Is it Possible to Control Positive Neutron Flow with Magnets in Zero Gravity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAWB
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a user presenting unconventional theories about magnetism and a supposed "frictionless regenerating machine," which others find nonsensical. Key points of critique include the user's misunderstanding of basic physics concepts, such as the nature of neutrons and the effects of magnetism. Participants express frustration over the lack of clarity in the user's claims and question whether the posts are serious or a joke. The conversation escalates with personal attacks and threats, prompting concerns about moderation and safety within the forum. Overall, the thread highlights confusion and disagreement over the validity of the user's ideas.
GAWB
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
To my fellow physics scholars,

Help me to explain to this simpleton why exactly his "theories" are so laughable.

bino said:
If you have several magnets, of difference strength, and you place them next to one another in a room with not any gravity then theoretically, you shiould be able to control the amount of positive neutron flow between the objects. It is with a series of these magnets that I produce to invent a completely frictionless regenreating machine.


What is this imbecile talking about?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That quote makes very little sense (1. where on Earth do you find a room with no gravity ? 2. neutrons have little to do with gravity, 3. neutrons are not positive, 4. neutrons don't flow between stable atoms, 5. you can't make neutrons flow using magnets - magnetic fields are not going to be strong enough to overcome the strong force binding the neutrons and protons in the nucleus) but why do you want to start a new thread to debunk this ? Also, there's no need for 'name calling'.
 
Well first off, we probably shouldn't slam him yet since I don't think anyone has any idea what a regenreating machine is. If he's talking about a regenerating machine, he'd need to elaborate a bit more. In any event, magnetism has little to no effect on neutron flux in any reasonable regime so I'd just leave it at (and choose not to waste time ripping up the rest of his statements). My suggestion to this guy would be to "just say no." :wink:

>>> Lee <<<<
 
Sorry if I offended you. I just get irked when I see such a blatant display of idiocy.

I'm sure you'll concur when I say that bino is not the sharpest. Look at this quote for example:

bino said:
The nature of magnetic flow is such that only when one adjuncts to a strict raduction techinque will one be able to control them.


What does this mean?
 
ultrafast said:
My suggestion to this guy would be to "just say no." :wink:

"Guy" ? What makes you think so ?
 
I am a guy. Thanks for the concern. :smile:
 
Another bino baffler:

bino said:
At nine o'clock will mark the fourteenth consecutive succession of magnet exchange. I think I've almost got it worked. All I need to do is find a source of raduction force, the regnreations are now retracting in real time.

:confused:
 
GAWB said:
I am a guy. Thanks for the concern. :smile:

Oops, sorry. I was talking about bino.
 
GAWB said:
Another bino baffler: :confused:

Did you consider the possibility that all of this is just a joke ?
 
  • #10
Oh certainly. I just figured that a moderator would ban someone who is merely posting fake experiments, and who would waste their time doing that?
 
  • #11
Okay. A post like this, from a thread from three weeks ago, makes me think he is actually serious, or has some serious time on his hands.

bino said:
On Magnets and Perpetul Raductive Regenreation

Lets suppose that you have three magnts (each of a differnet lb/cbt pull). If you take the third, the different in the ratios should MATCH, and apply its magnetic force to the other two ( from above, perhps suspended from a string, no more then six feet circumfernce), it seemsto me that you could in this way antipolorize the raduction found IN the magnets.
At this junction, its prudence to examine the reason WHY we want to antipolorizatin the raduction of the magnets. Theres three reasons commonly held:
1. To ensure, not merely guarnatee, the possibility that the magnets will retain their initial mass.
2. To increase the probably that the magnest will recharge themselves.
3. To reinundate an actual perpetul regenreation mechanical perpetually motion machine.

This will be our primary adjective.
This can be quite simply achieve.

What you need: one (1) pair of identical rubber gloves, two (4) twisty ties, three (3) eye glass suction things, 6 nail clippers (with rubber gripps), three antipolarization magnets.

At this point, simply begin to antipolatrize the magnets in the method depicted above (wuith the clippers).

It's quite easy. I think I have really hitten on something big.


WHAT??! Actually Gokul, I think you're right. This HAS to be a joke.
 
  • #12
Interesting. Bino made posts saying: "Shuddup GAWB" and "I'm a fuggin genius", and now he has deleted them.

What a fool. I guess that's all he could muster in his defense. It's a shame, because I'd really like to know what the hell he is talking about with all these asinine posts.
Here's another, he seems to be in something of a frenzied state. It's really bizarre.

bino said:
It's like, just as I said... MAGNETS! Finally, crossing the raductive paths like clockworks. Just you wait...

:confused:
 
  • #13
I just received this private message from bino:

bino said:
im going to fuggin kill you GAWB!


This is bewildering and oddly threatening. Mods? Can you ban/prevent him from contacting me?

Thanks.
 
  • #14
He just sent me this. Man, all I'm trying to do is absorb some new knowledge. What is this all about?

bino said:
I don't even care if you tell in me. Those fuggin mods won't even ban me ever, so shutup. Go on and post my posts, unless youre scare.


Ridiculous.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
10K
Back
Top