DEBATE THREAD

[psychopath]

Not possible? You take the failures of hobbyist inventors as experimental proof that looped smots are not possible?

It's like saying 120 yrs ago that "Many people have failed to produce a flying machine in practice, therefore it is impossible".

Let me guess, you also think there is nothing left to invent?

Actually I believe a lot of things are possible, unfortunately closed loop SMOT is not one of them.

Using flight as an argument is quite possibly the worst example, since physics and BIRDS proved it possible long before we got off the ground.

So how about you point to a theory other than Omnibots that shows that SMOT can close the loop?

You can believe that looped smots are not possible, but saying it is impossible is wrong.

Actually my flight example was perfect, since earlier scientists were convinced that man made flight was impossible. I don't care what the birds did, the people denied it just because many people failed, even though the birds were flying. The wright brothers were regarded as crackpots.

I never said that looped smots are definitely possible, I said that they are not definitely impossible, at least not yet.

[PolyMatrix]

Here is wickpedia's view against the idea {edit} which is marked as disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT

[RunningBare]

Actually my flight example was perfect, since earlier scientists were convinced that man made flight was impossible. I don't care what the birds did, the people denied it just because many people failed, even though the birds were flying. The wright brothers were regarded as crackpots.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7.htm

And although it was theorized that heavier-than-air flight was possible as early as the 13th century, and in the 16th century Leonardo da Vinci designed winged aircraft and a crude kind of helicopter

Thats 4 centuries before we got off the ground.
Just glad we don't have to rely on waiting for a closed loop SMOT.

[Omnibus]

Here is wickpedia's view against the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT

Wikipedia's "idea" is incorrect. It's well known that Wikipedia is an unreliable source and this is one more example.

Would be good to correct the errors there but I don't think it should be me who should do that.

[psychopath]

Here is wickpedia's view against the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT

Wikipedia's "Analysis of operation" sounds like the works of a crackpot trying to use words like "kinetic" and "energy" to sound scientific. It is nowhere near an "analysis", more of a one line "It's impossible" argument.