Invitation to Aaron: Let's debate your claim of over unity in a bouncing ball

[Farrah Day]

So, Aaron claims that a bouncing ball is over unity.  You "add up all of the bounces" and you are at about COP 8, according to Aaron.

So Aaron, any chance you will leave your EF cocoon and come here and debate your claim?  You have been using it for years and you host a free energy forum.

lol, you're wasting your time MH. EF is Murakami World where he makes up the rules as he sees fit, lord and master of his own little fantasy realm. No one can win an argument with this prize prick on EF, so he certainly won't come over here where the cards aren't stacked in his favour. I used to think Hartmann was bad, but Murakami is in a league of his own, and clearly has his own personal agenda...$$$$.  

I'm aware that some of you may think I'm over-reacting, but when you consider that this charlatan - and that's exactly what he is - continually manipulates threads on his forum in order to profit, by getting the feeble-minded to buy into his psuedoscience clap-trap, while promoting his works of fiction, then I think my views are totally justifiable.  The likes of this jumped-up, arrogant idiot are a bane to real science and a blot on science forums. He's a total and utter disgrace, doing a very real disservice to science - not to mention the impact he has on the uneducated individuals that naively take his pathetic scribblings as gospel.

[BEP]

Farra Day,

I don't think you are over reacting.

MH,

I found that PBS series excellent. The odd thing is that there are so many string theories that one may validate Aaron M.'s views.

I still wonder why quantum entanglement is not understood by the top dogs in science. When you see a closed string in your mind's eye you may be looking at a bubble. Well, maybe if you are one of Carl Sagan's Flatlanders.

[BEP]

I just figured why Aaron M. is the way he is. He is from an alternate universe in our multiverse.

[poynt99]

Seems Rosemary, that you would do yourself a huge favour to restrain from commenting. Evidently, you didn't understand my comments about putting you and Aaron into the same category when it comes to science (and simple comprehension too).

You erroneously jumped to the conclusion (as you always do) that I stated you supported Aaron's ridiculous notion that a bouncing ball is OU. Not so. I was stating that you two are in the same category of self-professed subject matter experts, when in fact you both have no clue whatsoever regarding those subjects.

Your measurements are, and always have been WRONG. Your interpretations of those measurements are WRONG.

Face the facts Rosemary, your work will never get off the ground, because your work is completely flawed and you have no subject matter expertise to correct the problems.

.99

[muDped]

Poynt,

It is truly painful to have to point this out

but

your posting above is eerily similar to
those of Aaron Murakami when he is
attempting to slam challenging points
of view or those who oppose his claims.

While it is true that none of us like to be
criticized venomously, is it wise to fight
fire with fire?  Do judgmental accusations
enhance one's credibility and reputation?

In the heat of anger we often speak too
quickly and say too much...

[poynt99]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The difference which you've apparently over looked, is that most everything that comes out of Aaron's or Rosemary's mouth is nonsense.

[muDped]

It would seem that the "bouncing ball" has
been the subject of much scientific study:

Bouncing Ball Physics

Striking Results with Bouncing Ball  (PDF Download)

Your estimation of Aaron's credibility seems
sound.  Rosemary, on the other hand, is far
more intriguing.  I find her to be delightful and
with a well developed sense of humor.

But then, here in La-La Land we fondly appreciate
strangeness and intellectual quirkiness.

[Allcanadian]

@Dumped

Your estimation of Aaron's credibility seems
sound.  Rosemary, on the other hand, is far
more intriguing.  I find her to be delightful and
with a well developed sense of humor.

I have a general rule that if what a person say's does not make me think then they have not really said anything at all, which is why I enjoy reading both Aaron and Rosemary's posts. I also think many of the critics should just post a picture torn from their textbooks and save us all some time because there is nothing I would call creative thought to be found in their posts. It is simply repeated from something they have memorized without fully considering and shows very little in the way of understanding in my opinion.
For instance one of Aaron's critics posted a page full of math then stated that the ball had potential energy stored in it, really?, potential energy stored in it?. Now if a person were to slowly tilt their head ninety degree's to the left we might see that in fact the ball has no mysterious potential energy in it nor did the ball fall anywhere because we are resting against a very large sphere we call Earth. On our left we have one large mass (the Earth) floating in outer space and on the right a small mass (the ball) also floating in outer space and there is nothing falling anywhere. So where is all this supposed potential energy?, if energy is the potential to do work (a force acting over a distance) then the force would be Gravity and the distance the space between the two objects. It would seem to me that the only reason this system has what we call potential energy relates to the fact that a field of force acting on the objects exists between them and if this distance was zero then there is no potential energy. Therefore the potential energy must relate to both physical objects, the field of force between them and the distance.
This is the one thing I think many people find hard to grasp, Reality, the actual reality of even the simplest things we see happening around us because were too immersed in it. It should also be noted that the field of force we call Gravity never actually produced a force on the ball nor the Earth persay, Gravity does not act on tangible object it acts on every part of them equally.

Regards
AC

[exnihiloest]

@Dumped
I have a general rule that if what a person say's does not make me think then they have not really said anything at all, which is why I enjoy reading both Aaron and Rosemary's posts.
...

They also make me think: I analyse what they say, I compare with what is really observed and how the observation can be simply explained, and it becomes clear that what they say is gibberish about either conventional facts or no fact at all.

[poynt99]

Rosemary,

Now. One of Poynty Point's preferred complaints against our own work is that it was all based on errors of measurement. IF this was the case - then this is what's needed. We must throw away our broad band oscilloscopes.

You may attempt to skew the argument with cunning redirection and clever prose all you wish, but the truth remains:

The application of the oscilloscopes, and interpretation of the acquired data in your tests is seriously flawed. Furthermore, one requires a good understanding of the circuit operation and the observed wave forms before one has the credibility to comment regarding the OU merits of the device. You've repeatedly made it obvious that you have neither.

.99