How to interpret these curious REAL experimental results?

To @citizenschallengev3.

<hr />

Are you really such an ignoramus or you deliberately imitate pathological lack of understanding thus trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner?

<hr />

  1. Permanent magnet slide design is used SOLELY AND ONLY for reducing of friction. Which part of this sentence you can’t understand?

  2. We are talking about permanent magnets ONLY and not about electromagnets/coils. Which part of this sentence you can’t understand?

You are simply not reading my posts! This is not a discussion – this is your monologue!

The violation of the law of conservation of mechanical energy would lead directly to a perpetual motion machine. I will not explain this in detail as it is described in detail in any beginners’ manual/textbook of physics.

The violation of the law of conservation of mechanical energy would lead directly to a perpetual motion machine. I will not explain this in detail as it is described in detail in any beginners’ manual/textbook of physics.
I don't know what it is you are trying to prove.
  1. You haven't shown any violation of conservation of energy.
  2. Where does the "perpetual" part come in? You do know the definition of perpetual, don't you?
Perpetual motion (disambiguation)
Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_(disambiguation)

Even if you were to use gravity as the cause of motion, when you come to the end of the construct, how do you intent to reload it without expending energy?

 

 

To @citizenschallengev3.

Are you really such an ignoramus or you deliberately imitate pathological lack of understanding thus trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner?


 

So the answer remains that you’ve never built a physical model to see your idea in action in the real world.

Now you’re getting mad at me.

So sad.

When one doesn’t have an answer the insults begin.

Welcome to the new public realty. Evidence isn’t needed, asking for explanations is received an attack, so, guess it all depends on the strength of your ego.

Good luck with those investors.

Whatever additional experimental video to send to you you will declare it false. Why to waste time then? Carry out the experiments you PERSONALLY in order to avoid any misunderstandings and misinterpretations. (Simply measure masses and velocities as described in the video and in our additional comments.)

Looking forward to your answer.

Please have a look again at our post of May 12, 2021 at 9:50 am.

<hr />

  1. 0.1 kg.m/s = 0.1 kg.m/s. The last equality shows the validity of the law of conservation of linear momentum in this particular case.
  2. 0.005 J > 0.002 J. The last inequality shows the invalidity of the law of conservation of mechanical energy in this particular case.
  3. Modern (and even not so modern) technologies allow reducing of friction to a certain value/limit, beyond which the experimental error (due to friction) becomes negligible (less than 1 %).

Looking forward to your comments.

My understanding is that you’ve never built that working model.

Have you?

TRUE or FALSE?

2) 0.005 J > 0.002 J. The last inequality shows the invalidity of the law of conservation of mechanical energy in this particular case.
5 lb. p/sq. inch > 2lb. p/sq. inch. The last inequality shows the invalidity of the law of conservation of mechanical energy in this particular case..... : )

Of course it doesn’t apply at all in this particular case, that’s why it appears invalid.

To @write4u.

<hr />

It seems to me that you do not understand what are you talking about. Or may be you deliberately imitate ignorance and lack of understanding thus trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy manner? Let us check this.

Firstly, what is this 5 lb. p/sq. inch > 2lb. p/sq. inch? Translate this inequality in SI units. Looking forward to your answer.

Firstly, what is this 5 lb. p/sq. inch > 2lb. p/sq. inch? Translate this inequality in SI units. Looking forward to your answer.
Ever heard of Pascal units ?
2) 0.005 J > 0.002 J. The last inequality shows the invalidity of the law of conservation of mechanical energy in this particular case.
No, you translate this inequality SI units. Looking forward to your answer.

To @citizenschallengev3.

<hr />

  1. You are obviously a wiseacre and your understanding is wrong (as always). You want from us (from our team) to waste a lot of time for preparing an additional video, which describes our real experiments. Ok, we are starting preparing this additional second video.You have to be patient -- the preparing of high-quality video takes time.
  2. Meanwhile why don't you carry out personally the experiments in your garage or in some school laboratory? I do believe that you have some elementary technology skills. Doing the experiments by yourself you would save a lot of our team's time.
  3. Looking forward to your personal experimental results. I am very curious whether your experimental results would coincide with ours.

To @write4u.

What Pascal units are you talking about, you ignoramus? We are talking about kinetic energy! And the SI units for kinetic energy are called Joules! I will not discuss this topic with you anymore! Take some beginner’s course in physics and read it carefully and thoroughly at least 50 times in a row thus educating seriously yourself in the field of theoretical and applied mechanics! And just then take part in this discussion!

We are talking about kinetic energy! And the SI units for kinetic energy are called Joules!
And units of pressure are called Newtons.!

Yet you have not answered your own question. I am still waiting.

 

Looking forward to your personal experimental results. I am very curious whether your experimental results would coincide with ours.
And exactly what are these results. We are waiting breathless with anticipation.........

to @write4u.


You need to see your doctor! You want to convince all of us here in this forum that Pascal is the SI unit for measuring of energy?! You are the next Nobel prize winner! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(unit))

You need to see your doctor! You want to convince all of us here in this forum that Pascal is the SI unit for measuring of energy?! You are the next Nobel prize winner! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(unit))
I make no claims, you are!

From your extensive scientific knowledge I would have expected a video of your (et al) to show us your advanced experimentation.

Seems that you should have managed at least a few IP shots. So far there is only hollow claims and self aggrandizing. Put up or shut up, Troll

We are talking about kinetic energy! And the SI units for kinetic energy are called Joules!
And no, you are not talking about kinetic energy. You are talking about "conservation of energy"
will34ab said: The last inequality unambiguously shows the invalidity of the law of conservation of mechanical energy in this particular case.
Show us that your so called experiment proves that the law of conservation does not apply universally. That is the question we pose to you ........

To @write4u.

<hr />

I am absolutely sure already that you are a payed agent of the official science mafia. How much do they pay you? Shame on you! You are an unworthy person! You try to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and primitive manner by regularly and systematically distorting my words as well as the explanatory texts in our video.

  1. Energy is measured in Joules and not in Pascals! Remember this fact very well and don't talk nonsense anymore!
  2. We are talking about a violation of the law of conservation of mechanical energy.
  3. I promised @citizenschallengev3 to prepare a second video illustrating the real experiment. You want from us (from our team) to waste a lot of time for preparing an additional video, which describes our real experiments. Ok, we are starting preparing this additional second video.You have to be patient — the preparing of high-quality video takes time.
  4. Meanwhile why don’t you carry out personally the experiments in your garage or in some school laboratory? I do believe that you have some elementary technology skills. By doing the experiments by yourself you would save a lot of our team’s time. Looking forward to your personal experimental results. I am very curious whether your experimental results would coincide with ours.

Well I woke up early promised myself to keep away from the news, and it’s pretty slime pickings over here, so hey, why not talk to a wall.


@will34ab:  “Dear colleagues,”

~~~~~

@will34ab:  “I see. You are not an expert in theoretical and applied mechanics for sure. Whatever video to sent to you you will not understand anything.”

~~~~~

&lt; Why no video of a working model? &gt;

~~~~~
@will34ab:  “You are talking too much. You are generating too many words thus trying to hide your ignorance and lack of knowledge”

~~~~~
<blockquote>@cuthbertj - 343876

I think you guys are getting punked! Possibly by an automated responder or something given that the responses barely make sense. If the OP was at all serious he wouldn’t be posting this in this forum. There are plenty of amateur and professional physics forums available.</blockquote>
~~~~~

@will34ab:  “Are you really such an ignoramus or you deliberately imitate pathological lack of understanding thus trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner?”

~~~~~

&lt; So no working model has ever been built. - translation = you are blowing it out your arears. &gt;

~~~~~

@will34ab:  “This is not a discussion — this is your monologue!”

&lt; This is me asking a couple simple first-base questions, that you steadfastly refuse to answer. &gt;

~~~~~

@will34ab:  “Whatever  additional experimental video to send to you you will declare it false. Why to waste time then? Carry out the experiments you PERSONALLY”

~~~~~

&lt; Why should I carry out an exercise you haven’t even done yourself?  A video of a drawing is not a working model, or anything, but your pipe dream translated into a cartoon? &gt;

~~~~~

@will34ab:  “It seems to me that you do not understand what are you talking about. Or may be you deliberately imitate ignorance and lack of understanding thus trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy manner?”

~~~~~

@will34ab:  “You are obviously a wiseacre and your understanding is wrong (as always). You want from us (from our team) to waste a lot of time for preparing an additional video, which describes our real experiments. Ok, we are starting preparing this additional second video.”

~~~~~

&lt; I couldn’t care less about another video of the same nonsense.  I want to see a working model! &gt;

~~~~~
@will34ab:  “Doing the experiments by yourself you would save a lot of our team’s time.”

~~~~~
&lt; Oh, I get it, you want me to do your work for you.  Meaning you haven’t even figured it out yet for yourself yet.  Very tricky fellow you are. &gt;

~~~~~

@will34ab:  “What Pascal units are you talking about, you ignoramus?”

~~~~~
@will34ab:  “I will not discuss this topic with you anymore!”

~~~~~

@will34ab:  “You need to see your doctor!"

~~~~~

@will34ab:  “I am absolutely sure already that you are a payed agent of the official science mafia."

@will34ab:  “You are an unworthy person! You try to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and primitive manner by regularly and systematically distorting my words as well as the explanatory texts in our video."

~~~~~~

&lt; Why are you describing questions that are asking for clarification as distorting your words?

Your words are not making any sense to begin with, we are trying to undistort your words.

But you are no help!

Me suspects you don't understand your own topic. let alone experiment. &gt;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&lt; A "discussion" is a back and forth of idea.

You have been broadcasting!

That is, you are conducting a one way discussion

without the slightest interest in thinking about what we are asking,

and apparently even less ability to answer our simple straightforward questions. &gt;
<blockquote>@cuthbertj - 343876I think you guys are getting punked! Possibly by an automated responder or something given that the responses barely make sense. If the OP was at all serious he wouldn’t be posting this in this forum. There are plenty of amateur and professional physics forums available.</blockquote>
&nbsp;

Looking forward to your next obfuscation.

&nbsp;

Obfuscation = the obscuring of the intended meaning of communication by making the message difficult to understand, usually with confusing and ambiguous language. The obfuscation might be either unintentional or intentional (although intent usually is connoted), and is accomplished with circumlocution (talking around the subject), the use of jargon (technical language of a profession), and the use of an argot (ingroup language) of limited communicative value to outsiders.[1]

In expository writing, unintentional obfuscation usually occurs in draft documents, at the beginning of composition; such obfuscation is illuminated with critical thinking and editorial revision, either by the writer or by an editor. Etymologically, the word obfuscation derives from the Latin obfuscatio, from obfuscāre (to darken); synonyms include the words beclouding and abstrusity.

Speaking as a member, note this is not in blue, this guy is kind of annoying. Kind of funny though, in a weird way.

As a moderator, I’m just skimming by this guy, let me know if you have concerns.

?

He’ll probably burn himself out.

I just felt like collecting some of his pearls of wisdom in one place.