DEBATE THREAD

[psychopath]

By the way, now I am really curious, has anyone managed to get the ball drop to a position level with the starting point or higher? This seems to be my current challenge...

Heres an idea for you, try it, there is nothing like practical experiments to appreciate what is happening in the real world, maths and simulations can only give you predictions, the real test is real world physics.

I have, I can't get it to work. Like I said this is my current challenge. I just want to know if anyone else has managed it, and how.

[RunningBare]

I have, I can't get it to work. Like I said this is my current challenge. I just want to know if anyone else has managed it, and how.

Good stuff, keep trying, because in the end only you can really answer the question for yourself, omnibus can obsessively keep saying it violates CoE and we can keep disputing him over and over and over.... errr well you get the idea.

[psychopath]

because in the end only you can really answer the question for yourself

How would I know if other people have succeeded in dropping the ball on a higher position?

[Omnibus]

@DA,

Stop insulting me.

[Omnibus]

@pshycopath. To disprove that SMOT violates CoE, the math should be done right, by basing it on correct conditions. Omnibus has only prooven that the ball firstly is placed incorrectly in point B, secondly that the ball takes a detour which takes respectively longer time to go back to point A. No exess energy is proven yet. Cheers

Stop repeating this nonsense. Repeating it won't make it true. Energy balance of such machines isn't time-dependent as you incorrectly understand and placing it at B is a fact which cannot be disputed. Violation of CoE by SMOT is proven beyond doubt.