Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: DEBATE THREAD  (Read 109485 times)

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #135 on: January 28, 2008, 11:55:57 PM »
@omnibus,

SHOW ME THE NUMBERS!!!!!!  WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER? especially forsomeone that has all the answers!

lol
sam
I've shown enough for any knowledgeable person to understand that SMOT violates CoE. Your request is by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Offline supersam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #136 on: January 29, 2008, 12:21:48 AM »














omnibus,

oh is that ever so simple!!  but what else can you expect from a simple mind!  do anything but answer the question.  what a peeon!  don;'t even speculat in your equation? that ___ kg =anything. SHOW ME THE NUMBERS, THEN ATTACK MY CHARACTER!  UNTIL THEN I WILL CONTINUE TO ATTACK YOURS AS WELL AS ANY OTHER, "SO CALLED SCIENTIST" THAT CAN NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!  have you noticed there is no longer anybody posting here but me and you.  we are waiting for your quantatative prooof!

lol
sam











Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #137 on: January 29, 2008, 12:28:25 AM »
@supersam,

Stop filling the thread with crap.

Offline supersam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #138 on: January 29, 2008, 12:45:35 AM »
   $$$$$omnibus,

until you,SHOW ME THE NUMBERS THE ONLY ONE SPOUTING CRAP IS YOU!!!!!  your suppossed truth is nothing more than a bunch mathematical gibberish,  that on the one hand you are using to disprove and the other you are using to prove.  you are full of shi@#@$t, until you show me the numbers.  i don't give a damn about your supposed algebraic proofs with no numbers!  they are only as good as 1=2!!!!!!

lol;
sam


















Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #139 on: January 29, 2008, 12:57:59 AM »
This argument is all about where and how you start calculating the input energy and the output energy.

What IS energy? Here is one persons research on the definitions he found. http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/definition.html

Now lets concentrate on the definition of Work.http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/DefinitionWork.html

However it seems that the definition of work has been causing some problems. No work is done if there is no displacement. So pushing a rock that does not move means no work. Which is not that useful for thermodynamics.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3802.pdf

From the above references a picture of confusion starts to emerge. Especially when we are told that magnetic force is a conservative force except when it is varying magnetic field in Maxwell?s Fourth Field Equation. http://phy.duke.edu/courses/042/Lectures/Lecture24.pdf.

At this point I gave up trying to find out how to measure the work done by a magnetic field.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #140 on: January 29, 2008, 12:58:45 AM »
@supersam,

Know your place. You need not be shown anything because you're incompetent.Don't continue filling the thread with gibberish.

Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #141 on: January 29, 2008, 01:32:33 AM »
Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #142 on: January 29, 2008, 02:20:44 AM »
   $$$$$omnibus,

until you,SHOW ME THE NUMBERS THE ONLY ONE SPOUTING CRAP IS YOU!!!!!  your suppossed truth is nothing more than a bunch mathematical gibberish,  that on the one hand you are using to disprove and the other you are using to prove.  you are full of shi@#@$t, until you show me the numbers.  i don't give a damn about your supposed algebraic proofs with no numbers!  they are only as good as 1=2!!!!!!

lol;
sam


I thought I already made it clear that 1 equals 2, so be quiet.

Offline supersam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #143 on: January 29, 2008, 02:31:03 AM »
@dumbass,

the only thing i have done, is try and help you advance your cause by asking you to supply real numbers.  finally someone has attempted.  all beit, that was beneath you as the ass that originally suggested it.  now your claims can be opened up to scientific pier review.  if these are also your findings?  i am not claiming them, or do i make them my own, do you?  if not what do you not agree with?  if they are please state for the record!

lol
sam

Offline RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #144 on: January 29, 2008, 02:44:45 AM »
@dumbass,

the only thing i have done, is try and help you advance your cause by asking you to supply real numbers.  finally someone has attempted. 

lol
sam

Now why would Omnibot want to prove his theory, his pleasure is gained in the argument and calling everyone incompetent.
The strange thing is that intuitively the loop can be closed, but in practice as we have seen so many times it is not possible.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #145 on: January 29, 2008, 02:49:02 AM »
@dumbass,

the only thing i have done, is try and help you advance your cause by asking you to supply real numbers.  finally someone has attempted. 

lol
sam

Now why would Omnibot want to prove his theory, his pleasure is gained in the argument and calling everyone incompetent.
The strange thing is that intuitively the loop can be closed, but in practice as we have seen so many times it is not possible.
Restrain from sharing your incompetent rants. The thread is cluttered as it is to deserve more stupidity splashed on it.

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #146 on: January 29, 2008, 02:50:01 AM »
@dumbass,

the only thing i have done, is try and help you advance your cause by asking you to supply real numbers.  finally someone has attempted. 

lol
sam

Now why would Omnibot want to prove his theory, his pleasure is gained in the argument and calling everyone incompetent.
The strange thing is that intuitively the loop can be closed, but in practice as we have seen so many times it is not possible.

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?

Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #147 on: January 29, 2008, 02:52:18 AM »
The last link that I posted had numbers in it!!


Offline RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #148 on: January 29, 2008, 02:58:31 AM »

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?

Offline supersam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #149 on: January 29, 2008, 03:09:46 AM »
@running bear,

there in lies the real purpose.  to obfuscate the truth!  to make known that any that try are justwrong!  to let the truth die, like a grape withering on the vine!  so that obvious bs can be propgated as science, to obscure the truth. f---- the agents of real truth, let the scientists like omnibus f--- you instead, what difference does it make?  just let the professional bs'ers win.  COE is down for the count because, the professional bser, omnibus said it was, and gave no proof, except bs, and everyone bought it, but me!

yea right, omnibus, i will give you, you are a professional, but at what?  telling the truth about SMOT, i doubt it, because one thing is for certain, as much as you like to spout your algebraic calculations  around, you have never once been willing to do anything but criticise anyone that has asked you to fill in one variable of your so called equation, with one real number.  why?  because you know that the house of cards that it is built on will crumble.  so instead you say to the big bad wolf go away because you don't know what you are doing.  well let me summarize for you.  YOUR ARE THE ONE THAT CAN NOT SEE REALITY!!!!!

lol
sam