DEBATE THREAD

[Localjoe]

@Supersam

Although  my NON SEQUITOR comment could have been touted towards omnibus it wasn't, just a little cultural humor for the day. The real question is did romans wear sandals?

[supersam]

@LOCALJOE,

the question still remains to you or anyone else, can you start to fill in the blanks, with ral numbers?  the blanks being the variables in the equation, that is not equal in omnibus's proof of the violation of coe?  i don't think it will be to hard, just think before you comment and then you will not look like that other thing.  i dare you to actually figure out just how much force the ball has!  chicken?

lol
sam

ps: scared say scared obviously omnibus is!

[Bessler007]

OmniBusted is a skeptic engaging in parody not too unlike the BS Lawrence leads out with.  There are many facets of the crank they object to as seen by their style.  They act as if they can't distinguish between the person and the idea.  The manner OmniBusted reiterates that ?misconception? makes it very clear it's an act.  Dude, you have jumped the shark with:

Your idle threats and directing them at anyone that disagrees with your points.

The terms you use.  When you call someone ?semi educated?, you aren't describing anyone's rejection of the ?lame proof offered for the SMOT?.  These are your honest assessments of your skeptical  opinion of anyone looking for ?free energy? and ?overunity?.
Your incessant insistence an overunity toy is really a violation of CoE.
Your algebraic proof that ignores the calculus of the dynamics of changing forces in a SMOT.  It  falls way short of the mathematics actually describing this overunity toy.
Further your lame proof overlooks the idiosyncrasies inherent in various applications of a SMOT.

In conclusions, no one could be as stupid  as OmniBusted acts.  If they were they'd need to be on life support being too stupid to know when to breath.  The parody is this skeptics portrayal of their impression of a crank's reasoning.  This skeptic is giving back to the crank their picture of the crank in this act.

It is an act.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

[Localjoe]

@sam

I know better than to actually debate i this thread, You folks will go around in circles because of the mentality and lack of happy problem solving.... i just saw a friend being harassed improperly so i figured id spice it up a bit for you.  Im actually busy with my oscillator right now and dont have time to endeavor to the smot region.  This omnibus character sure seems to create a stir tho .  Weird how folks feel the need to get mad to get their point across... sadly i laugh when i see that and make i guess silly comments like calling someone a little bitch.. Take a joke and realize that i already apologized for my non sequitor/ stupid comment.  Have a great one
                                                                                                                    Joe

[hansvonlieven]

@ supersam,

The way I see it, the flaw in Omnibus' "proof of violation of CoE" is not in the numbers or equations he uses but in what he uses as a starting point and an endpoint.

If you drop a brick from a ten story building and in assessing the forces at play you only look at the distance traveled between floor 9 and floor 1 you get violation of CoE. You have acceleration out of nothing. By ignoring how the brick got to the 10th floor in the first place and by ignoring how it comes to a complete halt when it hits the ground you have clear evidence of a CoE violation.

In order to find out what is really going on you must look at the complete cycle, not just a part of it.

Hans von Lieven

[supersam]

@ hans,

my point exactly,  all you have to do to omibus's equation is plug in some real numbers and it just goes away.  or at least in the real world 1 is not =2!  but in omnibus's world of mathematical faux pax, maybe it is!  OMNIBUS, LETS SEE YOUR EQUATION WITH SOME REAL NUMBERS SUBSTITUTED FOR ALL OF THE VARIABLES!

lol
sam

[Omnibus]

OmniBusted is a skeptic engaging in parody not too unlike the BS Lawrence leads out with.  There are many facets of the crank they object to as seen by their style.  They act as if they can't distinguish between the person and the idea.  The manner OmniBusted reiterates that ?misconception? makes it very clear it's an act.  Dude, you have jumped the shark with:

Your idle threats and directing them at anyone that disagrees with your points.

The terms you use.  When you call someone ?semi educated?, you aren't describing anyone's rejection of the ?lame proof offered for the SMOT?.  These are your honest assessments of your skeptical  opinion of anyone looking for ?free energy? and ?overunity?.
Your incessant insistence an overunity toy is really a violation of CoE.
Your algebraic proof that ignores the calculus of the dynamics of changing forces in a SMOT.  It  falls way short of the mathematics actually describing this overunity toy.
Further your lame proof overlooks the idiosyncrasies inherent in various applications of a SMOT.

In conclusions, no one could be as stupid  as OmniBusted acts.  If they were they'd need to be on life support being too stupid to know when to breath.  The parody is this skeptics portrayal of their impression of a crank's reasoning.  This skeptic is giving back to the crank their picture of the crank in this act.

It is an act.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

This is the kind of text when one is very stupid, so stupid that cannot even understand and admit that he has no arguments. Having no arguments persons such as @Bessler007 would resort to posting any nonsense just to appear they have something to say. Very, very obviously stupid approach. Anyone with half brain will see through that.

[Omnibus]

@supersam,

The quantities in my analysis are real quantities and not imaginary as you seem to think they are.

[Bessler007]

Save it for your mother, drama queen.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

[hansvonlieven]

Having no arguments persons such as @Bessler007 would resort to posting any nonsense just to appear they have something to say. Very, very obviously stupid approach. Anyone with half brain will see through that.

Someone with half a brain just did.

On the other hand, someone with a full brain would see the validity of Bessler's arguments.

Hans von Lieven

[armagdn03]

psychopath,

The SMOT is a pendulum action where the ball falls into a magnetic field then out of it with the assistance of gravity.  Any energy the ball gains by magnetism is lost when gravity pulls it out of the magnetism.  With gravity's assistance the ball repays the magnet for the energy it added to it, less friction and other losses.

This is interesting.  A series of magnets add to the kinetic energy of the ball and gravity only has to overcome the magnetism of the final (few?) magnets.  Even at that there isn't sufficient energy in the ball to return to the gravitational potential it left from.

I think even as an overunity device the SMOT is a poor example.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

This is an ad hominem attack.

Stop insulting me by ignoring my argument without any basis and substituting it by complete nonsense.

SMOT isn't a pendulum. In SMOT, according to the analysis I present, the input energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is less than the energy which the ball loses when it returns to its initial state. This is a clear violation of CoE. This argument you must not ignore and if you continue to ignore it I'd ask Stefan to ban you for continuous ad hominem attack. This is too much.

Before accusing people of ad hominem attacks you should perhaps find out what an ad hominem attack is. Don't quote Latin if you don't know what it means.

"Your argument is worthless" is NOT an ad hominem attack, "You are worthless" is.

Perhaps you are clever enough to see the difference.

Hans von Lieven

HA HA HA HA HA, now thats funny. A new  thread to watch yay! its like switching channels on cable, I think this might be the equivalent of Judge Judy, where they have four of her, and they are pitted against each other in a ring with absolutely no consequences, resulting in a fierce battle of words!!!! Hans Takes the lead with a swift interception!

[Omnibus]

@All,

The only one who fully understands my argument is @modervador. Unfortunately, he is dishonest and that prevents him from explicitly stating that he agrees with me exercising polite arrogance in "refuting" my proof.

Everyone else has gaps at various levels in understanding even elementary physics.

[Omnibus]

@armagdn03,

Don't kid yourself. Watching this thread is a complete waste of time. Unless you wanna see how a bunch of people are struggling with elementary concepts in physics.

[supersam]

@omnibus,

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

lol
sam

[PolyMatrix]

Details of a two ramp SMOT test at this link

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm

See the testing a SMOT thread at this link with more links on this.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3382.0.html