Is the frame an excuse? Is the frame something used by the smart people; to explain why the rest of us don't understand things that are perfectly simple. F = ma is perfectly simple; I see no need for it to be framed.

F = ma is "perfectly simple" but false if you use it outside its domain of application.

It is false when m is not constant, you must use F=dp/dt instead where p is the momentum.

It is false when relativistic effects cannot be neglected (therefore surely when we consider currents of electrons).

It is false when you measure "a" in a referential and F in another one.

It is false in general: you forgot that F and a are vectors, not scalar.

The two last points are the reasons why your analysis is as wrong as your calculations.

It is not enough to keep the simplest equation because we understand it, to make correct calculations. Physics is not "perfectly simple".

The "perfectly simple" principle that the analysis by the

lagrangian of the system is equivalent to the analysis by the forces rules out the possibility of extra energy for purely logical reasons. Hoping to defeat the laws of physics by using the laws of physics is childish because they are internally consistent, it's like searching for a particular case "n" where n+1 would be different from n+1.

I have a reluctance to let things I consider false be said, and in this case I explain why I consider them false, it can help to get out of ignorance as I myself have benefited from others.

That said, I do not prevent anyone from wanting to live in ignorance or illusion.

I even hope that I will be shown that I am the one who lives in illusion, it is enough that those who show illogicality in their analysis of a mechanical system are nevertheless able to build a working looped machine.

So far, I have read hundreds of their claims, but I have not observed the slightest working machine created by their minds.