Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Im not the only idiot

  1. May 2, 2005 #1

    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
  2. jcsd
  3. May 2, 2005 #2
    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.
  4. May 2, 2005 #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 ive 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 dont 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
  5. May 2, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well there's an oxymoron.. reliable witness.. I believe witnesses are the most unreliable evidence you can have :rolleyes:
  6. May 2, 2005 #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.
  7. May 2, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  8. May 2, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Make that two: a secret that everyone knows about. :uhh:
  9. May 2, 2005 #8
    im told all time to learn some physics well thats exactly what im doing but no through memoritation but through use of logic and trying to understand things by myself

    faith doesnt fit into science

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


    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 dont 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
  10. May 2, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    Since all objects have a finite, non-zero volume, the radius cannot become zero.
    Sorry, that simply isn't true. In fact, most people get the basics of Newtonian physics in high school.
    We're doing fine. Thanks for your concern.
    Last edited: May 2, 2005
  11. May 2, 2005 #10
    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: May 2, 2005
  12. May 2, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  13. May 2, 2005 #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 theres no friction?
  14. May 2, 2005 #13

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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!
  15. May 2, 2005 #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
  16. May 2, 2005 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  17. May 2, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    At risk of feeding a troll:

    No! No no no no no! No!


    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 learnt 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.

    Yes, yes it is. However, you're the guilty party.
  18. May 2, 2005 #17
    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.
  19. May 2, 2005 #18

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Kinetic energy and momentum are two different things. Please pick up a high school physics book.

    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: May 2, 2005
  20. May 2, 2005 #19
    if theres 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 dont talk about noerther and show how much youve studied prove you are intelligent by answering this question straight
  21. May 2, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook