the "mechanism" for vertical movement! How does this new pendulum08.jpg support your theory that external force doing only horizontal work?
You have not provided any explanation for the vertical movement of ur horizontal force.
Please explain!

And please do not tell me that vertical movement of force = 10 x dH and vertical movement of your bob is mgh = 60 x dH, so where does additional 50 x dH come from? It is obvious that your "horizontal" force is of 10 units and there is no mention of any vertical force!

@ Cris C and Koen:
Thanks guys for those kind words. I always give benefit of doubt to other person. The moment I saw this theory in Lee-Tseung patent application and read the comments of inspectors, I had no doubt in my mind that this is not even close to any serious theory. But I luckily I found Tseung himself here on this forum and decided to take him head on. I am giving him full chance to explain what he wants to explain and then it takes me not more than couple of minutes to point out mistakes. I really want him to understand basic problems in his theory. Lets see. I know it is too hard to give up a theory what you are working on for your lifetime. But sooner he understand the flaws, better it is!