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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84147
  • *Latest: top1

  • *Total Posts: 896243
  • *Total Topics: 15781
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: DEBATE THREAD  (Read 106281 times)

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #60 on: January 26, 2008, 10:35:38 AM »
By the way, now I am really curious, has anyone managed to get the ball drop to a position level with the starting point or higher? This seems to be my current challenge...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #60 on: January 26, 2008, 10:35:38 AM »

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2008, 12:17:37 PM »
@psychopath, I don't follow you. What do you mean.

Cheers

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2008, 12:35:14 PM »
@psychopath, I don't follow you. What do you mean.

Cheers

I've attatched an image(I hope).

What I meant was if anyone has made a smot where the starting position of the ball was equal to or lower than the position where the ball drops onto(the finish position).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2008, 12:35:14 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline DA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2008, 01:08:13 PM »
Quote
If you don't think that a claim should be backed up with proof, then consider this: I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, just send me a cheque for a million dollars and this knowledge can be yours!

I do think that a claim should be backed up by proof. This is exactly what omnibus has done! Unless you think that the proof itself needs to be "proven"?



Dear pyschopath,

Well, now that I have read what Omnibus has  called a "proof", I would NOT say it is "exactly" what he has done.  There are proofs and then there are "proofs".  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.

This thread is a "proof", that any thread can easily be infected by Omnibus and his SMOT theory.  Now watch Omnibus make a "comment" like he did to hoptoad in this thread not long ago.

"You're a pathetic little creature that doesn't know his place. Anyone in the know reading your disgustingly arrogant nonsense sees that. What nerve."

Statements like these are common from Omnibus, which you will see as you read the threads.  They say nothing, but are just insults that serve no useful purpose.  There is a good chance he will now insult me. 

You ask if anyone has used a SMOT to raise a ball.  So far I have not seen any evidence of this being done, yet I will not say that it is impossible, nor offer a "proof" that is it impossible.

Ok, Omnibus, where is my insult?

Offline RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2008, 01:57:57 PM »
By the way, now I am really curious, has anyone managed to get the ball drop to a position level with the starting point or higher? This seems to be my current challenge...

Heres an idea for you, try it, there is nothing like practical experiments to appreciate what is happening in the real world, maths and simulations can only give you predictions, the real test is real world physics.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2008, 01:57:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #65 on: January 26, 2008, 02:06:12 PM »
By the way, now I am really curious, has anyone managed to get the ball drop to a position level with the starting point or higher? This seems to be my current challenge...

Heres an idea for you, try it, there is nothing like practical experiments to appreciate what is happening in the real world, maths and simulations can only give you predictions, the real test is real world physics.

I have, I can't get it to work. Like I said this is my current challenge. I just want to know if anyone else has managed it, and how.

Offline RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2008, 02:36:22 PM »


I have, I can't get it to work. Like I said this is my current challenge. I just want to know if anyone else has managed it, and how.

Good stuff, keep trying, because in the end only you can really answer the question for yourself, omnibus can obsessively keep saying it violates CoE and we can keep disputing him over and over and over.... errr well you get the idea.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2008, 02:36:22 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #67 on: January 26, 2008, 03:09:37 PM »
Quote
because in the end only you can really answer the question for yourself

How would I know if other people have succeeded in dropping the ball on a higher position? ???




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #68 on: January 26, 2008, 03:28:53 PM »
@DA,

Stop insulting me.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #68 on: January 26, 2008, 03:28:53 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #69 on: January 26, 2008, 03:44:15 PM »
@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.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2008, 03:47:18 PM »
@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.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2008, 03:47:18 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #71 on: January 26, 2008, 03:48:19 PM »
@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.
(http://www.ociw.edu/~birk/Images/ANIMATED2/stress_ani.gif)

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #72 on: January 26, 2008, 03:51:23 PM »
@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.
(http://www.ociw.edu/~birk/Images/ANIMATED2/stress_ani.gif)
That applies to you. Try to learn instear of cluttering the discussions with chit-chat and nonsense.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #73 on: January 26, 2008, 07:22:56 PM »
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.

Offline DA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #74 on: January 27, 2008, 02:12:49 AM »
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."


 

OneLink