SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

Anyone who is considering engaging with Omnibus on the issue of whether SMOT violates CoE might first want to take a look at these two threads:

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23341&page=1
(2 weeks back in November 2006 -- 363 posts)

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13991&page=1
(Sept. 2006 to July 2007 -- 3972 posts)

And then at these petition threads:

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23321&page=1

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60135&page=1

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60134&page=1

And if you get through those, there are plenty more!

Now, notice this:  what is the title of THIS thread?  Notice anything funny about the last several pages?

Correct. That'll be interesting from a historical perspective. One day I'd also like to refresh my memory how this developed. Thank you for gathering and posting these links it is saving me a lot of time. If one isn't interested in the history of the question but of the actual argument sifting through these links would be just a waste of time. This argument went through a lot of modifications to make it clearer, that is, to say the same things in a more comprehensive way and, although many of these ways are still viable, I think the latest exchange is one of the clearest. So, stick to what we're discussing now and especially try to answer the question who has supplied the magnetic potential energy (by pulling the ball from C to B) which the ball loses when traveling from B to C.

[canam101]

Anyone who is considering engaging with Omnibus on the issue of whether SMOT violates CoE might first want to take a look at these two threads:......

Now, what is the title of THIS thread?  Notice anything funny about the last five pages?

It's a shame this thread was diverted. It should be obvious that omnibus is not playing with a full deck.

Just ignore the poor fellow and he will subside.

[Omnibus]

@canam101,

I didn't divert it, you know. However, as I've always said, that analysis should always be invoked in such threads (this is the not the replicating but the theoretical one in this forum, isn't it) because you can see what confusion arises in some other forums when the analysis in question is forgotten and some people are desperately yelling at the motor the mantra "CoE cannot be violated" as if trying to exorcise the demons from it, as someone put it quite wittily. As for playing with a full deck, that's an unfair statement.

[oak]

@canam101,

I didn't divert it, you know. However, as I've always said, that analysis should always be invoked in such threads (this is the not the replicating but the theoretical one in this forum, isn't it) because you can see what confusion arises in some other forums when the analysis in question is forgotten and some people are desperately yelling at the motor the mantra "CoE cannot be violated" as if trying to exorcise the demons from it, as someone put it quite wittily. As for playing with a full deck, that's an unfair statement.

That's the point.  The analysis should not be invoked, because anyone who is "desperately yelling CoE cannot be violated" is not going to be persuaded by it.  So the analysis is just taking up space.  It's ineffective.  It's noise.  Even if it were true it would be noise because it isn't capable of achieving any useful result in the ten-thousand places where you believe it is your God-given right to express it.  The effect is that you are just picking fights, over and over, that serve no useful purpose.

[Omnibus]

@oak,

Science requires to do the opposite of what you're saying.