I'm Not The Only Idiot: Sci.Physics Forum Discredits Invention

  • Thread starter aviator
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the poster's idea being discredited by science fanatics and the poster experiencing two nervous breakdowns when trying to patent their invention. They also mention the Disclosure Project and their idea of time travel, as well as their belief that witnesses are unreliable evidence and their father, a physicist, agreeing with their idea. The conversation also touches on the moderators' supposed lack of knowledge and intelligence.
  • #1
aviator
60
0
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...9773f/8a23272a7f30ae89?hl=en#8a23272a7f30ae89

exactly my very same idea discredited by science fanatics

once in a forum i was told not to talk any more about my invention because this person wanted to patent it himself

of course i let him know the dangers of it

my sel i suffer a very bad nervous breakdown the very same week the patent was published which unable me to take posesion of the patent

1 year later when i tried to recover posesion of the patent i had a second nervous breakdown the very same week as well
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
aviator said:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...9773f/8a23272a7f30ae89?hl=en#8a23272a7f30ae89

exactly my very same idea discredited by science fanatics

once in a forum i was told not to talk any more about my invention because this person wanted to patent it himself

of course i let him know the dangers of it

my sel i suffer a very bad nervous breakdown the very same week the patent was published which unable me to take posesion of the patent

1 year later when i tried to recover posesion of the patent i had a second nervous breakdown the very same week as well

And that is your own problem. Most likely your theory would have been discredited with the same scientific discredibility, but with more offensive language.

If you have an idea, post it somewhere where you won't get jacked off, instead of getting unecessary nervous breakdowns.
 
  • #3
i intend no profit from my idea

i supose this guy read about my idea here and took it farther so i consider unnecesary to warn him about the disclosure project since I've already have done here

in the disclosure project 400 reliable witness claim that extraterrestrial life antigravity and free energy are the biggest secrets at the moment

i don't know where to post my idea now

im thinking in time travel forums since bending space could imply time travel and people seems more interested when you say you have a time travel engine than if you say you have a reactionless engine
 
  • #4
aviator said:
in the disclosure project 400 reliable witness claim that extraterrestrial life antigravity and free energy are the biggest secrets at the moment
Well there's an oxymoron.. reliable witness.. I believe witnesses are the most unreliable evidence you can have :rolleyes:
 
  • #5
You really should learn some more about physics, I know this has been said to you over and over. Talk to your father, get advice from him.
And back away from the idea that "on line" is the best way to go about things.
 
  • #6
So you're not the only one who doesn't understand physics. Of this, we are already aware (we get your particular misunderstanding perhaps once a month - one guy even built a hovercraft based on this princple, and it actually moved). So what? That others share your ignorance does not make your ignorance knowledge.
 
  • #7
Monique said:
Well there's an oxymoron.. reliable witness.. I believe witnesses are the most unreliable evidence you can have :rolleyes:
Make that two: a secret that everyone knows about. :rolleyes:
 
  • #8
im told all time to learn some physics well that's exactly what I am doing but no through memoritation but through use of logic and trying to understand things by myself

faith doesn't fit into science

my posts also got deleted when i found a mistake here the diagonals of the windows are not paralel:

http://mathforum.org/sum95/math_and/perspective/hallway.html

i ask my father who is a physicist and matematician about my engine and he agrees on it working

after some discusion about it he adviced me to quit with it because is either dangerous or a waste of time

besides mods here don't know the answer to my questions for example a mod will tell me that for a spinning object to change radius from 100 m to a radius of 1 m a work has to be aplied

this is untrue if i have a ball spinning with 100m radius and the rope coils on the axe the radius reduces without aplication of work nor spend of energy so when the ball has a radius of 1 m it still keeps a speed of 100m/s

now what happens when the radius becomes 0?

if i take into account conservation of energy then the linear speed is transformed into rotation

of course this will not be acepted here because of being something the mods didnt study

i can imagine the mods here highly qualified with a great memory, low intelligence and a total lack of imagination, just the perfect student
 
  • #9
aviator said:
besides mods here don't know the answer to my questions for example a mod will tell me that for a spinning object to change radius from 100 m to a radius of 1 m a work has to be aplied

this is untrue if i have a ball spinning with 100m radius and the rope coils on the axe the radius reduces without aplication of work nor spend of energy so when the ball has a radius of 1 m it still keeps a speed of 100m/s
Those are two separate scenarios with separate answers. Regardless, what makes you think that the second case requires no application of work? There may not be any external energy entering the system, but there are certainly internal transitions going on. An undamped spring-mass system will similarly undergo constant kinetic<->potential energy transitions forever. Free energy? No.
now what happens when the radius becomes 0?
Since all objects have a finite, non-zero volume, the radius cannot become zero.
of course this will not be acepted here because of being something the mods didnt study
Sorry, that simply isn't true. In fact, most people get the basics of Newtonian physics in high school.
i can imagine the mods here highly qualified with a great memory, low intelligence and a total lack of imagination, just the perfect student
We're doing fine. Thanks for your concern.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
aviator said:
im told all time to learn some physics well that's exactly what I am doing but no through memoritation but through use of logic and trying to understand things by myself

faith doesn't fit into science

my posts also got deleted when i found a mistake here the diagonals of the windows are not paralel:

http://mathforum.org/sum95/math_and/perspective/hallway.html

i ask my father who is a physicist and matematician about my engine and he agrees on it working

after some discusion about it he adviced me to quit with it because is either dangerous or a waste of time

besides mods here don't know the answer to my questions for example a mod will tell me that for a spinning object to change radius from 100 m to a radius of 1 m a work has to be aplied

this is untrue if i have a ball spinning with 100m radius and the rope coils on the axe the radius reduces without aplication of work nor spend of energy so when the ball has a radius of 1 m it still keeps a speed of 100m/s

now what happens when the radius becomes 0?

if i take into account conservation of energy then the linear speed is transformed into rotation

of course this will not be acepted here because of being something the mods didnt study

i can imagine the mods here highly qualified with a great memory, low intelligence and a total lack of imagination, just the perfect student

This is a bunch of gibberish.

There are MANY people who try to understand physics better ON TOP OF MEMORISATION in this forum.

And if you are so convinced about your 'theory' or whatsoever, try and publish it. If they awe at you (very unlikely prospect) you know you arn't a quack. Otherwise...
 
Last edited:
  • #11
aviator said:
i can imagine the mods here highly qualified with a great memory, low intelligence and a total lack of imagination, just the perfect student

If that's your opinion, why do you so desperately seek their validation of your ideas? Personal attacks on the mentors is not going to win you any sympathy.

You're already claiming someone stole your idea off an internet site, yet you continue to want to post more, new ideas on internet sites? If someone has a brilliant new idea, I don't want them to post it here! This isn't a peer-reviewed source, so nobody could ever cite the study, even if it was the most elegant study ever produced. The source is anonymous, so nobody could even cite the author of it as a "personal communication." And posting here first would make it unpublishable in a credible, peer-reviewed publication due to copyright issues.
 
  • #12
"Since all objects have a finite, non-zero volume, the radius cannot become zero"

ill rephrase my question, the radius is a millionth of a milimeter

"but there are certainly internal transitions going on"

so the 100 m/s speed is kept independently of the radius or not? conservation of momentum says so so i consider stupid someone sugesting the speed slows down by decreasing the radio because a work is done so internal transfromation of energy occur

in what is transformed the kinetic energy in my example if there's no friction?
 
  • #13
Come on now...

Assuming this is your usual "spiraling ball on a cable" scenario...

Consider two cases: (1) The cable is attached to a pole fixed to the Earth or (2) it's attached to some platform that is free to move.

Case 1: Somehow you got the ball moving. If you can do the required work to pull the ball in radially, it will speed up. Is energy conserved? Of course not, you must do work to pull in the cable! Is angular momentum conserved? Yes, the radial force exerts no torque. Is linear momentum conserved? Of course not, you are pulling against a pole! Is this somehow interesting for locomotion or "free energy"? Of course not!

Case 2: Somehow you got the ball moving. If you can do the required work to pull the ball in radially, the entire system will spin faster. Is energy conserved? Of course not, you must do work to pull in the cable! Is angular momentum conserved? Yes, angular momentum of the entire system remains the same. Is linear momentum conserved? Yes, assuming no external forces act on this system, the momentum of the system remains the same. Is this somehow interesting for locomotion or "free energy"? Of course not!
 
  • #14
"Is energy conserved? Of course not"

that sounds prety unscientifical to me

the work is made by the cable coiling in the axe

isnt kinetik energy and momentum the very same thing? thus how can you say one is conservated and the other not

i mean how can you be so unimaginative to not see a ball tight to a cable tight to a tree and the ball starts spinning around the tree coiling it self and the balls speed will remain constant because of conservation of momentum

i insist this is totally unscientific
 
  • #15
aviator said:
isn't kinetik energy and momentum the very same thing?
No, of course they are not the same thing. Haven't you even looked at the (mathematical) definitions of each? Aviator, the difference between kinetic energy and momentum is extremely basic and indicative of your extreme ignorance. You really need to start learning some real physics.
 
  • #16
At risk of feeding a troll:

aviator said:
isnt kinetik energy and momentum the very same thing?

No! No no no no no! No!

No!

aviator said:
i mean how can you be so unimaginative to not see a ball tight to a cable tight to a tree and the ball starts spinning around the tree coiling it self and the balls speed will remain constant because of conservation of momentum

Your ball is not moving in a straight line. You're confusing yourself. I'd try and drill some sense into your thick skull, but you're not here to learn. The answers to your questions have been posted before, but you ignore them time after time after time.

Remember that there are hundreds of people here with physics degrees, and dozens with doctorates. They learned about this thing when they were fifteen. I suggest you start to do the same, otherwise you'll get left behind and you'll make a living emptying bins.

aviator said:
i insist this is totally unscientific


Yes, yes it is. However, you're the guilty party.
 
  • #17
aviator said:
isnt kinetik energy and momentum the very same thing? thus how can you say one is conservated and the other not

They're not. That's *very* basic physics. There's nothing wrong with 'thinking outside the box,' but you need to have enough of a grasp of the subject to at least know where the box is.
 
  • #18
aviator said:
isnt kinetik energy and momentum the very same thing? thus how can you say one is conservated and the other not
Kinetic energy and momentum are two different things. Please pick up a high school physics book.

i mean how can you be so unimaginative to not see a ball tight to a cable tight to a tree and the ball starts spinning around the tree coiling it self and the balls speed will remain constant because of conservation of momentum
That's actually a different problem that the one you proposed, since the cable is not being pulled in. In any case, the momentum of the ball (a vector) is constantly changing due to the tension in the cable. Again, pick up any high school physics book.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
if there's so many smart people out here somebody could answer my question


the ball is spining coiling in the tree ( no gravity) when it has 100m it goes at a speed of 100m/s at what speed does it go when the radius is 1 m?

i try to learn the very basics so please answer this easy question don't talk about noerther and show how much youve studied prove you are intelligent by answering this question straight
 
  • #20
the ball has a force which is conserved due to no gravity. if you shorten your rope's length down to 1 meter from 100, the ball will still be traveling same distance, with a conserved momentum, at a higher revolutions per minute rate.

where is the magic in this?
 
  • #21
You are describing a tetherball (a ball tied to a fixed post, wraping the string around the post.)

The physics that describes it is basic high school level. No big deal.

Read this and answer the question yourself.

Tetherball physics
 
  • #22
Aviator, ask yourself if you're here to learn, or if you're here to challenge. If you're here to learn, then read and learn. Ask small questions. Build on what you learn from the answers. If you're here to challenge, then first learn what it is you're talking about.

People aren't (or at least weren't) trying to be insulting, but you're making it difficult.

But hey, at least they're still paying attention.
 
  • #23
Artman said:
You are describing a tetherball (a ball tied to a fixed post, wraping the string around the post.)
The physics of the tetherball does have its subtleties. Luckily, our crack team has analyzed it thoroughly: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=66697

Just for clarity: The ball wrapping its cable around the tree (the tetherball) is not the same as the ball being pulled in radially by reeling in the cable.
 
  • #24
my question remains unanswered what's the linear speed of the ball with 1 m radius if with 100m it has a speed of 100 m/s

i would apreciate a numerical answer

id say 100 m/s
 
  • #25
aviator said:
the ball is spining coiling in the tree ( no gravity) when it has 100m it goes at a speed of 100m/s at what speed does it go when the radius is 1 m?
For this case, the speed will remain at 100 m/s.
 
  • #26
i love this guy: leebenjamin@adelphia, he thinks by himself

now with a litle more imagination think what would happen when the ball hits the tree if you suddenly put the tree in a spinning axe in the very same moment of the impact

the tree would spin aroun its axe transforming linear speed of the ball to spin in the tree

at how many revolutions would the tree spin if its mass was 1 kg and the ball 1 kg as well being the speed of the ball 100 m/s?
 
  • #27
Ok, I think this thread has gone far enough.
 
  • #28
aviator said:
i love this guy: leebenjamin@adelphia, he thinks by himself

now with a litle more imagination think what would happen when the ball hits the tree if you suddenly put the tree in a spinning axe in the very same moment of the impact

the tree would spin aroun its axe transforming linear speed of the ball to spin in the tree

at how many revolutions would the tree spin if its mass was 1 kg and the ball 1 kg as well being the speed of the ball 100 m/s?


guess what? we have an answer!

force is conserved, the mass is 2 kg, and depending on the geometry they will both spin together in a balley until they hit you in the head, transforming their momentum
 
  • #29
Doc Al said:
For this case, the speed will remain at 100 m/s.
How do you get that, doc? I figure it will increase to 10,000 m/s (discounting the effects of gravity and friction).
 
  • #30
i would apreciate a numerical answer for my last question by the way thanks doc al

i don't do my homework because i think about this stuff

by the way consider the tree togehter with the ball an sphere of 1 m radius in order to obtain the amount of revolutions
 
  • #31
Artman said:
How do you get that, doc? I figure it will increase to 10,000 m/s (discounting the effects of gravity and friction).
Read the thread I referenced in post #23.
 

Related to I'm Not The Only Idiot: Sci.Physics Forum Discredits Invention

1. What is "I'm Not The Only Idiot: Sci.Physics Forum Discredits Invention" about?

"I'm Not The Only Idiot: Sci.Physics Forum Discredits Invention" is a forum thread on the website Sci.Physics where users discuss and discredit a supposed invention or scientific discovery.

2. Who started the "I'm Not The Only Idiot" thread on Sci.Physics?

The thread was started by a user named "Idiot" who claimed to have made a groundbreaking invention, but was met with skepticism and criticism from other users on the forum.

3. What kind of inventions or discoveries are discussed in the "I'm Not The Only Idiot" thread?

The thread mainly discusses inventions or discoveries related to physics, such as perpetual motion machines, free energy devices, and anti-gravity devices. However, other scientific claims may also be discussed.

4. Why is the "I'm Not The Only Idiot" thread important for scientists?

The thread serves as a reminder for scientists to approach new ideas and claims with skepticism and critical thinking. It also highlights the importance of peer review and the scientific method in validating and disproving scientific discoveries.

5. Can anyone participate in the "I'm Not The Only Idiot" thread on Sci.Physics?

Yes, anyone with a registered account on the Sci.Physics forum can participate in the thread. However, it is important to follow the forum rules and guidelines for respectful and constructive discussions.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top