SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

The ball starts at A with energy (Ma) and ends up at A with energy (Ma + other energies) and that's claimed not to be in violation of CoE! Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. Unbelievable.

Of course it?s not in violation of CoE and it?s time for you to shut up instead of talking utter nonsense.

The ball starts at A with energy (Ma), it gains ?other energies?=Ehand and it ends up at A with energy (Ma+'other energies'= Ma+Ehand). Not only this is not in violation of CoE but THIS IS EXACTLY CoE, you ?genius?.

If CoE were obeyed, the ball starts at A with energy (Ma) it gains Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)), not other energies. Not other energies. Not other energies, you idiot. And ends up at A losing Ehand, ending up with energy (Ma). CoE isn't violated. This, however, isn't what's happening in SMOT.

In SMOT the ball starts at A with energy (Ma), gains energy Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). And ends up at A losing (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). SMOT violates CoE.

Cut this out, you moron, that was explained numerous times already. and people shouldn't suffer from your mediocrity by reading infinite exchanges explaining the same thing.

[Omnibus]

The answer on the above was already posted. I quote it:

The ball starts at A with energy (Ma) and ends up at A with energy (Ma + other energies) and that's claimed not to be in violation of CoE! Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. Unbelievable.

Of course it?s not in violation of CoE and it?s time for you to shut up instead of talking utter nonsense.

The ball starts at A with energy (Ma), it gains ?other energies?=Ehand and it ends up at A with energy (Ma+'other energies'= Ma+Ehand). Not only this is not in violation of CoE but THIS IS EXACTLY CoE, you ?genius?.

If you still don?t get it, unless you?re very old and mentally senile, I don?t think one can be that moron and still be alive.
So, I assume you have a hidden agenda.

This is impudence to no end. You have no shame.

[tinu]

Talk on this:

I've taken the liberty of posting a summary of the maths so far:

Ea(initial) = Ma
Ein = Ehand = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))
Eb = Ea(initial) + Ehand = Ma + (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Mb + mgh1
Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = Mb + mgh1 = Ea(initial) + Ehand
Kc = Mb ? mgh2
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)
Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ? Ma = (Mb + mgh1) ? Ma = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ehand
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = Ea(initial) + Ehand.
Eout = Ea(final) ? Ea(initial) = [Ea(initial) + Ehand] ? Ea(initial) = Ehand
Egain = Eout ? Ein = Ehand ? Ehand

Since you continue I?d say you have really, really big gaps. That?s pity; I would have considered the ?hidden agenda? more appealing.
Frankly, I wouldn?t allow you to step in front of any class, less to speak. Teaching would be completely out of question.

[exnihiloest]

...SMOT unequivocally violates CoE...

No proof it ever did it. The only one proof would be to loop the smot.
I tried but failed. Did you succeed? We are waiting for this proof, may be we will get it, may be not. The question is still open.

Not only extraordinary claims without extraordinary experimental evidence are parasitic background noise and counterproductive for FE research, but also they discredit the field.
I presume we are here because we are rational people more interested in science even it is a bit borderline, than in religious scriptures promoted by dogmatic preachers or uneducated and blind believers with radical and doubtless wiewpoints.
If I'm right on this point, FE is not a religion so we should keep and carefully apply the scientific method by all checking and verifying again and duplicating by different teams before claiming we got the holy graal.

[Omnibus]

Talk on this:

I've taken the liberty of posting a summary of the maths so far:

Ea(initial) = Ma
Ein = Ehand = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))
Eb = Ea(initial) + Ehand = Ma + (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Mb + mgh1
Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = Mb + mgh1 = Ea(initial) + Ehand
Kc = Mb ? mgh2
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)
Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ? Ma = (Mb + mgh1) ? Ma = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ehand
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = Ea(initial) + Ehand.
Eout = Ea(final) ? Ea(initial) = [Ea(initial) + Ehand] ? Ea(initial) = Ehand
Egain = Eout ? Ein = Ehand ? Ehand

Since you continue I?d say you have really, really big gaps. That?s pity; I would have considered the ?hidden agenda? more appealing.
Frankly, I wouldn?t allow you to step in front of any class, less to speak. Teaching would be completely out of question.

Who are you to say that? A mediocrity impudently uttering nonsense. Anyone can go back and read the exchange to see the nonsense you've spewed. You have no shame. Learn physics well before allowing yourself to enter into such exchange let alone characterizing people.