Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[sm0ky2]

@ Yada - its not so complicated as to need inclusion of a 4th or 5th dimension.

the SMOT's (apparent) OU is simply the experimenter overlooking all of the energy values involved.

i think what we have here is a case of Omnibus mistakingly forgetting about a portion of the energy, therefore tricked himself into thinking the SMOT is OU.

Perhaps this is why he fails to present a link to a single of his "numerous posts explaining it" or even show a drawing or video, ect. of his alleged CoE violating SMOT device.  - also why he cant seem to loop it....
He tries to distort your interpretation of the device by garbling on about his "super-imposed field theory"
When the fact of the matter is, the gravitational field is conservative, and equivalent in both directions. adding this does not change the force of the SMOT - it simply allows you to free the SMOT ball, which also comsumes energy out of the system, and leaves the ball lower than the initial starting point.

For it to be truly CoE, the SMOT-ball would have to end up HIGHER than the initial starting point, and FREE of the magnetic attraction.

[Omnibus]

@ Yada - its not so complicated as to need inclusion of a 4th or 5th dimension.

the SMOT's (apparent) OU is simply the experimenter overlooking all of the energy values involved.

i think what we have here is a case of Omnibus mistakingly forgetting about a portion of the energy, therefore tricked himself into thinking the SMOT is OU.

Perhaps this is why he fails to present a link to a single of his "numerous posts explaining it" or even show a drawing or video, ect. of his alleged CoE violating SMOT device.  - also why he cant seem to loop it....
He tries to distort your interpretation of the device by garbling on about his "super-imposed field theory"
When the fact of the matter is, the gravitational field is conservative, and equivalent in both directions. adding this does not change the force of the SMOT - it simply allows you to free the SMOT ball, which also comsumes energy out of the system, and leaves the ball lower than the initial starting point.

For it to be truly CoE, the SMOT-ball would have to end up HIGHER than the initial starting point, and FREE of the magnetic attraction.

This is incorrect. In my analysis of SMOT all possible energies are accounted for and the outcome is that the energy in is less than the energy out. That's proven categorically and need not be discussed here. This isn't a thread devoted to SMOT.

[sm0ky2]

@ OMNI -   


            The doctor told you to take those meds for a reason.


YOU keep bringing up the alleged "CoE violation"  with the SMOT, in THIS THREAD.  Yet when anyone questions you about it, you reply "this is not the proper thread for SMOT discussion"

WHY keep bringing it up then??  WHY just just shut up about the SMOT?
do you WANT us to disprove SMOT "CoE violation" if we disprove it, will you thne shut up about it?
or at least post an accredited journal for peer review by the scientific community.  think they might be interested in your findings. (or amused by your folly)

[Omnibus]

@ OMNI -   


            The doctor told you to take those meds for a reason.


YOU keep bringing up the alleged "CoE violation"  with the SMOT, in THIS THREAD.  Yet when anyone questions you about it, you reply "this is not the proper thread for SMOT discussion"

WHY keep bringing it up then??  WHY just just shut up about the SMOT?
do you WANT us to disprove SMOT "CoE violation" if we disprove it, will you thne shut up about it?
or at least post an accredited journal for peer review by the scientific community.  think they might be interested in your findings. (or amused by your folly)

Specifically you should not try to be an arbiter of this because, as was established, you're confusing force with energy. You have basic gaps in understanding and therefore should restrain form pushing yourself as a judge for this.

[sm0ky2]

@ OMNI -   


            The doctor told you to take those meds for a reason.


YOU keep bringing up the alleged "CoE violation"  with the SMOT, in THIS THREAD.  Yet when anyone questions you about it, you reply "this is not the proper thread for SMOT discussion"

WHY keep bringing it up then??  WHY just just shut up about the SMOT?
do you WANT us to disprove SMOT "CoE violation" if we disprove it, will you thne shut up about it?
or at least post an accredited journal for peer review by the scientific community.  think they might be interested in your findings. (or amused by your folly)

Specifically you should not try to be an arbiter of this because, as was established, you're confusing force with energy. You have basic gaps in understanding and therefore should restrain form pushing yourself as a judge for this.

you keep trying to imply that, when i was quite clear on the dinstinction between the two, it was YOU who was confused about the context in which the force (and resultant energy over distance) was being observed.

And if you are not satisfied with ME personally peer-reviewing your results, thats fine there are plenty of esteemed members in your field of research that will be chosen at random and usually confidential,  for this purpose when/if you sumbit your work for peer review. But - you already know this....

and your claim "all possible energies are accounted for" ----

Does YOUR SMOT ball end up HIGHER than it started, and FREE from the magnetic field??