DEBATE THREAD

[Omnibus]

@psychopath,

I hope you understand that the challenge you pose is only an engineering, practical problem and doesn't concern the rigorous proof that SMOT violates CoE.

[RunningBare]

@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.

[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.

That applies to you. Try to learn instear of cluttering the discussions with chit-chat and nonsense.

[Omnibus]

Now, just look at that comparison @DA makes with my proof:

?There is an old "proof" that shows that 1 equals 2.  It looks quite good on paper, until you notice that the result was obtained by dividing by zero.?

Such proof is indeed flawed and it proves my point, not what @DA intended. When I have one apple in my left hand and two apples in my right hand I indeed prove that the number of apples I have in my hands is different by counting them. Same thing in my analysis. When I see that the energy input to the ball is (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) but the ball loses energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) I don?t not need to stare much at it to notice that the two amounts differ. Obviously, @DA wants to prove somehow that 1 equals 2 and that (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) equals (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) but it doesn?t. Therefore, @DA should follow his own advice to know better than that and not foist on us flawed ?proofs?. Once he succeeds he would inevitably recognize that SMOT violates CoE because CoE doesn?t allow such discrepancy between input and lost energy as seen in SMOT.

[DA]

Now, just look at that comparison @DA makes with my proof:

?There is an old "proof" that shows that 1 equals 2.  It looks quite good on paper, until you notice that the result was obtained by dividing by zero.?

Such proof is indeed flawed and it proves my point, not what @DA intended.  . . .

Ok, Omnibus.  After examining your "proof", it is just my opinion that it is worthless.  Just my opinion, no offense intended.  I had hoped you proof was more rigorous.  While I see no way to make it valid, perhaps you will be able to someday. 

To reply to your last line, "You have no idea, what I intend."

I'll end this with one of my favorite Omnibus quotes, I think everyone should copy this down and show it to their science/physics teachers.  Think about what Omnibus said here:

"You're wrong. It has never been nor it will ever be that theory would precede experiment. Absolutely not. You're quite confused about that."